HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 16 Nov 92 08:10:48 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: abortion

In article <1992Nov16.001531.25073@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.041315.7218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>My assumption...which my hypothetical plan is an attempt to legislate...
>>is that I miss a period or two; I check with the doctor; the doctor
>>tells me; I tell him; he tells me what he wants; if he's in, we do
>>it jointly; if he's out, I take a hard look at myself and my finances
>>and I decide if I'm in or out.
>
>   [examples of two who did it that way gone.]
>
>Yes, but it is your *choice* to tell the father, and your *choice* to listen to
>what he wants.  The assumptions Don makes are completely consistent with your
>idea of how it works and your examples, it's just that with *your* personal
>values/ethics, you've only mapped out how *you* would do it [and how your
>friends did it].  I believe this is how *most* honorable people, in *most*
>cases would behave.

I agree. It is also my choice to grab a knife and shove it in
someone's back. It is also my choice to get drunk every night.
It is also my choice to lie. It is also my choice to accuse someone
of rape (perjury). It is also my choice to practice insider trading.
It is also my choice to drive my car off a bridge if I'm unhappy.
It is also my choice to rape someone. Anyone can do anything they
want that they are physically able to do.

>Needless to say, others might do things a little differently...

Naturally.  The world is full of people who choose to act in
violent and/or destructive and/or hateful ways. 
 
>For a personal example, try to think of somebody you know who *wouldn't* tell
>the father...

IE, a total and complete shithead?  Or a rape/abuse victim? Or
the girlfriend who's lover has told her repeatedly that he doesn't
want any more kids, and who's told me that if she gets pregnant,
she'll get an abortion and may not even tell him?

:> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while yes, anyone
can do anything that they want to do and are physically capable of
doing, that there are limits imposed by society and/or self.

If I went out on a date with you, you could probably rape me. 
If we had sex and I got pregnant, I could probably not tell you.
Problem with dealing with humans is that it does require some trust.

>-- 
>"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

-jen
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 20:20:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.154833.11649@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov22.010044.362@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:   
>>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)
>
>I think it makes sense if you read that -other people's beliefs are
>personally valid-. 

If I read  that I get 0 bit of information. The above phrase is
sheer tavtology:
  - What are beliefs ? - something personally valid; 
  - How'd you call "personally valid" ideas - beliefs, surely !  ;-) 


>
> What you believe is real for you. But not necessarily
>for any other person.

There're some things which are real for everyone whether he/she 
believes in them or not. 

>I believe the problem here is literary.
Yes, really ?    8-) 
Nothing-nothing else ?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: FEMINISM AND MODERN WOMEN
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 01:27:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.123422.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> pjz2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>
>
>TO ALL FEMINISTS,
>
>   MY GRANDFATHER ONCE SAID THE ONLY THING A WOMEN IS GOOD FOR IS FUCKING, AND

Ummm, can we all just *not* touch this one and maybe he'll go away?

Mike
______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson    ---   U.Hawai'i, Manoa   ---   Fat Messiah Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the beginning of the movie, they know they have to find each
other, but they head off -- in opposite directions" (Laurie Anderson)
"Iko-o, iko-o, isshoni iko-o-oh..." (Shonen Knife)
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:20:18 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: abortion

In article <1992Nov16.081048.19399@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>If I went out on a date with you, you could probably rape me. 
>If we had sex and I got pregnant, I could probably not tell you.

I retract this example. 

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 00:16:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.102117.8272@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
>In <1992Nov22.210818.955@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>
>>I think he means you can't have sex repression without pornography
>>and vice versa.
>
>What does it mean to say this?  That if there is complete social
>acceptance of all ways of expressing sexual impulses there won't be
>any movies, pictures or books specifically intended to be sexually
>arousing?

Assume the writer meant pornography as 'sexually explicit material that some
would repress', and you're all set.
'Course, that makes it a tautalogy, but so what?

