HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 26 Jan 93 04:46:38 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan24.043603.6345@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.084035.25495@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
  [deleted] 

>>  Because society deems it worse for a woman to fuck a man who's drunk
>>  than for a man to be fucked while he is himself drunk.
>
>Do you not mean NEW YORK, and so far, only New York?

I can't parse the New York reference. I was, rather ad absurdium, 
pointing out that the impersonal pronoun "one" can be used in place
of "man" or "woman"...or to indicate "person, who could be a man
or a woman".

Of course, "one" can also be used for inanimate objects, but in
the context, I didn't think that's what Michal meant.

Thus, my comment was more on syntax than semantics.

>>I am also, btw, committed to the proposition that most of the cultural
>>gender-role differences are CULTURAL and not innate. Men & women ain't
>>all that different, folks. And, most importantly,
>
>This sound to me like you have closed your mind, and it would not 
>matter if tomorrow valid evidence were presented that there were innate
>differences.

Actually, Rich, I know there are differences. It just seems to me
that when a woman (say, me) has demonstrated that she is capable 
of doing <X>, then stating that a woman "can't" do <X> is nonsense.
And, when a man has demonstrated that he is capable of doing <Y>,
then stating that a man "can't" do <Y> is also nonsense.

>>         how any individual acts is not necessarily dictated 
>>         by their gender.
>
>Gender is a language construct, so I disagree. Or perhaps you are reffering
>to their sex?

One definition of gender is as a language construct, another is sex [at
least in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary].  

That said, why did I use "gender" instead of "sex"?  Hmmm. Good question.

-jen


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 19:02:45 GMT

In article <1jsu77INNlh4@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:
>
>>Don't you realize what a powerful weapon any woman has against any man
>>if she is cruel enough? 
>
>Don't you realize how costly it is for a woman (in terms of time, money,
>and especially in terms of emotional stress) to make such a false 
>accusation.  Rape trials are not much fun -- especially not with 
>society's "blame the victim" mentality and the "oh she's just a slut"
>defense!
>


 Boy, are you out of touch with modern times. The laws to prevent
a woman's past sexual life to be used in evidence are almost 10 years
old. In a recent case in New York, a woman's past record of 11 false rape 
accusations was ruled inadmissable because of the rape sheild laws.
A woman who falsely accused a student of rape was never idenfitied to
the press because of rape privacy laws while her alleged attacker
found his photo on page one of the local paper, even AFTER he had documented
being in another state at the time of the attack. Amy Fischer's
career as a call girl is inadmissable in Joey Buttufuoco's trial on
statutory rape charges, and the treatment of Ms. (I want a Ferarri) Fischer
by the mainstream press continues to portray her as the ultimate victim
in this affair, perfectly justified in pumping bullets into her oppressor.

  The San Diego DA, in trying to ensure that real victims will still feel
no fear at coiming forward, has declined to press charges against the woman
in the Nordstrom's rape fantasy case. While her name was released to the
press at one point, her photo has not, again because the laws that protect
an alleged victims privacy have no provisions for the possability of
a false report.

  Whether it is hard or easy, the fact remains that  rape is the most falsely
reported crime in America, and there are women who cry rape to get back at 
their boyfriends and husbands, or just to get a little attention from the 
press and the hundreds of rape centers that have popped up
across the country (all of whom must yearly "prove" the continuence
of a rape epidemic or lose their public funding). The fact also remains
that the courts have, for at least the last 5 years, treated the
accused far more shabbily than the accuser, often ignoring his Constitutional
rights in their haste to "prove" they have become sensative to the rape issue.

  However, I predict that the realization of how badly the legal system was
suckered into this "guilt by acclimation" attitude will result in a
very bad backlash whoes effects will be felt most by the REAL rape victims,
who will find their credability destroyed right alongside all the little
girls who cried "wolf".
-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 09:44:17 GMT

In article <MUFFY.93Jan20192740@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1jl21rINNlh1@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>> Do other posters agree with the assessment that the verb "to fuck"
>> irrevocably carries masculine gender?  Is it impossible for women 
>> to fuck?  What about lesbians?
>
>Absolutely not.  I have a strap-on (actually two) which I have so far
>only used on men (two of them).  For that matter, it is very clear that
>men *can* be "fucked," either by other men, or by women with the
>appropriate toys.  The poster you reply to is extremely heterocentric,
>not to mention pretty damn vanilla...*grin*.

