HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 05:08:38 GMT

Questions:

In article <1992Oct10.131414.27148@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I haven't changed the subject: right along, it's been the
>demonization of MacKinnon by anti-feminists to attack all of
>feminism.

	Please show (quotes) where I have explicitly or implicitly
attacked all feminists in my criticisms of MacKinnon or, if you agree I
have not done that, tell me the purpose of your responses to _my_
articles.

>There is more than one aspect of this.  There has
>been the hiding of her real views beneath the simple-minded
>shibboleth "censorship."

	What label do you prefer for the Dworkin-MacKinnon initiative?
And how have her real views been "hidden" with you here to defend her,
unless you lack a case to make for her?

>I hesitate to say it, but the insistence of simple-
>minded, win-or-lose binary thinking seems very, uh,
>patriarchal, doesn't it?

	I wouldn't call you patriarchal, Gordon. I'd characterize your
insistence on Us vs. Them as a siege mentality.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Bunnies and Playboy
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 20:05:54 GMT

tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>> I think Muffy's point was that all the Bunnies look similar and this is
>> consistent with the general opinion in our society that women have to
>> look like a Bunny to feel good about their sexuality.  
>
>> That's not the best message, IMO.  
>
>It certainly isn't.  However, Playboy does not just feature picutures of
>"Bunnies", which haven't existed for about 10 years, by the way.
>
>They have done pictorals of older women (some in their 50s), older women and
>younger men, heavy women, and even paraplegics.

I'm thrilled to hear that.  I've never seen it, but I'm glad to hear
they've done it.

rini
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:10:29 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


>Have you ever heard any feminist outside of the net who supports
>"choice for men"?

I have.  Sure, it's not a scientific sample (my friends), but I have
heard it, yes.

>>I can't claim to know a whole lot, but *most* of the ones I 
>>know would agree with you.
>
>And if they vote for people who think otherwise then please don't
>blame them...

And who was the last person YOU voted for who didn't hold any
views that contradicted yours....  I know I have NEVER voted
for anyone who I agreed with on every issue.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:45:35 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>Yes, it's clear it's your philosophy.  Maybe you should put down that Richard 
>Bach and pay attention to the real world.

*Which* "real" world are you talking about? There are at least as many 
worlds as there are people on the planet...

Let me know which one you wish to talk about and then I'll answer the
rest of your questions. 

-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

  "Every extreme attitude is a flight from the self."  -- Eric Hoffer.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:39:54 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct7070031@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.071509.17723@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
>> In other words, feminists don't like gay men 'cause gay men can
>> enjoy themselves without feminists.  :-)
>
>Imagine my surprise.  I didn't know I didn't like gay men...

And of course, Sternberg is conveniently forgetting the many gay men
who _are_ feminists...
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Offensive Jokes
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:57:55 GMT

In article <22965@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.155158.5981@panix.com> mara@panix.COM (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>>dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) interprets quite differently
>>from me.  This is no surprise.
>>
>>As to the flasher joke, I stand on my interpretation.  A flasher is
>>using his [sic] penis as a weapon.  To dismiss the threat of that
>>weapon by verbally diminishing it is simply a matter of
>>disarmament.
>>
>
>I read with interest this topic since it was first posted on soc.feminism
>and continued in alt.feminism.
>
>It has been quite easy to see that when a feminist is caught with her pants
>down she will change the subject or apply the "feminist perspective" (kinda
>like the "male gaze".

I thought we were talking about +men+ with their pants down?   ;-)


>The penis as a weapon?  Sound like a bad case of penis envy. Anyway the
>second ammendment gives me the right to keep and bare arms.  Arms? I thought
>it was the middle leg.

:-)  Are breasts also weapons?  Looks like there is supposed 
to be a constitutional right to bare them...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Fighting Rape
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:33:06 GMT

This is a honest question so please dont flame me.