-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:41:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.180903.6062@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard
Lynch) wrote:
> 
> In article <1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> >misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
> >
> >>> In the UK the government passed a law that makes father's liable to
> >>> support their children, regardless of wedlock....
> >>> consequence is that a man can now end up paying for a child that *he*
> >>> would rather have seen aborted.  The man has no say in a process that
> >>> he can end up paying for.
> >>> 
> >>> How many feminists would support the change of abortion laws so that the father could request termination of pregnancy (regardless of wedlock)?
> >>> I assume practically none, what alternatives are favoured?
> >>> --
> >
> >>I think that if the father requests termination and the mother refuses, she
> >>has to be willing to support the child without the help of the father....
> >>But termination of pregnancy is a procedure invasive of
> >>bodily integrity, and I don't think an individual should be able to require
> >>another to undergo such a procedure.  Good Samaritan law supports this.
> >
> >There is another way out.  We could allow fathers to petition to strangle 
> >the newborn infant -- that way he won't have to pay to raise the child, but
> >the mother's bodily integrity is preserved.  Of course, to be perfectly
> >fair, the mother should also have the right to strangle the infant.
> >
> >< sarcasm off >
> >
> >The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
> >to be the parents (how many single parents can affort to raise children
> >without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.
> 
> Or the people who adopt the child, or nobody if there is an abortion.
> If one can't afford a child, don't have one.
> -- 
> "TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

WATCH HOW YOU EDIT ALREADY.  NONE OF THE WORDS IN HERE ARE MINE.


       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4899 alt.sex:37394
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Repression and Pornography (was: Re: Death Threats and Pornography)
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:34:07 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gf:
| >| > ...                              Given the passions aroused
| >| >by the subject of sex-repression-and-pornography (can't have
| >| >one without the other, so it's really one thing)  ...
[ ??? ]
| >                             ...  For full, complete,
| >and total explicitness, we need two levels of hyphenation,
| >or use of parentheses:
| >      ((sex repression) and (pornography)) ...

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne):
| Clear, yes. OK? I expect the female porn producers might disagree.
| 
| Let me ask an honest question, do you really believe that these three
| (or two) go hand-in-hand, that you never, ever, have one without the
| other(s)?
| 
| I suppose it would help if you told us what you considered pornography.
| If it was -only snuff films-, I would agree with you. Otherwise, what
| makes you think so?

By "pornography" I mean any work of art whose main (or only)
function is to stimulate sexual feelings.  Thus I would
include "soft-core", for example the pictures in _Playboy_.

Now, if there were no socially-imposed sexual repression,
it's hard to see why there would be any demand for a
specific genre of art related to sexuality.  Instead,
sexuality would tend to appear in almost all art, even such
mundane kinds of art as news stories, and it would be rather
uniformly distributed.  Instead, it's obvious, to me, 
anyway, that the _kick_ of porn derives from some degree
of derepression.  For instance, you can't usually see
women's breasts (in American culture) but you can in
_Playboy_; in a culture where it was common for women not to
cover their breasts, the magazine would have to show
something else to get the same effect.  In a culture where
public coition was commonplace, there would be no point in
making entire movies devoted to it; instead, such scenes 
would appear in other movies as part of the expected 
mise-en-scene.

I think some degree of social repression of sexuality is
probably necessary to humans because, unlike most mammals,
they are constantly in heat, and it seems that it would be
otherwise impossible for groups of humans to think or act
without it.  If this is the case then pornography may be a
useful or even necessary way of dealing with the tensions
caused by this repression.  It seems to have been around
since before history began, which speaks for its utility
and consistent appeal.

It's interesting to think of repression-derepression and
pornography-anti-pornography as constructively opposed
forces similar to animal musculature and endocrine 
balance.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 21:10:12 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
: >gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
: 
: >>                                  Given the passions aroused
: >>by the subject of sex-repression-and-pornography (can't have
: >>one without the other, so it's really one thing) 
:  
: I see two things:  sex repression and pornography.
: 
: I think he means you can't have sex repression without pornography
: and vice versa.

Well, in that case, he is wrong. It is possible - there is ample
history to prove this.

Bill
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Reverse -isms? (Was Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 19 Nov 92 01:00:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Hawaii

[argument that non-dominant groups can't be racist, sexits, etc]

>Absolute bullpucky.  A clear case of the PC crowd twisting the normal
>definitions of English words to fit their own purposes.  My dictionary
>defines "racism" as:  "1. The belief that some races are inherently better
>than others.  2. Racial prejudice or discrimination."  Nowhere is there
>any crap about the "group in power".  Similarly, "sexism" is defined as:
>"Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, especially by
>men agains women, based on the assumption that one sex is superior."
>Notice that it clearly says *especially* by men against women, not
>exclusively.  And again, no qualifiers about the "non-dominant group".
>
>I will grant that the term "reverse" when followed by "discrimination",
>"racism", or "sexism" indicates that the bias goes in the direction 
>opposite to what has generally been considered the "normal" direction,
>but a black person who hates whites is just as racist as a white person
>who hates blacks.

True for what it's worth.  It may be useful, tho', to distinguish between
personal racism/sexism/etc and institutionalized -isms.  

Much of the power in this culture is held by [some] white men.  That
group has an ablility to exclude anyone not like them which isn't held 
by other groups simply because the other groups are relatively 
powerless.  

So when Malcolm X argued for Black Nationalism or even just for
economic self-sufficiency for African-Americans, people who cried
"reverse racism" may have been missing the point ...

Similarly for separatist feminists, I think.  Yes, there are separatist
lesbians who hate men and call straight women "traitors" and whatever
nonsense makes them sexist and heterophobic, and that's a problem,
but I don't think it undermines feminism's basic analysis of 
*institutionalized* sexism, which largely hurts women not men. And
it doesn't necessarily invalidate the argument for all-women's
spaces.

And yes, I know, I'm going to get flames about custody laws and stuff
but I'll still hold to the basic validity of this.

Mike
______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson    ---   U.Hawai'i, Manoa   ---   Fat Messiah Games
mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the beginning of the movie, they know they have to find each
other, but they head off -- in opposite directions" (Laurie Anderson)
"Iko-o, iko-o, isshoni iko-o-oh..." (Shonen Knife)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pornograpphy laws et al.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 18:06:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.091137.14181@cbfsb.cb.att.com> cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen) writes:
>In article <13562@hans>, hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>> 
>> >S&M and Beastiality photos would be illegal pornography in Canada, that
>> >is true. But then, a photograph of an exposed tit is also illegal
>> >pornography in much of Canada.
>> 
>> If you believe this to be true, then you really don't know much about
>> Canadian laws. Hell, we have exposed breasts on National television
>> occasionally.
>
>OOOHHHHH! To a European like me this stuff makes me curl up with laughter.
>In Luxemburg there's a Show called Tutti Frutti, which is basically a 
>televised audience-participation strip-show. Get to see *lots* of nude breasts
>and more. Also here in the Netherlands, we have a couple of shows like
>the Pin-Up Club and Club Verotique, which feature fully nude women, lots of
>soft-focus-women-caressing-themselves-in-places-they-aren't-supposed-to-know-
>they-have, young models and soft-sex. This show is quite popular, and is
>shown on the Country's largest network at around 23:30. So, come to Holland
>and learn.
>
>> >How about some evidence that these national and international organizations
>> >exist?
>> 
>> Well, A couple here in Ottawa was recently busted for distributing some
>> illegal pornography. They found a rather large mailing list from all
>> around Canada and the US, as well as some other evidence (I don't know
>> what) that there were contacts with other distributors around NA. I
>> didn't include this in the original post, because this is all by the
>> words and interpretations of the local police.
>
>I have even better evidence ( and proof ) and can even name some 
>organisations. Here in Holland you can buy pornography at most large
>petrol-stations. There's a Texaco were I live that even has some bestiality
>mags. There's an Esso a little further up that cheaper though (no, not the
>petrol) so I usually go there :-) How's that for an international 
>organisation?
>
>But then again, Holland is a country where you buy your marihuana at a 
>coffee-shop, your porn mags & video's at a petrol-station and hamburgers at
>an electronics store, so whadja want? 

So are the women in Holland oppressed underpaid sex objects with no other
value to society and no sense of self-worth?

Of course, the marijauna alone should be enough to destroy your society. :^} 

>--Ralph


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 16:02:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.044458.4235@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>Hey, rini, here is a chance for another childish dig. Go or it! 
>
>Uh, okay.  You're a twirp, Rich.  
>
>Did I do good?

Yep, it's up to the same high standards set by several previous posts
of yours. But those calm, informative posts are way out of line. :^) 
 
>rini
>
>:-)
>


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
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: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 20:52:34 GMT

cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton) writes:
: > 
: > 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...?

Exactly. Why would an amateur, such at MacKinnon, expect to have any more
success than the professions in the Department of Justice or the FBI? All
she can do is satisfy herself. 

I expect that she thoroughly believe that such material is readily available.
I also expect that, when she finds out it is not true, that she will quietly
drop the matter - as if she had never brought it up in the first place.

Bill
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:48:28
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1drs1lINNjv2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<misdeva-121192225927@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>
	<1dvna8INNq1u@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<lgg7r8INN9l8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM's message of 16 Nov 92 22:23:36 GMT

In article <lgg7r8INN9l8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>half-dozen women after them).  Liberal men can be a "hot item" among a
>>minority of women, can they not?

>My own experience has been the opposite; it's the liberal *women* who are
>the hot item (how many lovers did you say you have Muffy?)

Three, two male, one female.  All feminist...*smile*.  However, both the
men have more people actively interested in them than I do (at *least*
seven each).  Neither of the men makes very much money...barely enough
for them to live on.

>>They certainly seem to be in my area. 

>Can I move to your area?  The majority of the women I've gone out with
>have valued me for my ability to make money more than my liberal ways.
>The vast majority have wanted to quit work, move in with me and have
>me support them.  It gets old real fast.

You *live* in my area, so I'm afraid you can't move here.  However, I
was talking about a "circle of friends" kind of area, too, and you might
be able to move into that.  I don't dispute that there are many people
who are more interested in money than ideas.  However, most of the
people I hang around with *like* working for their money and would not
like being financially dependent on someone else. (For reference, I had
a party recently and, just inviting all the people I consider
medium-to-good friends, I ended up inviting over 100 people, fairly
evenly divided between men and women.  So, I think there are plenty of
such people around...)

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment 
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corp.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:23:50 GMT


>In article <1992Nov15.211540.20526@leland.Stanford.EDU>
 farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

...[re: snuff films]...

>>I've never seen one, but I think they could exist (not saying that any
>>do).  And I'll tell you why.  I've talked with child abuse survivors
>>who tell of experiences that many people wouldn't want to think were
>>true.  They were.  If people can mistreat children so terribly, it's
>>not such a stretch to imagine that somewhere there are people who
>>would pay to watch women, children, or men fucked and killed.

No stretch at all. I'm sure there are such people. However, I doubt that
there are enough such sickos that it would be profitable to produce snuff
films to pander to their perversions, never mind the risks the producers
and distributors of such stuff would face. Which is not to say that in fifty
years such things might not be commonplace. For comparison, a quote gleaned
from the Wall Street Journal:

(originally from the Sept. 11 1992 issue of the CQ Researcher)

Top 7 problems in public schools identified by teachers in 1940:

Talking out of turn.
Chewing gum.
Making noise.
Running in halls.
Cutting in line.
Dress code infraction.
Littering.

Ditto, for 1990:

Drug abuse.
Alcohol abuse.
Pregnancy.
Suicide.
Rape.
Robbery.
Assault.

Boy, I'm sure glad we've gotten liberated since those repressive '40s.
Finally kids can express themselves with full self-esteem; no more
oppressive discipline.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4626 alt.folklore.urban:28900