HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:07:10 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu


>In times like these with so many STDs, one of which can kill you, I'm
>amazed that nearly all people aren't using condoms, in addition to
>other contraception hetero couples may want to use.  Safe sex requires
>that condoms be used by hetero couples and gay couples.  Some lesbian
>couples use condoms because they don't like dental dams (the latex
>seems a bit thicker than that of condoms).

Well, if you knew who you were having sex with, ie could stay with one person,
and not cheat on them and wait quite sometime before hopping in the hay with 
them, then there is nothing to worry about, If there is some doubt, then
defianately use a condom, but if you want to use a condom because you don't
know were your partner has been then you don't trust/know them enough to 
be having sex with them.
                                                            Bob

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:08:05 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>Why? Actually, the "National Enquirer" has gotten pretty careful about
>checking out the facts before reporting a story, since they lost some
>big libel suits in the 1970s. (This does not guarantee that a story is
>true, of course, only that people have been quoted accurately).

>Why do you disbelieve this? Is is because sweet little women never
>belittle their husbands to test their manhood?

No, I think it has more to do with all those UFO and bigfoot stories.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:26:47 GMT

sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
 
>I can't win since I am a loser. 

Yes, you're right.  You are a loser.  I agree completely.  

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 22:31:25 GMT

In article <1992Sep30.152059.7395@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.090858.1272@leela.cs.orst.edu>
>petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen) writes:
>
>> >Those who have the means to do so should have to
>> >finance the costs of raising children out of their
>> >after-tax income.  Just because it's an expensive
>> >proposition doesn't mean you should soak the taxpayers
>> >for it.   [Steve Pope]
>
>> And this attitude is probably why it is so difficult to get any decent
>> money for education in this country, including good schools and decent
>> wages for qualified teachers.   [Marguerite Petersen]
>
>What?  Are you conflating daycare and secondary education?  Do you
>believe that taxpayers opposed to funding state-supplied daycare are
>opposed to funding state-supplied secondary education?
>
>If so, let me correct you.  I'm against the former and for the latter. 
>Public education has long been recognized as being worthy of tax dollar
>suport.  Daycare has not.

I was not equating the two per se, just noting that *probably* this same
*attitude* (i.e. that the parents should shoulder *all* financial
responsibilities for *their* children)  was why it is so difficult to
get taxpayer dollars to fund situations involving children. (i.e. they're
not my children, so why should I pay?)  

*All* children are our society's future, IMHO, (and not just a personal
ego trip), and as such deserve whatever we, as a society, can give them
to confront and live in that future.  One child (or one adult for that
matter) that is not given the opportunities that our society *can* provide
diminishes that society, IMHO.

And just why do you feel that Daycare is not worthy of tax dollar support?
Is it perhaps because there have *always* been inexpensive, available
daycare providers? (i.e. mothers and/or grandmothers, aunts, etc.)

If mothers *could* be released from *some* of these at-home duties, then
perhaps they wouldn't get so far behind (as compared to men) in actual
work-time years in a career.  I think inevitably  such a situation would
increase our economy.  The  possibilities are extremely positive.

Marg
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: childcare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 00:50:52 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>>I'm sorry, but it seems to me that if you choose to have a child, you take the
>>responsibility that goes with it.  Asking the taxpayer to pay for daycare so
>>you can evade this responsibility and go back to work isn't right, IMO.

>While this is nice in principle, unfortunately reality intrudes.  If the
>parent does not work, and therefore is not able to support themselves
>and the child, they may well end up on welfare, and you (the taxpayer)
>are going to get to support them *even more*.  While I can't say for
>sure, as I have not studied the costs involved, it seems to me that the
>cost of contributing to daycare would be significantly less than the
>cost of supporting an adult and a child.  Of course, it may be that you
>advocate abolishing welfare as well, in which case this may not be a
>problem.  Of course, then the parent will probably have to get rid of
>the child, either by killing it, in which case you will be supporting
>them in a prison, or putting it up for adoption.  If the adoption
>doesn't happen (as it often doesn't), then I'm not sure what happens to
>the child, but I suspect it ends up in foster care, which is also
>government (and therefore taxpayer) subsidized.
>
>Yes, people "shouldn't" have children if they can't afford them, but
>they *do*.