Women don't even need toys to fuck men.  They can use their fingers
and/or hands.  Or the legal system.  (Figured I'd throw that in for
the anti-feminists in the newsgroup.)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:24:42 GMT

In article <jay.36.727813864@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>>>I am concerned by how lightly women take the subject of false rape
>>>accusations, when they would obviously gain from there being fewer. So I
>>>wanted to see if you would clearly and unambiguously say that there is a
>>>real need to avoid false accusations. You have not done so. You have
>>>failed to break my stereotypical view of women as people who simply want
>>>the license to lock up men whenever it suits them.
>>
>>Damn right we're not so het up about false accusations; we want to be
>>listened to when we make TRUE accusations!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!
>
>Funny how a WOMAN isn't too concerned about false accusations, which 
>means an innocent MAN is procecuted!  

I would say that most women are reasonable, and would care about such things.
But it also seem probably that any women who would make such a false claim
is not part of group. And on the surface, the two are often indistinguishable.

>                                     This seems like the wrong approach to 
>getting people to listen to true accusations.  (sounds like a witch hunt)


The whole purpose of the court case is to determine if the charge has merit.
But the disturbing thing that I see is than some women seem to be happy with
laws that allow a women to have a beer and decide if it was rape the next
morning. They have been justifying these laws by arguments involving
comotose people. Personally, I do not see what the arguments have to do 
with the rape 'decision' the next morning. If you gave every woman this option
every time, does anyone expect that there would not be some rape charges
for what most of us would not consider rape today (actual -consenual- sex)?
That is, if you gave a group unreasonable, but legal options, you could
expect -some- of the group to exercise said unreasonable options. This is
not good law.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:57 GMT
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway

In article <1jsu77INNlh4@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|> roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:
|> 
|> >Don't you realize what a powerful weapon any woman has against any man
|> >if she is cruel enough? 
|> 
|> Don't you realize how costly it is for a woman (in terms of time, money,
|> and especially in terms of emotional stress) to make such a false 
|> accusation.  Rape trials are not much fun -- especially not with 
|> society's "blame the victim" mentality and the "oh she's just a slut"
|> defense!
|> 

You're missing the point. I do not say it is pleasant for anyone to
charge false accusations at others, but people still will do so if the
motive is revenge and/or money. Now, my outlooks on the situation 
probably differs from yours, as I live in Norway, and we (at least) 
believe that the sexes are more equal here than in the US. That means
for one that we mostly have got rid of "oh she's just a slut" kind
of argumentation.

Still, there are occasionally women accusing men falsely of rape.
(these are the ones caught doing it, mind you). In our society
a woman putting forward she's been raped is always seen as a victim.
That is as it should be. Problem is that the mere impact of such
an accusation, even if it proves to be false, does _enormous_
damage for the one accused.

So I repeat : I firmly believe there are women that under certain
circumstances will _use_ the weapon given them for revenge/money/etc.

And I find it alarming that someone raising this question being
told they're "not making the situation any better..." 

Roar

|> 
|>                                                 --  Michal
|> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|> Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.

-- 
Roar Foshaug                                      (roarf@stud.cs.uit.no)
Department of Computer Science
University of Tromsoe, IMR                        'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex
N-9037 TROMSOE, NORWAY                            'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7609 soc.women:23034
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:15:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
: |                                           
: |  1.   Refute his claim  I.e., demonstrate that there are NON-
: |       wimpy-insecure-idiots who believe this.
: 
: Yes. Me, for example. I have both failed, and suceeded in accordance with this
: policy. I have also been told it by more than one woman.


Ah.  Then obviously, it is true of all women.  Your logic is 
compelling, sir.
	: 
: |  2.   Show that the original claim is true, i.e., the desirable 
: |       women really ARE attracted to bozos.
: 
: I know desirable women who are attached to bozos. Since I cannot show you these
: women myself, I suggest you look at wife-bashing incidents. Feminists might 
: have yo believe these men were 'nice guys' and suddenly turned nasty after
: a few years of marrage.       

