HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Date: 20 Nov 92 13:19:00 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>Oh, give me a break! Please.  How can you find CONCRETE evidence that
>something does NOT exitst!? I bet you can't provide any concrete
>evidence that Santa Clause doesn't exist (actually, I'm probably going

Ah well, nobody's perfect. Concrete is of course the wrong word. Perhaps
substantial is a better word.

>out on a limb on this one, since it's less than evident that you've
>reached this conclusion based on your willingness to make wild
>speculative leaps).  If fifty years of intense effort, with no result,

You show me where I have made any speculative leaps and PERHAPS I will
agree with you here. Of course, you won't be able to show any.

>to locate snuff films by the FBI, Congress, Dept. Justice, etc. -- not
>to mention "feminists" like McK doesn't give a rather convincing piece
>of NEGATIVE evidence, then I'm sure you'll NEVER be convinced they
>don't exist.

Yes, and I stated this exact point in my original post. I am (fairly)
convinced that snuff films do NOT exist. I am unwilling to state
unequivocally that they do not, but I will be EXTREMELY surprised if
an example is found.

Let's not forget that I jumped into this discussion because you (or
someone) started disparaging the 'wild' accusations and stories made by
abuse victims. I simply pointed out that there was some evidence there
to suggest that they weren't so wild after all, and were in fact quite
plausible given what concrete proof we have and a little bit of common
sense (this is where the pornography came in. If there are no
organizations for distributing illegal porn, how does it get
distributed?).

Your flame(s) of me were and are totally unjustified. I do not believe
in Santa Clause, nor will my children. I do not believe in snuff films.
I do believe, however, that there are sick people out there, and that
terrible things are being done to children, and these things should not
be discounted just because YOU feel they are unbelievable. And before
someone flames me again because they read somethiong into my words that
was not there, I am not saying 'guilty until proved innocent', I am
saying investigate the claims with an open mind and find out if there
is anything to them, rather than dismissing them outright as is often
done now.

-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:58:52 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

As quoted from <1992Nov16.230409.298@midway.uchicago.edu> by thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank):

> In article <1992Nov16.205845.10463@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> >mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> >: 
> >: What's interesting about this debate is that Robert Sheaffer writes
> >: for the _Skeptical Inquirer_.  I thought those folks *liked* to
> >: investigate things they suspected were false and *welcomed*
> >: any evidence to the contrary.  (??)
> >
> >Certainly - how about presenting some evidence that is meaningful?
> >Then, we will listen.
> 
> In this case, I'll have to side with Rini.  Sheaffer was ridiculing
> MacKinnon for even *bothering* to research the issue.  Now, it could
> very well be that the research will be fruitless.  But, then, that's
> MacKinnon's decision to waste her time.  She may very well be disappointed
> with the lack of evidence she finds.  I fully expect her to be.  But
> I fail to see what harm it does.  It could be the best debunking
> of the myth if one of its most famous proponents were to come forward
> and admit that there's no evidence that there's a snuff film industry
> killing dozens of women a year for prurient interest.  
> 
At what point does "research" end and perpetuation of myth begin?  How many
times does the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" have to be "researched" 
before we can conclude that it's bullshit?  At some point will it BE true, or
are both of these phenomena just part of the cottage industry of warped
mythology that flourishes in insular little circles here...?




-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garyb@lclark.edu (Gary Bliefernich)
Subject: Re: The problem w/ feminism today
Organization: Lewis & Clark College, Portland OR
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:45:53 GMT

>I think one of the greatest issus I have with much of the feminist writing I
>have come across is that it is exlucive rather than inclusive. The feminine
>identity does not have to be one which is exclusive of the masculine. I think
>at one time we needed to separate ourselves from the masculine world in order
>to begin establishing and validating an identity which was ours, but I think
>the time has long come that we bbegin reintegrating ourselves. We can include
>the male world without threatening our own identity. Men are not all bad. If we
>want things to continue changing, we need to begin using dialogue instead of
>monologue to accomplish our aims. Issues such as rape are perpetuated by the
>patriarchal system, but it is not the patriarchal system that has a problem
>with these issues, it is us. Unless we can make others understand and begin to
>empathize, many issues such as rape will always simply be "women's issues."
>Dialogue means an exchange. Right now, I don't feel that happening. I see
>alienation and finger pointing isntead of communication. I think that the new
>challenge feminism faces is reintegrating itself with the whole identity.
>                                                                -jules


I could not agree more, I (as a man) agree that there are a "BUNCH" of 
asshole male types out there that continue to make things difficult.  But it
is time to stop pointing fingers and to start working on stopping the 
problems that face "ALL" of us in todays society.

To use an old proverb, "You draw more flies with honey than with vinegar"
and all the hateful rhetoric that is coming from the finge elements, which
unforunately the media hypes out of all proportion, is doing nothing more
than driving a wedge of anger between the the very people that need to be
working together to solve the problems that we face.

Rape is not a female problem, it is not a male problem, it is a societal
problem. Working "together" we can solve it.

Prostitution is not a female problem, it is not a male problem, it is a 
societal problem.  Working "together" we can solve it.