There are many antirape and women's groups around.  Some have money and
connections.  I hear about things that go on because it is a topic of
interest of mine .  However whenever I decide to live in the "mainstream-
world"  it would seem that rape doesnt exist.

Why havent these groups done fundraisers and put public service, antirape
soundbite/commercials on tv or engaged in attention getting activities
like act-up in ordert to get the issue talked about among mainstreamers?

Steve Russell
From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy
Date: 9 Oct 92 09:42:09
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct9.001011.21284@midway.uchicago.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:10:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.001011.21284@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.171430.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>> Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
>>> be done in secret - my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
>>> public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  

>>Who tells you this?  I kiss all the time in public and have never been told
>>that I shouldn't be doing it?  Maybe that's a difference between CA and PA?

>Trying actually screwing in public.  That'll get a reaction in CA *and* PA.
>Maybe you'll even get arrested.

*giggle*...well, some people might just think that's what we're doing.
When we kiss, we really *KISS**...*grin*.  The last time someone
actually told us to stop (as opposed to just *looking* disapproving,
which we get a lot more of) was a couple of months ago, while we were
waiting in line to pay for something.  One of the employees came over
and said "you shouldn't be doing that - there are *children* present."

Muffy

PS: By the way, Terry, you are in my kill file, so there's no point
asking me any questions, as I will not see them unless someone else
happens to follow up to them.  Besides, you were never actually
interested in *my* answers, anyway.
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine M, Playboy and FP
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:29:11 GMT
Organization: University of Missouri

In article <1992Oct7.220711.15134@netcom.com>
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>I think it is not a stable or realizable position. So what? An equally valid
>issue (and one which at least one feminist has taken a position) is that
>men have penisis (or larynxes for that matter), and women do not. That's
>
What!!!! I *don't* have a larynx??? That's it; that's the LAST straw!
You can keep your penis (I have no use for it) but I want my larynx back
N.O.W.
 
Diane (anatomically correct but politically non-compliant)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:12:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.214750.16665@ncsu.edu> blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN) writes:
>
>Writer Mary Daly has a feminist perspective of the Catholic Church's
>impact on women.  Her book _When God Was a Woman_ goes into her
>reasons for why she no longer follows the Catholic faith and why
>she chose the Goddess religion she now follows.  Her views may shed

Sorry, _When God Was a Woman_ was written by Merlin Stone, not Mary
Daly. The book contains a lot of hilarious stuff, as the author tries
to prove the reality of a 'Goddess Garden of Eden' before the horrid
patriarchs took over. To do so, she ends up trying to prove that the
Jews are actually Indo-European (Aryan), instead of Semitic, since
the Goddess theology holds Indo-Europeans responsible for everything
bad, and the patriarchal Jews were obviously very, very bad. She
also tries to prove that "Hitler" is somehow related to the ancient
"Hittites", who as Indo-Europeans were also very bad. Yes, hilariously
dumb, but good enough for Womens' Studies.

Mary Daly did write some stuff on this subject too, but not that book.


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

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:42:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct12.191816.10308@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> In article <7526@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:

> If you a point (which I doubt), let's hear it.  Otherwise, keep your
> irrational, misanthropic ad hominems to yourself.

Think about this for a minute and then answer the question:

	"Who is anti-woman, me or you?"

Assuming that this isn't some posting trying to get flames from the
"Feminist group":

This "person" comes along and starts dictating who the women on his staff can
go to bed with.  And then, when she decides that she will bed who she chooses
he decides that "this girl must go.  Nothing personal...".  Yea, right!  Some
friend!  Like he really cares.

More likely the entire posting is bullshit, pure and simple.

But if you want to support stuff like this, be my guest.  I think if you
read what he says, you'll see that my comments aren't really off the mark.

He doesn't care about these "women".  He want's to BE Fernando.

Al
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 00:59:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.224125.18673@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>So, six million Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?
>
>I guess it *is* true that all USENET arguments lead to some comparison
>of nazisim....