While I don't disagree with Muffy's argument above, it doesn't
address what I see as the looming problem: proposed subsidized
daycare for the middle and upper classes who are in no
danger of going on welfare.

Already daycare is subsidized: there is a per-kid allowance
from the state for lunch (a major source of daycare fraud, BTW),
and you can pay for daycare with a pre-tax payroll deduction.
The benefits of these subsidies accrue to parents in all
income brackets.

I recommend eliminating the above preferences for well-off
taxpayers.  I'm not opposed to helping out the needy, with
daycare and other necessities.  But I cringe at the thought of 
my taxes going up so that people with higher incomes than myself 
have more money to play around with, just because they chose
to raise children.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<yv8n__g.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Sep24.000713.14719@s1.gov>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:36:56 GMT


In article <1992Sep24.000713.14719@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

> 	Now, as large-scale warfare becomes less and less
> cost-effective, we may be seeing an era of (at least relative) peace.

The conflict at Persian Gulf was surely cost effective to US. Unlike
participating in the Balkan conflict. 

> 	And women can now be as effective in some kinds of modern
> warfare as men, so I think that Robert Sheaffer's complaint is more

I have heared that if astronauts and submarine crews would be selected
by physical reasons, all they will be women. That is based on that
women are generally smaller and their power/volume/weight factors can
become better than men with proper training. Since there are more men
in those areas, it would suggest that there are other reasons than
physical ( like mental capacity ?) that are considered more important.

> 	What a crybaby. If you wife was bigger and stronger than you,
> would you like it if _she_ did this onerous task?

> 	Wouldn't _you_ like to be "protected" by a woman bigger and
> stronger than you?

Is that a repeating nightmare to you ? No men will fall to your feet
at the first drops of tears or won't help you with moving furniture or
other heavy objects ? 

> 	Here again, it is based on the presumption that men are strong
> enough to fend for themselves and that women are weaklings.

And you are getting all the profit out of it, right ?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 4 Oct 92 14:31:19 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| > 	Speaking of hilarious, I simply must repeat a small piece of
| > that MacKinnon quote, just to savor it:
| 
| > 	"Masturbating over the positions taken by the women's bodies
| > associates male orgasm with the positions expressed in the articles."
| 
| > 	And people actually take this woman seriously?

This seems like elementary stuff to me.  Not that it's
proven -- one would have to run some kind of psychological
tests to show whether or not it was true -- but as a
proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
but the idea isn't absurd.

By the way, don't reply to this article telling me 
people have reason and free will, because it's off the
subject.  You can figure out why if you try.

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
| Seriously enough to enact her proposed legislation.  Like Ross Perot, she
| looks fine till you examine her writings. ;-)

Actually, the process for most of the people I read 
around here doesn't seem to involve her writings to any
extent.  All I see is the usual: determine which side
of the barricades she's on; if on the other side, look
for knock-off points, or, more likely, repeat the
knock-off points somebody else managed to collect through
superior reading skills.  

The little discussion above will serve as my example. 
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: childcare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:47:52 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <MUFFY.92Oct2153404@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.205201.7322@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>> [I said taxes for daycare so somebody else can choose to work was wrong.]

> [Muffy:
>   They'll have the children anyway and end up on welfare-->more expensive.
>   Suggests multi-adult families are a better answer.
> ]

Hmmm, at the time I posted I was thinking of people who aren't going to go on
welfare just because they have a child.  I don't know if this was because of
context now missing, or if I was just thinking of my colleagues or what.

Even when I extend the parameters, there are still some problems.
What sort of quality daycare are we going to get here?  I don't know about you,
but I wouldn't trust the government to do that job correctly.  They would come
up with all sorts of irrelevant, paper-pushing criteria to determine quality
just as they have for education.  It is also self-justifying complete with
tests and measures to "prove" that the job is quality.
The government would probably also put the daycare near the public housing;
if I was a parent, I'd rather have my child in a daycare near work.
I would be particularly leary (sp?) if the clients are low-income, since they
are more at risk for getting lousy service and not having the power/strings to
fix it.