Stunning.  Breathtaking.  You are, indeed, the Universe.  Your 
experience defines reality.  Where do I sign up to worship you?
   
: 
: 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger)
Subject: Re: Men's Responsibilities VS. Women's
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:55:13 GMT
Organization: MCSNet, Chicago, IL

In article <1jho3pINN965@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>
>>In article <1jb4u2INNjgn@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>Karl, if a big storm comes through and floods your house, aren't 
>>>you responsible for cleaning out the muck?  Even though you had 
>>>no control over the water pouring in?  
>
>>Michel, certainly you realize that I don't <have> to clean out the muck.  I
>>certainly won't be put in <jail> for not doing so on someone else's
>>schedule.  And I can buy insurance against this, and someone else will clean
>>it out for me.
>
>Karl, you might want to take a visit to Florida and talk with people who
>were there after Hurricane Andrew hit. Or come out to CA and visit people
>whose houses have been inundated.  Insurance may pay for the damage, but 
>you usually have to clean out the muck yourself.  (Unless you can get Mom
>to do it for you.  Perhaps that's been your experience?)

[Response to ad-hominen attack deleted]

Michal, you might want to stop using straw men when attempting to make your
point.

In the case of a storm, the other party(s) around you are not responsible
for the creation of the storm.  

However, the woman is responsible for the child which comes into being
(otherwise, if its a child before birth, then the entire abortion argument
is moot, as you can't abort a <child> can you?)  Further, that woman is at
least 50% responsible for the act which led to the creation of the z/e/f.

You can't have it both ways.  Either there is a protected form of life there
from conception, in which case you can't abort, or there is not, in which
case it is the woman's sole choice and action (or inaction) which causes 
that z/e/f to become a child.

There is a well-established legal principle which states that if you know
that a person will incur damages if you do (or do not) act, and it is under 
your control to act to prevent the damage, you are liable to the extent 
which you increase the damage done <if> you were involved in the creation of
the original situation.

I am willing to accept this compromise:

	Women retain complete control over the z/e/f.  However, women
	also gain absolute responsibility for the z/e/f and its eventual
	progress <absent an agreement from the man>.

	If a woman wants more than that, she can negotiate an agreement 
	with the man as to child support and rearing arrangements.  As it 
	is her body at risk, I suggest that she do so <before> jumping into 
	bed with a man.

-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
Data Line: [+1 312 248-0900]
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7659 soc.women:23089
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 26 Jan 93 15:57:21 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
: Peter Nelson is wasting everybody's time.
: 
: By simply turning every argument into a case of the anti-feminist 'making a
: claim' and the feminist 'defending against it', he has enabled himself to 
: insist some kind of 'proof' is provided on the anti-feminist side, but that
: he does not carry the same burden himself.
: 
: This is a wholly irrational argumentative method, because you cannot ever
: prove the sort of assertions that are being made. 'Evidence' does not
: constitute proof, in this domain.
: 
: It shows he is not willing to come to any correct conclusions, only to 
: perpetuate the ones he already has.
: 
: Thus I refuse to partake in any further debate until Mr Nelson is willing to 
: argue his points instead of sitting back and saying 'My point is default, you
: must prove yours, Oh you cant.', since anyone can do this.
: 
: ~THE GREAT NAME
: -- 
:     Don't worry,
:      Its like in the comic books...
:       ITS NOT REAL!

I find it difficult to be upset about that, Mr. Graley, since you 
haven't partaken in debate so far.  I hope the spare time you gain
is put to good use.

Bill
!
From: galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism vs. the Sexual Revolution (was: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Date: 27 Jan 93 02:38:43 GMT
Reply-To: galt%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Utah, CS Dept., Salt Lake City

In article <1993Jan26.193103.9317@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.164850.29053@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>It is UNWANTED sexual advances that are considered harrassment.  
>
>How does one find out that they are unwanted but by asking?

If they say no, then you know.  If you ask and they say they don't
appreciate it, then you know.  If you make advances after that, you 
are knowingly making unwanted advances.  I think most rules/laws 
use this logic except in obvious cases (e.g.  "Suck my dick or you're
fired!").