Unwanted pregnancy, & abortion is not a female problem, it is not a male
problem, it is an educational problem.  Working together we "CAN" solve it.

./gb
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:31:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.000417.13647@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.221449.12257@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.015616.4142@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[redundant attributes gone]
>>>>>>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>          [men required "forced sex" of wives more often than the reverse]
>
>Actually, Carol did not say "forced sex". She is partially quoted below.

Actually, that's why I put it in quotes.  I was looking for a short term that
would imply one spouse accomodating the other, and used "forced sex".  Simply
do a global replace of "forced sex" with "one spouse accomodating the other" if
the term offends you.

[documentation that the words "forced sex" didn't appear in the original gone.]


>>As I understand it, you contend that _equal sex drives_ would imply the same
>>_frequency of "forced sex"_.
>
>This is wrong, I have not made -any- contentions about -forced- sex. After
>all the text that has gone back and forth, you still misrepresent what
>I have said.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 16 Nov 1992 19:40:24 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk

In article <1992Nov13.031110.17444@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <BxKz4M.5J7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?
>
>The state of Utah has passed a law which makes having an abortion
>illegal.
>
Gee, thats most of America, isn't it?
(my geography aint so good)

>-jen

~Morley
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 01:00:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.161252.6193@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>
>
>     ..............................................................
>
>
>Anyway, I, for one, do not assume that I have stumbled upon a mountain
>of enlightenment.  Therefore I assume that my beliefs are just that:
>my beliefs.  Other people's are equally valid. 
                                 ^^^^^^^
So no one is write & no one is wrong ? Say, beliefs of Hitler (in "Mein
Kampf", for ex.) and Albert Shweitzer ( "Letters from the Lambarene" for ex.) 
should be treated as equally respectful ? (I'm simplifing, but it was you
who started simplifications)

>If only our so called
>sceptic could come to the same conclusion...
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So, (1)I'm "equally valid", ergo (2)I'd come to the same conclusion as you ?
And you are math major ? Hmmm ... ;->
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:49:17 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>Back in the good ol' days, when men were men and women were women 
>(and we all realized the central role of the phallus), sex was a
>totally different thing.

>This is a set of instructions to the new bride, written by the wife
>of a Methodist minister in 1894.

>It's long, but it sure is interesting reading, IMO.

...[long set of instructions omitted]...

rini, this thing looks a bit bogus to me. The language, specifically
the usage of words, appears anachronistic. The instructions are just
a tad too pat, almost a lampoon of the alleged mores of that time.
Do you happen to have the original of this, so that you can verify the
date of publication? If not, I'd suspect that this is a fabrication,
perhaps with humorous intent.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Re:Has The Fight Changed Before My Eyes
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 17:27:25 GMT

Article 2887 of alt.feminism:
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Has the Fight changed before my very eyes?
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA 


mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu Malcom Pon writes:


On the other hand, there are a lot of people who post here, sounding
like they've been careful about what they talk about, and careful aboutt
what they think... careful with logic and with language, who are saying
these same New Right things, so what do we do?  


	First, I have to compliment you on the general sensitivity and
	diplomacy of your post.  In my opinion, at the heart of various
	"-isms" (racism etc. gen bigotry) is chooseing a narrow almost
	characteurized view of people that blinds us to what we have
	in common as human beings and that persons many other complex
	qualities.  I believe this kind of thought perpetuates itself.
	If I JUST dismiss a person as a "racist", a "sexist", a "feminist",
	a member of the "New Right", Im giving myself almost no representation
	of who they are as people and I am less likely to respect them as
	such.  In order for these "isms" to come to an end meaningful
	communication must take place.  If I dont respect a person whom
	I labeled/characteurized enough to believe they have the ability
	to be communicated with on MY level as a PEER I either will not
	try or make a less then adequate attempt.  If this person senses
	I dont respect them in this way, which they deserve, they
	will not be inclined to listen to me in a frame of mind that will
	inspire them to change their ideas.


	Please dont label PEOPLE as members of anything.  If they make
	careful, reasonable, logical arguments....converse with them
	and listen to them in the spirit they have something to offer
	to you.  If you have something to offer them, and they offend
	you somehow, employ understanding/patientce until you find a 
	way to inspire them to change.  Afterall, you are asking something
	from them.....ie to change,  you should be willing to give as well.
	Even if it irritates you as it sometimes does me.

	My being hurt, irritated in this process is less important then me
	being able to inspire a person to change as a respected Peer.  The
	whole world benefits from that, I can always find alternative ways
	of dealing with my offended feelings.


Steve R











-- 
                                                      ____
 - Malcolm Pon                                        \ _/__
Internet: mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu    GEnie: ETERNITY      \\  /
"Why do we CRUCIFY ourselves?" - Tori Amos               \/


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Forced PC
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 01:52:49 GMT

>Now on to my topic.  PC.  Maybe this is the wrong net to place this, but I
>see forced PC see and forced feminism in the same light.  One should not
>force one's ideas on other's.  It is not right to force others to submit to
>thine own method of thinking.  It is not PC to make others do as you want
>them to.  It is in that light that I say PC pushers are not PC.

	This reminds me of the latter 60's when a cry went through out the 
land of,"Let me do my own thing."  Yet those who didn't smoke a joint, 
participate in free love, wear long hair/mini skirts, burn draft cards/bras, 
listen to rock & roll, etc. were openly branded as sheep - following the 
older generation.
	Also I find it interesting in the 90's, with the AIDS battle, that 
those who preach abstinance (the only true save sex) are often told this is 
the wrong message.  I personally think all choices should get equal time in 
presentations to the public.  Then let each individual make the decision of 
what their "PC", or "own thing" is.

--Jay
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Date: 18 Nov 1992 21:00:34 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:

> Major failure of any leftist ideology is the reluctance to admit that 
>truth DO exist and do not depend on anybody's opinion.

Most of us are not questioning the *existence* of truth.  We are
questioning its *characteristics*.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:11:02 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
: >
: >And some people who call themselves "survivors" of alleged child abuse
: >also claim to have suffered ritual abuse at the hands of a vast,
: >underground network of Satanic cults. Does *this* seem believable to
: >you as well?
: 
: A vast underground network of Satanic cults?  No.
: 
: Child abusers who use "Satanic" images to terrorize their victims?
: Yes.

Or the suggestions made by over-imaginative social workers, when talking
to the children. That is what it has turned out to be in all the cases
of which I have heard recently.

: What better way of discrediting a child than to make her/his story
: sound so ridiculous that no one believes it?  If I wanted to molest a
: child and get away with it, mind-fucking would be the first thing I
: would do.

If the child's testimony is made worthless by the people doing the
questioning, then it would not matter what the child was told by the 
molestor. Most victims of child abuse are victims of their immediate
family or close relatives. Very few are victims of strangers.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:41:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.200629.13166@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>>>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:
>
>>>>If you _know_ that you are doing the best
>>>>that you can with what God gave you, then you have no reason to feel
>>>>inadequate next to anybody.  In a word _attitude_.  
>  
>>>The thing is, though, most men are brought up to think this way, and 
>>>women are not.  
> 
>>Odd, I was not brought up this way. 
>
>From my observations on the net, however, women are much more likely to 
>make statements like:
>
>>>If anyone out there agrees with me...how about some email or something...
>
>rini
>

So???


Rich
From: Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 22 Nov 92 19:18:11 GMT
Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>  It didn't seem absurd enough for
>>me to question it.  After all, there was a religiously inspired
>>celibacy movement at that time in our country.

>Not ABSURD enough to question? This "Minister's Wife" writes
>a supposed 19th century piece using 20th-century language and phrases,
>displays the type of man-hatred that only came into existence very
>recently, and doesn't even *mention* "God", or "self-sacrifice,"
>or "duty"!!!!!!! And you people think it's a 19th-century item!

It's actually still not clear that it wasn't written in the 19th
century; we simply don't know.  This supposed 20th century
language and phraseology isn't very different from that found
in turn of the century novels, "man-hatred" has been around for
centuries, and the mention of "God", "self-sacrifice", and "duty"
would seem to have little to do with the subject matter.

>Look, it's not the use of "thee" or "methinks" that dates a piece of writing.
>Rather, it's the phraseology, the cultural presuppositions, the
>underlying moral asumptions, etc.

And you're making a lot of assumptions to think that it couldn't
have been written then.  Modern writing has many different styles;
isn't it a bit presumptuous to think that writing a century ago
couldn't?  I don't say that this example was; I do think that
jumping to conclusions is unnecessary, and I think the ridicule
with which this came was rather telling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk      Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Systems design flourishes best when it is half a trade and half an art...
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: LLNL
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:44:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.061232.2526@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.005319.5313@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
: Hey, rini, that advice to a bride was *so* wild I gotta wonder if it wasn't
: "A Modest Propsal"?

>	I've wondered the same thing since I first saw it. It seems a
>little too exact in highlighting modern stereotypes of the extreme
>Victorian. But I admit I'm not sure. I've a book from the same period
>called _What A Young Man Ought to Know_ on the same general topic, but
>addressed to young men. The extremity of viewpoint is no less, it just
>doesn't have that suggestion of being for the amusement of modern eyes.
>If anyone's interested I can pluck a few choice quotes and post 'em.

	That would be _very_ interesting to see.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 23 Nov 92 06:33:11 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BxzJrs.KK@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.031110.17444@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>In article <BxKz4M.5J7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In article <1drm22INNgjk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?

Currently, as I assumed you and everyone else knew, a woman has
the legal right to an abortion if she can find a clinic or doctor to
perform the procedure.

I do find it interesting that...

>>The state of Utah has passed a law which makes having an abortion
>>illegal.
>>
>>A group (I think NARAL and/or ACLU) immediately challenged the law.
>>In addition, they got an injunction against the law being implemented
>>until the case is settled.
>
>So, are you saying a woman in Utah does or does not have a right
>to get an abortion?

Today, a woman in the state of Utah has the legal right to an abortion
if she can find a clinic or doctor to perform the procedure.

Whether she will continue to have this legal right depends on the above
court case.  In any event, the right (legal or illegal) will remain.

>
>Don
>-- 
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


Newsgroups: alt.feminism