Anyway, I *still* think daycare is something that should be arranged on a MUCH
smaller level, even though I am real tempted to go for something that will put
somebody back to work rather than force them to go on welfare.

Multi-adult families seems like a good idea, but have their own complexities.
The extended family (with gran and gramps and aunts and uncles right handy) was
real nice until the world changed so much.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshman
Date: 5 Oct 92 14:29:17 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

JerkfaceJeffy   :^]
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1811 soc.men:17134
From: walkerr@yoyodyne.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:26:01 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyodyne.wpi.edu


>Are you implying that you think it is preferable for a man to put
>up with the inconvenience of a condom than it is for a woman to put
>up with the inconvenience of the Pill?

I personally think that this isn't a sexist issue but an issue which should be
decided between the two people involved.  Why should you, or anybody, care if
John Smith's girlfriend is on the pill, does that make him a sexist?  What
if he uses condoms, does that make her a sexisst?

jsut my less than $0.02 worth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:10:28 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <MUFFY.92Oct2120550@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Rather than "re-posts," shall we say "quotes out of context?"  To

I posted your article *in full*.

>re-supply the context:  Hillel claimed that women frequently lie about
>having used birth control so that they can get a man to get them
>pregnant and then use that to make him support them and the child for
>years.  

That's not what I said; please feel free to read soc.feminism
archive if you want to check that.

I said that the law let the woman the legal right to lie and then to
take the man to the cleaners, and feminists like you defended this law.
(And I'll quote your article once again if you will dispute that.)

>me email, if you want answers to these burning questions.  Anyway, yes,
>I would recommend sterilization or not having sex with men to any woman
>who believed  that all men were lying about birth control in order to
>get them  pregnant.  Somehow, though, I haven't met/seen posts from a
>woman who was this paranoid yet.

Because women have an option in such cases - abortion.  
(Talk sometimes with women who had sex before 1974 and get a *clue*.)

>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Moderated newsgroups are set up and run by industrial-strength
control queens as jealous of their monopoly as a five-year-old 
with his first chocolate bunny."  --  STella@xanadu.com
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape? No way!
Date: 6 Oct 92 00:09:48 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <6762@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>> PS  Warnings about the legality of Mace (if any) are not needed.  We figure
>> the benefits outweigh the risks there.
>
>How about a warning about the effectiveness of Mace?  Is your friend carrying
>something that will really help or just a placebo?
I asked for just that.  If you have more info than was posted, please e-mail
me.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Property, Patriarchy, and all that (was: women in engineering)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.165822.28426@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>
>>Since men
>>unlike women need family also by emotional reasons and not only for
>>sex or money, there will be some way to undergo this problem. 
>
>I nominate this for the most ridiculous, stupid, and sexist remark made
>this month....
>
>
>rini

Seconded.
Though as someone else said, there *are* other good candidates...


-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<1992Sep20.194253.19288@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<SK73171.92Sep21214109@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
	<1992Sep21.193134.6208@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:54:08 GMT


In article <1992Sep21.193134.6208@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

> (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
> (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

> >Why then not let the man keep the baby and make the woman to
> >pay for it. Or even more radically, not split at the moment the
> >pregnancy is detected, but take care of it together ?

> Tradition?  Sexism?  Love?  Personal choice?  How this relates to any of the 
> previous discussion is beyond me.

The discussion seemed to handle only the subject that how much the man should
pay for results of his actions, I just tried to offer alternative
choices of taking care of the child. Obviously the question then isn't how
to take care of it but how the woman can get as much money as
possible, which is quite common to 'em.

> >> Boy, are you... (holding my toungue).  "Real feminists"?  Where on earth
> >> was that defined for you?  I challenge you to find one radical, extremist,

Even reading this newsgroup a while will show some examples.