I guess so...

Unfortunately, that poster I replied to picked a pet peeve of mine.  I
hate this stupid shit that says, regardless of what horror happens in
your life, you're responsible for it.  It's bullshit when it happens
to one person and it's bullshit when it happens to millions. 

The only thing I can figure out is that someone is trying so hard not
to be a victim that s/he loses whatever common sense and compassion
s/he has.  Strange, too, how this only seems to crop up in people who
have lead sheltered lives, where little bad or evil ever befell them.
But they're such great people, of course, they're responsible for
their nice, tidy lives.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 10 Oct 92 13:14:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I had described value which sexual attributions, for 
example, "cocksucker", generally lend.  Kenn said that
_Playboy_ didn't use the term "cocksucker."  Of course.
But....

gf:
| >>>_Playboy_ exists in a context.  

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| >>Everything exists in some context, this is another distinction where
| >>there is no difference.

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
| >[ Gordon was saying ] that the context had to be considered,
| >as the context that anything exists in does.

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| 	Gordon doesn't consider much _except_ "context". His manner of
| discussing Playboy and MacKinnon is to bring in every social generality
| he can think of, and hope no one will notice he has changed the subject.

rp:
| >>Please put some flesh on this claim (:^), Playboy is readily available, 
| >>show me what context you claim is "hatred and contempt for sexuality".

I haven't changed the subject: right along, it's been the
demonization of MacKinnon by anti-feminists to attack all of
feminism.  There is more than one aspect of this.  There has
been the hiding of her real views beneath the simple-minded
shibboleth "censorship."  There has been a silly cocktail-
party psychoanalysis of her mind.  And there has been a
studied ignorance of the real enemies of sexual freedom in
our culture: the hatred and contempt of sexuality, which I
demonstrated by giving several examples of what value
sexuality is assigned in our language, and the many people 
and institutions who exploit that hatred.

I said that _Playboy_ did not invent the hatred.  What
_Playboy_ does is, as I said, sell small, safe portions of
derepression to people who don't want their assumptions
challenged.  A discussion of _Playboy_, though, is probably
too subtle a subject for anti-feminists.  Muffy tries, and
Kenn replies,

|                                        ... Redefining "Playboy" to mean
| "everything that's wrong with American sexual attitudes" is not a game I
| care to play. What do you get out of it?

Q.E.D.   I hesitate to say it, but the insistence of simple-
minded, win-or-lose binary thinking seems very, uh,
patriarchal, doesn't it?

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:15:08 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com(Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I don't know what to do about the condition of men.  

Hillel:
| Of course not.
| 
| You can't understand men who have life experiences which are *different*
| than yours, and you will not change your theory so it will fit reality.

I doubt if you know which men have life experiences which
differ from mine, and which don't, and whether I can
understand them or not; and as for my theories, you might
show some understanding of one of them before telling me
whether I will change them or not.

The problem for men, I think, comes from the fact that for
centuries the only way to be fully human was to be male.
This arrangement occurred throughout a period when human
social systems were dominated by the idea of violence,
usually institutionalized in the form of slavery or, later,
feudalism.  Consequently the values of slavers became
confused with goodness and with masculinity.  The situation
became further complicated with the advent of capitalism
while male supremacy was still in force.

Hence we have Bly muttering of "fierceness"; but most
men cannot be poetically fierce, and we don't want them
to be very fierce if they have to drive our bus anyway.

gf:
| >There's no credible movement to 
| >liberate them -- except feminism, of course.

hg:
| In what ways feminism "liberates" men?
| 
| Please tell me about actions.  (And leave the long stories
| about your good intentions to some other time.)

Only actions, eh?  Thinking doesn't count?  I suppose I
should have guessed that from your articles.  

However, Samuel Adams would have disagreed with you.  When
asked about how the American Revolution got started, he
said, "The Revolution occurred in our hearts, before the
first shot was fired."  That's where revolutions start.

What feminism might do for men comes from the third point I
mentioned: the freeing and revaluation of the feminine.  What
happened during the period of male supremacy was that women
formed a counterculture -- to some extent they were
encouraged to do so by the dominant males -- in which many
of the values which were rejected from the dominant ideology
found a home -- for example, the famous nuturance.  It may
be that women are by nature no more nurturing than men are, 
but since nurturance was part of the feminine counterculture, 
it became a feminine value or characteristic.

Even though almost no one believes in male supremacy any
more, the residues of the long period when violence and
domination were worshiped continue to poison our lives.  If
feminism recommends the adoption of feminine values, to some
extent it provides an antidote to that poison.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:35:20 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <carol.718844010@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
> It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
> today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
> of males! 

But what about hatred of Men? ;-)  Some "Men" hate to lumped in with male
dogs, cats, etc.

It's time to overcome the "sexism" of the use of "males" when people mean MEN!

Terry "And now, a word from our sponsor" Wood
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:17:22 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >>In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
| >>or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms
| >>a bit. ...

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) points out that "libel" and
"copyright" are usually not taken to mean censorship.

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) points out that libel and
copyright laws are indeed limits on freedom of expression.
| As I've said before, I'm against censorship of pornography, but
| I think Gordon has raised some points....  points I wish I 
| refute...  but I dunno...  (?)

My point was that yelling "censorship" and waving the flag
is not intelligent discourse.  If we use censorship very
broadly, to mean any limitation of freedom of expression, it
has to include libel and copyright, both of which have
been used by people who wanted to silence political
opponents.  (The most notorious uses recently have been 
SLAPP suits.)  I would prefer to use the word to mean only 
overt, institutionalized filtering of expression, for 
example military censorship or the work of internal review
committees who screen network television programs.  

The issue of social repression of sexuality and sexual
expression, as well as other forms of expression, is much
more complicated than the issue of whether one sets up 
boards of censorship.  It's quite possible to shut down
or at least harass forms of expression without any 
governmental intervention whatever; for example, the 
fundamentalists who got _Playboy_ taken off the stands in 
7-11 stores.  And it's naive to huff "censorship!" and omit
the fact that people can be and often are hurt by legal,
legitimate expression.  Often, we have to decide to accept 
some kind of social harm because the alternative is worse.  
Or most of us think the alternative is worse.

The issue just doesn't have the third-grade simplicity a lot
of people have been handling it with.  That doesn't bother
the anti-feminists, because they don't care about it anyway;
it's just one more tool.  But for the rest of us, it's a
complex question that can't be subsumed into a single word
shouted over the barricades at a supposed enemy.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 03:41:20 GMT

In article <1b2as1INN366@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>
>>>I also want to say that there definitely are anti-male jokes that get
>>>a big laugh from a lot of women -- including feminists like me.  There
>>>are jokes that stereotype men as being insensitive, unintuitive,
>>>overly involved in things like sports, etc.
>
>> "I also want to say that there definitely are anti-female jokes that get
>> a big laugh from a lot of men -- including men like me.  There
>> are jokes that stereotype women as being premenstrual, idiotic,
>> overly involved in things like hair care, etc."
>
>There's a difference.  Men make jokes about what women *are*
>(eg, being premenstrual).  Women make jokes about what men *do*
>(eg, behaving in an insensitive fashion).

Not all are, I recall some valley girl and italian girl jokes whick
say nothing about what they are, but only what they do. In fact most
of the ones that I have heard fall into this category.

I think your generalization is very very suspect.

But even if it were not, so what. Does this make one set of jokes
sensitive or not anti-male somehow? This distinction really makes no
difference that I can see, and I do not accept it anyway. Feel free
to demonstrate one way or another, and please explain why it makes
one OK?

>							--  Michal

Rich

payner@netcom.com