>>                                                                I know it
>>is hard for many men to understand why unwanted sexual advances might be
>>bad, but imagine if your male boss patted your butt and greeted you with
>>"aren't you handsome today" and kept saying that you looked like you had
>>a delicious penis.  How would that make you feel?
>
>You are equating gay advances with a straight man with a heterosexual
>man trying to have sex with a heterosexual woman. This is not a valid
>comparison. 

Many women do not like any sexual advances at work.  Some men like any
sexual advances by women (or at least claim they do).  For these people 
to understand what it is like to be the recipient of an unwanted advance,
it is easiest to choose one that would like be unwanted by them.  

If you don't like that comparison, think of the one woman you would 
least like to grab your butt and imagine that.

Besides, what if the woman is a lesbian?  Since most homosexuals are in 
the closet (especially at work), you probably wouldn't even know if you
asked her.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:42:23 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>#Please distinguish between government and nonprofit institutions;
>#the government is much much stronger, and this power attracts the 
>#people who abuse power.

>#Anyway, a broken watch *can* show twice per day the right time,
>#but usually it is pretty much useless.

>In article <C0poz1.IxH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>I've seen quite a few government/nonprofit institutions that *do*
>>work reasonably well. The best seem to be better than any
>>private institutions I've been involved with. 

>1) Please distinguish between government and nonprofit institutions.

>2) Please give some examples of government institutions who have work
>   reasonably well for a long time.

The San Jose State University Math/CS Department.
The University of Illinois Mathematics Department.

I have been happier with *these* institutions (although they're
not perfect) than any profit institutions I was ever involved with.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Being "Sensitive"
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:15:12 GMT



> The term "being sensitive" is one that has several dictionary meanings
> and several implied meanings, a few of them charged.

> I would like to share some thoughts I had about "being sensitve"
> recently.

> 1.  There are men ( and some women ) who consider being "sensitive"
	 an effeminate quality.  I interpet "sensitive" as meaning
	 precipitous, sharp, very aware of what is around yourself and
	 what is going on in peoples heads.  I find this funny since
	 many men associate these with being masculine when it is by
	 another name, ie what guy wouldnt like to known as " a keenly-
	 perceptive thinker, scientist etc etc", " a savy wheeler dealer",
	 "an adroit statesman/fighter who 'knows' his opponet etc" etc?

> 2.  Somehow when being very aware of your surrondings and what is
	 going on in other people's heads is labelled "sensitive"
	 it becomes a feminin/ wimpy quality.  Does feminine= wimpyness?
	 Ever see a mother when her kid is being messed with?  Is that
	 kind of reaction "wimpy", unfeminine?


> 3.   Some men claim women dont want "sensitive" guys claiming that
	  they arent masculine enough to interest women.  This equates
	  being a man with being somewhat of a jerk.  These are usually
	  the same guys who get OVERLY upset when feminists wrongfully
	  equate maleness with being inherently bad.  Hmmmmmm.

> 4.   There are women who react as #3 describes.  Id say few, and the
	  ones I've met tend to be unattractive people personality wise.


> 5.    Some men, being insecure about themselves socially ( not in all cases),
	   hear women saying they want "sensitive" guys, contrive an act, get
	   turned down/dumped, and conclude women are full of it when they
	   say they want a "nice" guy.


> 6.  I think when women say they want a "sensitive" guy they want a guy
	 who is "aware" of what is going on in the woman's reality, emotionally
	 as well as otherwise and acts on it.  I dont think they want an
	 officious, obsequias, solicitous panting dog who jumps on their every
	  word, always gives in, subverts himself/his intersts ALWAYS etc etc.
	  I think guys who "try" to be "sensitve" interpret "sensitve" this
	 way instead of just being themselves, aware of their women and being
	 considerate.



> Just some thoughts

> Steve R














Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Inherent differences (WAS Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:20:32 GMT

>
>  ...   As do findings by Goodall about the behavior
>  differences of male and female chimps.  Male chimps would 
>  form packs and attack mixed or female groups, often raping
>  the females, and occasionally even killing other chimps.

Why have feminists not demanded prosecution of these gang-banging chimps?
Rape is NOT a crime based on sex, not even for a monkey!  ;->
Newsgroups: alt.feminism