> And some can't.  Big deal.  Condoms have their place.

Yep. I just tried to say that if someone doesn't like 'em and the diseases
can be eliminated in some other way, other methods shouldn't be ignored
just because they require the woman to use 'em.

(

> >True. The condoms can be used there also, but I would'n consider other
> >methods unuasble although they are aimed for women. 
 
> Me neither.

) which was repwated and agreed here. Too much redundancy... ?


> Nope.   But do you honestly think anyone on the net cares you how
> select your sex partners?   (Excluding you, of course.)  

Nope. What makes you think I care about it either ?
I just tried to have an example of different approach to the problem.
And since I don't trust much chains like 'my brother's friend's
cousin's uncle has readed somewhere.... ' I tried to use something
know being true.

> Glad to see you retract your statement.  Now if we could only get you
> to think *before* you post -- we'd be getting somewhere.

Nope. I was saying that it will increase the _propability_ of desired cases
and decrease the _propability_ of unwanted cases. I won't say that it
guarantees anything, in the sense that 'it will absolutely sure work
always' .

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ebc8v@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Elizabeth Browning Curry)
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:41:11 GMT

To all who feel that one encourages rape by what she chooses to
wear: For an individual's punishment to be determined based
upon anything other than the act of violence is totally
ridiculuous. If I were to only purchase clothing that I felt
unattractive wearing then I would simply muddle through the
days on the job, while spending time with friends, etc. and
then...  how successful or enlightening would these times be?
Therefore, I plan to continue to dress to both please myself
and those I know care for me. I guess I can only hope that
it's not a close friend who decides that HE can't keep his
hormones and self-respect for others, not to mention any
concern for others- namely the one he chooses to invade! In
closing, it really frightens me that in this life I am only as
sure of my own protection as I can dictate through my clothing.
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down. A sample post!"
Date: 29 Sep 92 18:09:23 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>
>>Censorship also leaves a bad taste in my mouth -- I'm totally against it in
>>any shape or form.  Yet I firmly believe that people censor things in an 
>>effort to protect others. 
>
>Of course they do. Practically every evil perpetrated on this planet by
>groups of people is done in the firm conviction that it is of general
>benefit, and that even though it may cause some pain to some people. 

Right.  That's why I find no problem with Muffy's statement that she
would find censorship "for the proctection of women" of soc.men, 
soc.women as "believable"....   It is believable that people do nasty
things in the name of "good"....

>Evil people rarely think of themselves as evil, usually they're convinced
>they're martyrs to the cause.
>
>So what else is new?

I dunno.  Certainly nothing in either of our posts...  :)
 
>       H. Biesel

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Philosophy for Gordon (Was Re: Choice for men)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:35:42 GMT

In article <717658033@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>#War provides men with the perfect psychological backdrop to give vent
>#to their contempt for women.  The very maleness of the military -
>#the brute power of weaponry exclusive to their hands, the spiritual
>#bonding of men at arms, the manly discipline of orders given and
>#orders obeyed, the simple logic of the hierarchical command - confirms
>#for men what they long suspect, that women are peripheral, irrelevant
>#to the world that counts, passive spectators to the action in the
>#center ring.
>                -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
>
>I posted the above paragraph in soc.feminism, and there was not
>even one feminist who posted anything as "I don't agree with
>Brownmiller," but quite a few articles about what a great book
>"Against Our Will" is.  (You can find all the debate in Cindy's
>archive if you don't believe me.)

I don't know that it was this *particular* quote, mind you, but in my brief
venture in that other group, I *KNOW* I e-mailed *YOU* and posted at least
once (I think more like 2 or 3 times) that Brownmiller's quotes you included
in your .sig were sexist and male-bashing.  Presumably you were able to infer
that as a disagreement; if not, I'll say it now:

Based on all those quotes you've given from Brownmiller, I'd have to say "I
don't agree with Brownmiller."
There, happy now?

Basically, Hillel, you posted so much of her crap that I couldn't possibly
complain every time you did...
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism