HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:46:15 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.170138.6075@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>sfjr@wam.umd.edu ( Steve Russell ) writes:
>
>	I cant understand anyone who writes off an entire group, esp
>	an entire sex.  I have noticed that men as well as women do
>	get disatisfied with some general traits THEY attribute to
>	the opposite sex as a whole.  I dont think think this comes
>	up to the level of hatred for most.
>
>	I have heard this "het women hate men more etc" comment about
>	3 times before.  Each time was from a lesbian who did hate men.
>	These two women I know ( unfortunately ) were pretty outnumbered
>	by the lesbians I know who dont have a problem with men, and with
>	the men/women I know who love the opposite sex despite some general
>	traits they dont like.  Take this ancedotal point for what it is
>	worth.
>
>	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
>	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
>	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to.  Women and
>	feminists are human, hence they are not immune from making 
>	generalizations about groups of people, ie sterotyping/bigotry.

The feminists in alt.feminism have had lots of terrible things to say
about stereotyping. While I belive there is something to it, I think that
they have taken it too far.

But given that they must believe it, it it any more acceptable when a
feminist stereotypes than when a non-feminist does?

And there is the old 'sauce for the goose' argument as well. Perhaps it
would be more effective to generate better stereotypes of both groups,
rather than drag both groups symbolically through the mud. The elections 
are over...
 	
>SFJR


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Ms." Promotes "Satanic Cult" Scare (Reposting)
Date: 9 Jan 93 18:01:46 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> Article 36819 of sci.skeptic:
> Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
> Path: netcom.com!csus.edu!wupost!cs.uiuc.edu!kadie
> From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
> Subject: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
> Message-ID: <C0Iors.Mp8@cs.uiuc.edu>
> Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:07:04 GMT
> Lines: 24
> 
> The cover story on the new issue of _Ms._ magazine is 
>                  "Believe it!
>             Cult Ritual Abuse Exists
>                One Women's Story"
> 
> Inside is a 6-page first-hand account by "Elizabeth S. Rose" (a
> pseudonym). The article ends "If we want to stop ritual abuse, the
> first step is to believe these brutual crimes occur."
> 
	All things considered, I felt I ought to mention that the "Ms."
article will be part of the subjects in my next _Humanist_ column. I faxed a
draft of it to the Amherst office just before the New Year, and the issue
should be at finer bookstores in February.

	Damn, I _hate_ long lead-time magazines.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org

"Do I BELIEVE in the Bible? Hell, man, I've even SEEN one!!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:43:07 GMT

In article <1i8075INN871@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>And there are cases of meteorites actually hitting people. My understanding
>>is that they happen about as often. Is this a telling point? Would you
>>write a letter to your congresscritter demanding meteorite collision
>>insurance?
>
>You're barking up the wrong tree.  It was Karl who suggested 
>maternity/paternity insurance.  I'm just going along for jollity.

Well golly gee, so was I. And it seems we both forgot a smiley face.
 
 
>                                                --  Michal
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Of course there's no reason!  


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:48:55 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>So, implicit in *your* Cosmology is the notion that A) The only reason
>women enter into long-term relationships with men is for money, that
>there's no possibility they might REALLY fall for the guy; their orgasms
>must be faked, etc.; and B), any kind of dependence upon a man is
>degrading, horrid, unthinkable.

>Which just brings us back to the old notion that today's feminism represents
>the lament of those women who are themselves quite unsuited to the sex 
>roles implicit in heterosexuality. They're attracted to men, yet on the
>other hand, *infuriated* at the suggestion that they should act "more
>feminine" than their man! So they really don't quite fit in anywhere, and
>can't seem to find a role-model that works. Of course, the MAJORITY of
>women, who are not infuriated by male sexual advances, and who do NOT
>expect to earn more/advance higher/accomplish more than does their man,
>somehow are untroubled by such notions. As are, we must again point out,
>virtually all women OUTSIDE North America.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com

You say such *interesting* things around the full of the moon. Please 
go on...

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: "Ms." Promotes "Satanic Cult" Scare (Reposting)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:13:55 GMT

In article <NXF5wB3w164w@cellar.org> revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano) writes:
>> The cover story on the new issue of _Ms._ magazine is 
>>                  "Believe it!
>>             Cult Ritual Abuse Exists
>>                One Women's Story"
>> 
>> Inside is a 6-page first-hand account by "Elizabeth S. Rose" (a
>> pseudonym). The article ends "If we want to stop ritual abuse, the
>> first step is to believe these brutual crimes occur."
>> 
>	All things considered, I felt I ought to mention that the "Ms."
>article will be part of the subjects in my next _Humanist_ column. I faxed a
>draft of it to the Amherst office just before the New Year, and the issue
>should be at finer bookstores in February.

Since you are far too intelligent to accept the absurd claims about "ritual
abuse", yet you still believe in the reasonableness of the contemporary
feminist movement, you really ought to write a letter to the editor of
that magazine, explaining A) that this article is bullshit, B) exactly
WHY it is bullshit, C) how it damages the credibility of the "womens'
movement", etc.

The response - if any - will show you how much of a flying f*** that
crowd gives for the truth.

(   I love to see Brian squirming on the hook of cognitive dissonance! :)  )

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick LaFave)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: If it's good for the goose..  was (Re: Back Again To (Un)Father - NOT!)
Date: 6 Jan 93 18:45:24 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

In article <16B4E7917.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane) writes:

|Not all NCP's are deadbeats (male or female). Not all CPs are stay-at-home
|parents who live off the other parent's paycheck. I am not trivializing
|anything here. I am objecting to the ridiculous stereotyping of female CPs
|as parasitic bitches from hell. There are always those who will take
|advantage of the system, any system, but these people are not to be confused
|with the larger percentage of people who behave ethically and with integrity.
|Examples that *some* abuse is occurring is not evidence that it is the norm.

I object to the ridiculous stereotyping of male NCPs as deadbeats. 
You personally may not do it but it is the way the law views all NCPs.
  The law has seen fit to categorize NCPs as deadbeats.  That is the default 
assumption, and that is why mandatory wage assignments are made, and thats 
also why I am required to prove my innocence (instead of CP proving guilt)
to the state in regards to child support payments.  It certainly is 
irritating (I'm sure) to have people (some) make assumptions about you 
because you are a CP.  For NCPs these assumptions are built into the way 
the legal system treats you.

P.S.  Seriously I am not attempting to trivialize your arguments, we could all 
stand to recognize each other as people (individuals) and treat each other 
better.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Choosing Dangerous Relationships (was: How to Protect Women)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:16:13 GMT

jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:

>Your point is a valid one, I know women I wouldn't want to [go] to bed with, 
>but I think you're putting words in my mouth.  I only said any man would
>appriciate sexual advances from any women, NOT that they wanted to go to bed 
>with all of them.  I think it's a great compliment, or "warm fuzzy".  This 
>of course assumes men have the right to turn down a sexual advance!

Jay, did you ever read "Dona Flor and Her Two Husbands"? Dona Flor's
second husband, who is quite faithful to his wife, gets propositioned
by an extremely beautiful woman. (Amado's language is quite colorful; he
refers to this femme fatale as having the "backside of a flying ant.") 

However, this woman is only propositioning the guy because she likes
to collect conquests, and views this guy's faithfulness as a challenge.
She makes no attempt to hide her motives, because she thinks the men
who respond to her attentions don't care.

Now, would you view such attentions as a compliment? This is not a very
nice lady!

The reason I bring this subject up is that women get many advances from
men who don't really want to make love to them, but to use them as
a convenience, or to play some power game with them as the score. In
specific, there are a great many men who are physically attracted to
large women (or women of a different age, ethnic group or social class),
and are willing to have sex with these women, but not to be publicly
associated with them.

Women are *not* flattered by the attentions of such men. So if you ever
wonder why women see some propositions as impositions, it's not because
they're offended by men who want to make *love* to them...

Lenore Levine 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: passaret@vane.med.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist?  (long)
Reply-To: Mike Passaretti <passaretti@crd.ge.com>
Organization: GE Medical Systems, Milwaukee WI
	<16B4CCB72.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU>
	<1993Jan6.032644.24096@Princeton.EDU>
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 00:11:42 GMT


# In message <1993Jan6.032644.24096@Princeton.EDU>, 
# datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes:

> In article <16B4CCB72.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU>,
> ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU (whoever s/he is...) writes:

>There are about 100 (last time I looked) women's colleges
>left.  There are seven men's.  (Wabash, Renssaler, St.
>Johns/Minnesota, VMI, Hampden-Sydney, the Citadel, and
>Morehouse.)

Uhm, last time I looked Rensselaer wasn't a men's school.
Hasn't been for quite a while.

							-MM
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Cross Posting Satanic Cult Discussions To ASAR
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:24:14 GMT



	I would like to reinforce the plea that posts about Satanic Abuse
	*NOT* be cross posted to alt.sex.abuse.recovery.

	Unlike the satanic cult issue child abuse/molestation has been
	very proven in external reality beyond patients memories, many
	of which the patients had no recall of when they began therapy.

	The recall of these "forgotten" traumas is a very harsh process
	for patients.  It is like experiencing the abuse all over again.
	This process is riddled with self-doubt and self trust is a crucial
	element in the person's recovery.

	The usual "barber shop bull sessions" that go on in alt.fem soc.women
	would be quite upsetting and HURTFULL to many going through recover
	in asar.

	If you have to flame, do it here.  The people who use asar use
	it to reveal things about themselves in a safe enviroment.  They
	arent there for hacking ideas apart.  Being a "Sceptic" ( syn for-
	first class schmuck) there isnt proving anything to anyone other
	then the level of the callousness of the poster.  Have some 
	compassion.  Please.

Steve R


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Women DOCTORS
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 00:53:17 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.001335.15622@news.unomaha.edu> webber@cwis.unomaha.edu (Joan Livingston-Webber) writes:
>Have also had many of both.  had a nasty pelvic by a female dr. (1967) and
>a male dr who didn't use stirrups at all (1992).  Still, looking for a new
>dr. , I want a female.  It has to do with being tired of male physician
>arrogance.


	"Male physician arrogance"? 


>  I hope women retain through med school some tendancy to
>see other women as equipped with some intelligence about their bodies.


	Most doctors have learned that 99.9999% of their patients are
	completely ignorant of how the human body functions.  I've never
	noticed a difference between women or men in this aspect.

-- 
      Blaming "society" for your problems is like blaming clouds for rain.
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	      "Psalms 23:1  The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want."  
		Shepherds are for sheep.   -----      Pain teaches.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:52:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>
>My point was that lesbians [women who have sexual relationships 
>exclusively with other women] do not necessarily lack experience
>in hetero relationships by observation or by participation.

True. And the very fact that they have abandoned the "het world" and
its lifestyle strongly suggests that they found it to be quite distasteful.
So their advice to other women is NOT going to be "useful advice on
how to live your life among men", but rather more like "how to shaft
those male scum, and live like us!"

>
>IE, you see that if many of the leaders of the feminist movement and 
>publishers of feminist magazines are lesbians who happen to hate hets,
>then these lesbians will preach anti-het hate?

That would seem to be a reasonable conclusion.

>No, the fact that Robert posted it doesn't automatically make it wrong.
>
THANK YOU! I can see that my star rises ever higher. Recently, my "right"
to post was grudgingly conceded. Now it's even acknowledged
that I'm *less than* 100% wrong! Hey, at this rate, sainthood can't
be too far away!  :)
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Date: 8 Jan 93 14:53:04
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1993Jan8.011853.13768@s1.gov> <1993Jan8.185322.14911@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:53:22 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.185322.14911@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.011853.13768@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>>> (Sheaffer)
>>>is caused by having to spend time in the company of men, because men
>>>are absolute shits . Hence, het women *must* hate them, from spending so
>>>much time in that vile company.
>>	Nonsense.
>>
>>	It's just that a woman with a female SO doesn't have to deal
>>with any man as intimately as a woman with a male SO does.

>Which statement STILL contains the implication, "het women spend more
>time around men than we do, THEREFORE they must hate them even more
>than us!"

No, the implication is that they have more *opportunity* to find reasons
to hate men.

>It is utterly UNTHINKABLE that "het women, spending more time around
>men, will become rather fond of them"?

Well, if all men acted as you espouse, it pretty much *would* be
unthinkable, yes.  Fortunately, I know a lot of men with a lot more
sense than that, who treat women just like people.  What a concept.

>I doubt that gay men WOULD be accused of "misogny" much,

Actually, some gay men are very misogynistic.  However, it doesn't
matter than much, since they can simply avoid women.  It's the
misogynistic het men we have to worry about - you guys are the ones who
hang around and abuse women, instead of just ignoring us.

>they
>having already done to themselves what feminists hope to do
>to the rest of us! :)

I assure you, Robert, neither I nor any feminist I know has any desire
to fuck you (using a purchased tool o' manhood, of course).  Even if it
*would* improve your personality.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper)
Subject: Re: Are special programs sexist/racist?  (long)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 03:26:44 GMT

In article <16B4CCB72.ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU>,
ALI00BAW@UNCCVM.UNCC.EDU (whoever s/he is...) writes:

>There are about 100 (last time I looked) women's colleges left.  There
>are seven men's.  (Wabash, Renssaler, St. Johns/Minnesota, VMI,
>Hampden-Sydney, the Citadel, and Morehouse.)

Problem with VMI: It's a public institution, and there is _much_
debate in my home state of Virginia whether it should be coed or not.
IMO, if we the economy weren't in the state it's in now, it would
be so simple to build a VMI-Women's Campus somewhere in the state. As
things stand now, it's a problem. VMI does have a long tradition of
producing "citizen-soldiers" -- and yes, tradition _is_ really
important to many Virginians, even many Virginian feminists. I don't
see how it will hurt to let women in, though, although I would worry
about sexual harrassment. As I understand it, there is horizontal
egalitarianism among each class -- they room together, share the same
barracks, open bathrooms, etc. And if that weren't enough, there is
the infamous "Rat Line", where each frosh is assigned to a senior, who
makes them go through rigorous, tortuous discipline. I would seriously
question the sanity of _anyone_ who wanted to go to VMI, but then
again maybe I'm just not of a military turn of mind. :-)

Another question: does that mean public women-only schools should
be similarly illegal? Do any exist?

Tep
-- 
Your brain before Ayn Rand: My opinions are mine and mine alone.
Your brain after Ayn Rand: I swear by my life and my love of it, that
I will not speak for anyone else, nor will I let anyone else speak
for me.            Just say NO to Rand!
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:10:10 GMT
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
: 
: I would just like to make one point. That there *are* women
: who choose to leave the business world -- not to be a courtesan,
: not fake orgasm, not to obsess on getting the sheets whiter
: than white -- but to be the primary caregiver of small children.
: 
: I have a friend who is the primary caregiver of one small child 
: and has another on the way. I would certainly see this woman
: as a feminist; I think she made a reasonable choice, given
: her options. I do not think she is presenting her husband with
: any sort of fake personality (or faking orgasm, for that matter).
: 
: She is a very bright woman but was not able to find a career that
: was really right for her. I think that she would like to get involved
: in community activities, on a part time basis, and will do so
: when her energy level permits. And she *does* have the kind of
: job skills that would enable her to support her family if her
: husband were no longer present. 
: 
: I know I find the company of small children more entertaining than
: that of backstabbers in business suits. I deeply regret that at
: 43 it will probably not be possible for me to have one of my own.
: 
: I also think that many women in the business world play the
: courtesan role much more than my friend does. How many jobs
: out there for women are really about being cute and smiley? (E.g.,
: female newscasters, personnel officers, etc.)
: 
: Well, keep on writing. This is just a minor point; and I really
: enjoy your postings.
: 
: Lenore Levine         

Thanks for a fresh perspective, Lenore.  One thing that's always 
kept me from identifying fully with mainstream feminism is the    
fact that many women seemed to be struggling for admission to 
a system I've always gone to great lengths to avoid.  I recognize,
of course, that the issue is one of having the option, and I 
fully support that; but raising children has always seemed to me
a much more interesting and worthwhile task than trading bonds 
of marketing new product lines.
Course, that's just me, and I support the right of any women who
wants to to enter the corporate malstrom.

Bill   
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bob1@cos.com (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Re: Why things are the way they are 
Organization: Corporation for Open Systems
Distribution: world 
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:27:34 GMT

In recent threads, I have noted a bit of debate regarding patriarchal
laws, etc., with the eventual argument being given "Well, men passed
those laws, so....".

In my 1-1/2 hour commute, driving becomes automatic (the autopilot
side of my brain takes over) and I have time to do idle contemplation.

In your parent's generation (bear with a middle aged man, but I do
have a few years on most all of you), it was quite common to hear
a husband describe his wife as his proudest possession, i.e.,
wife as property.

Perhaps this might have been one factor in many attitudes, such as
excusing women from military service, etc. As near as I remember,
(they say three things go at my age, the first is memory, and I
forgot the other two), in my place of birth, Quebec, women had
no more rights than children or mental defectives up until about
some time shortly after WWII.

It would be quite understandable that any man who so regarded his
wife would be loath to have women drafted simply because his
*property* might get damaged. Also, penatlties for adultery were
more a case of "my property was damaged, stolen, what have you."

What think you?

REB

	We have seen the enemy and they is us - Walt Kelly's Pogo