HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Defining terms (Was Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???)
Date: 8 Sep 92 11:37:52 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep8.050440.2072@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Feminism is political theory.  

Feminism is, more than anything else, a political movement.  The real
"theory" behind most of this political movement demands is "it is good
for women therefore it is good."  

>I assume people who want to 
>discuss political theory know something about it; 

I don't care too much about the "political theory," I'm much more
interested how it works in *practice*.  

>if so, they would understand immediately from 
>my context what I meant by "liberal."  

Let's take a look in what you said:

#True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
#that state power must be justified by some strong public
#interest, and therefore has no business interfering with
#people's personal moral decisions.  

The liberals we have around now swear for the principle; they just
explain that there is a strong public interest in gun control, no-
choice for men, choice for women, affirmative action quotas, the
most expensive public education system in the world, etc.

They can explain every pork barrel they give by "a strong public
interest," and I suspect that you have seen that quite a few times.

Still, you are *sure* that everyone who reads should know that 
the liberal principle you talk about is liberal in the 
"classical" sense and there is no need to even mention that.

>The fact that most public discourse is polluted by propaganda 
>doesn't mean we have to participate in the pollution.

Your original article sounded like liberal (in the
non-classic sense) propaganda...

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

"But if you don't like the risk of pregnancy, well, just don't have sex."
                      -- Paul Vixie
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov (gary l. schroeder)
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY 11973
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 13:01:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.214422.25397@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

>The original Star Trek had the first [prime time network TV]
>inter-racial kiss.  LA Law(?) has already had the first [...] same-sex
>passionate kiss, so TNG has missed it's opportunity there.  But I
>believe the first [...] man-to-man passionate kiss is still up for
>grabs. 

I've always felt that all the credit that TOS gets for this is a little
over-blown.  I wouldn't exactly call that "kiss" ground breaking.  After
all, it never seemed to really mean much to me in that it was _forced
through telekenisis_!  Now, if two characters of white and black
extraction had kissed voluntarily, that would be something different.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Schroeder  		|  
schroede@bnlux1.bnl.gov         |             Boo. 
Brookhaven National Laboratory  | 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:55:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <715568079@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>When anti-abortion people tell women "if you don't want to deal
>with unwanted pregnancy then don't fuck or get sterilized" then every
>feminist shouts that they try to control women's sexuality (I agree 
>with feminism on that one BTW).
>
>When Muffy tells men "if you don't want to deal with unwanted
>pregnancy then don't fuck or get sterilized" y'all don't see anything
>wrong in controlling men's sexuality.  Everybody (especially
>feminists and traditionlists) "knows" that men's sexuality is a bad
>thing that should be controlled.  When Muffy supports these opinions
>she just fights for equal rights - feminists' style.

Now we see WHY "soc.feminism" has been such a tightly-controlled, Politically
Correct little universe. It enables the moderators to promote
blatant hypocrisy without ever being forced to answer for it.

Now that we have "alt.feminism", I think that our newly-found Freedom of
Speech is going to quickly send these prissy little hypocrites running for
cover. 

I wonder how long it will be before we see the word going out to all 
those of Correct views, "Oh, don't *ever* participate in that horrible
"alt.feminism."! Don't even read it! It's been taken over by sexists and
racists and....."

-- 
  
        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"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: THE PARABLE OF THE CHILD REARING COLLECTIVE
Date: 12 Sep 92 14:30:46 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#I hadn't seen this, but I said that there were problems with
#Plan #2, and this story expounds, at length, on one of them.
#So what's your point?

% The point is that most women, feminist or not, will not tolerate a 
% woman like Mary even for one minute *if* they had to pay for her
% irresponsibility.  They support her today just because they can
% shift the cost to someone else.

In article<1992Sep12.025246.15407@panix.com>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Ach!  Then let us make them, too, pay taxes!!

1) Then they demand that men will have no choice so they 
   will not have to pay for women like Mary.

2) Welfare, as practiced today, is a way for the government to 
   take money from the entire population to finance people like 
   Mary.  I don't like that at all.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com>
	<AWERLING.92Sep3145824@dante.nmsu.edu>
	<ZEN.92Sep3154741@death.corp.sun.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 23:18:17 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Sep3154741@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

   In article <AWERLING.92Sep3145824@dante.nmsu.edu> awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING) writes:
   > In article <1992Sep2.164407.24466@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
   >> There
   >> are already plenty of newsgroups for the exhibition of 
   >> misogyny and anti-feminism, and there is nothing to stop
   >> their fans from creating more, moderated or unmoderated. 
   > Yip's curious: what newsgroups would these be?

     soc.*, alt.*, rec.*, you name it.  Starting with anything containing
   "man", "woman", "fem", and "male" in the title might cut out some of the
   less offensive newsgroups.  Then again...

But of course, you're not referring to alt.fan.rush-limbaugh?  ;-)

--
Andrew Werling   awerling@nmsu.edu   yip@rever.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 11 Sep 92 20:27:44 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

I have a few questions, but overall, I want to know what
we're discussing.  I enumerated a non-exhaustive list of
alternatives to the problem of supporting child care; are we
going down the list?  Or do you want to discuss just "choice
for men" as you define it?  I see things wrongs with it, on 
both a pragmatic and a philosophical or theoretical level;
but for all I know its purpose, like the famous discussion
of draft registration in soc.men so long ago, is only to
bait feminists.  If so, I'd like to stipulate myself as
"baited", along with being a socialist, communist, feminist,
militantly weird quiche-eating bicycle rider; we can save 
a lot of bandwidth.

Just to save you the work of (mis)interpreting my position 
again: If women were reasonably free from any constraint on 
their sexual and reproductive freedom, and if it were 
clearly stated up front by their communities that they, and 
they alone, were responsible for the results of sex, then 
the rules of the game would be different.  I don't think 
these would be particularly good rules -- I favor the 
communist or tribal models -- but they would at least be 
"fair" in the sense that they are now fair: they've been 
unequivocally stated in advance.

I trust you understand that we are very far from both
reproductive freedom and from honestly presenting the facts
of life to young women.  Most of the media, to me, are a
torrent of misinformation and disinformation, obscenity and
pornography.  This is not because they contain erotic
material but because of the way they manipulate it.  This is
not as far afield from "choice for men" as you may think,
and I don't know how we can solve this problem without
violating free speech and other rights, especially the
sacred right to make a profit by damaging other people and
screwing up their lives.

All of which is why the "choice for men" proposal is a
little bit more complicated than the way it's been
presented.

Here are the other questions:

1. For future reference, could you define "RadFem" in the
following sentence?  "Radical Feminist" is often taken to
mean something different from a feminist who happens to be a
radical.

| Can you imagine a RadFem who rejects a traditional myth about *men*?  

Or is just more baiting?

2. Can you tell me what you're talking about in the following
sentence?  I've never tried to develop my philosophy in a 
pro-feminist mailing list.  In fact, I don't even know of a 
pro-feminist mailing list.  I mean, is this predictive or are 
you referring to some imagined event in the past?

| That's the real reason why you can't develop your 
| philosophy in a pro-feminist mailing list.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bathroom symbols
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 12 Sep 92 17:22:12 +1200
 <1992Sep11.144510.18978@midway.uchicago.edu> <dfrankow.716230361@unity>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

dfrankow@unity.cs.umn.edu (Dan Frankowski) writes:
> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
> to sound adversarial), what symbols would you use instead?

trad mars/venus? ones: the little down-pointing arrow, and up-pointing cross,
both on circles. That way we can easily add categories as necessary - thinking
of the gay `toilet brigade' who would get a pair of up-arrows. Dykes could
then use the pair of up-axes for dyke-space, mothers a smaller circle under
their female sign, fathers same for theirs.....

> >seems to make more sense.  The generic human restroom is for all of us,
> >man and woman alike.  The restroom where the human wears a skirt is for
> >people who wear skirts.  Now doesn't that make more sense?
> 
> It makes more sense (and is a clever use of satire) but I don't think
> it solves the problem.

yes, it makes sense, but it causes problems I think. But it is fun. And
cross-dressers have to face it all the time! 

MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: proposed vote of confidence
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 92 22:56:26 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.214045.26054@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <78885@ut-emx.uucp> lynch@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Tom Lynch) writes:
>>It is inconvienient to have two forums on the same topic.  It would be
>>much simpler to let the large majority of readers to agree that the
>>moderation is appropiate and have one group.  This is not an issue of
>>moderation or no moderation - it is an issue of appropariate
>>moderation.
>>
>
>No, what this is is a big load of crap.  I kept pace with the dialog 
>in soc.men with regard to creating this group, alt.feminism, and 
>found myself in agreement that an alternate news group to soc.feminism 
>would be beneficial.  If nothing else, it could serve to improve the 
>tone in soc.men and soc.women because a forum exists to thrash out 
>feminist-related issues in a freewheeling atmosphere. 

Very well said!  I followed this argument in soc.men (the complaints
about the soc.feminism moderators) and agreed that imo some of the
posts rejected shouldn't have been.  It was/is fine by me that
alt.feminism was created, although I voiced the opinion that it
probably should really be called alt.feminism.not.  Now I see that
instead of having two groups about feminism, some people are pressing
to eliminate soc.feminism.  Was this a secret agenda behind the
formation of alt.feminism?  I certainly hope not, since I have more
respect for some of the "complainers" than that.

>Little did I realize that alt.feminism would be used as a forum to 
>conduct a Lynching party of soc.feminism and its moderators.  Just 
>who elected you net.cop?  If there is room for soc.religion and 
>talk.religion, then there sure as heck is room for alt.feminism and 
>soc.feminism.  Talk about censorship!  Pretty severe case of pots 
>calling kettles black, to my way of thinking.

Yes, exactly!  So, instead of two newsgroups (one moderated and one
not) we get one unmoderated newsgroup that is used to bash
soc.feminism moderators?

>In fact, as each day goes by, alt.feminism is becoming a stronger 
>and stronger argument that there is a need for soc.feminism, because 
>of the too-obvious lack of self-censorship skills among certain
>alt.feminism posters. I occasionally prefer a venue high on 
>intellect and low on insults, as is provided by soc.feminism.
>Alt.feminism, on the other hand, is already degenerating into 
>base, nasty, discussions loaded with insults, accusations without 
>proof, etc. etc. etc.
>
>Let this witch-hunt die the death it deserves.  

Yes, yes, please.
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dworkin and her positive contributions to feminism?
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:50:03 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <BuE6HA.Dt9@intime.intime.COM> scottm@intime.intime.COM (Scott Michel) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.213005.964@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>In article <ZEN.92Sep10120207@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>[ ... truncated ... ]
>
>Perception (concrete sense perception, as is used in abstraction)
>is what defines general opinion of any movement. I know that the
>inevitable Rush Limbaugh quotes this lunatic, and thus the feminist
>movement does get bashed pretty heavily. Why don't the less extreme
>or moderate fems get out there and change perception? Secondly,
>it's been my experience that the more radical or reactive parts of
>a movement have the greatest impact on a movement and determine its
>direction, simply because they voice themselves the loudest. 
>

Actually, I think that moderate and less extreme feminists are 
out there attempting to change perceptions.  You see it out  
on the net every day.  

As for Rush Limbaugh, it is certainly not within his interest to 
present anything colored feminist in a good light.  Interestingly, 
poor old Rush could be doing himself and *his* causes a great 
disservice in spotlighting Dworkin and her writings by pointing 
the intellectually curious in her direction.  For instance, had it 
not been for the unending dialog about Dworkin here on the net, I 
would have *never* picked up her books.  In short, it was not 
the loudest voices of feminism that I responded to, it was the 
loudest voices of anti-feminism.

As for Dworkin herself, the most disturbing aspect of her writing 
to me was not so much her rants about sexuality.  I felt while 
reading her this constant drum in my head "you are woman, you 
have no free will."  In fact, during her presentation she wrote 
something to the effect that even if a woman never marries she is 
still subjected to and under control of the marital slave systems.
Marriage as slavery may have existed in the past and may very well 
exist in the global community, but Dworkin is obviously writing to 
a modern American audience, an audience for which the mechanisms of 
change are available:  vote, jobs, property rights, courts, laws. 
I feel that she has taken a "paternalistic" attitude toward women 
by claiming we are *still* enslaved, but just aren't bright enough 
to realize it.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Pro-Male Choice (was Re: Choice for men)
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 6 Sep 92 11:30:27 +1200
 <715568079@lear.cs.duke.edu><ZEN.92Sep3203548@death.corp.sun.com> 
 <715582700@lear.cs.duke.edu> <JULIE.92Sep4131150@amazon.chem.columbia.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

julie@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright) writes:
> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> What choice, exactly, are we talking about here?  Suppose the man objects
> to his genes being passed on and wants the woman to have an abortion.  
> I would believe that it's her body and since she's a person, not an
> incubator, she should have the power to decide whether or not to have
> an abortion
> ...
> I personally agree that holding a man responsible for a child he didn't
> even know existed, for instance, because of a birth control failure, for
> instance, is pretty much equivalent to forcing a woman to carry a fetus
> to term by not allowing her to get an abortion

in an attempt to summarise `pro-male-choice', here goes my version.

the current situation in many places where abortion is legal is that the
father has no legal rights at all. If the mother wishes to listen to him,
then well and good. Two cases I can recall are the Canadian one where some
guy tried to stop his child being aborted, don't recall the result but it
looked like he would lose. Similarly, one guy on soc.men had tried to 
get his (ex-)partner to hold to an agreement that they would not have 
children, and that she would abort. He didn't even get to court. My
feeling is that even a written contract would be held unenforcable in
most courts (esp. the USA).

Basically, once a woman gets pregnant, the father is in her tender care.
If she has the child, she can sue for maintainence for the next 15-20
years, and he has no legal recourse. In practice, many men simply evade
their obligations and move out of the state/country, change jobs and
don't pay. in New Zealand many go to Australia specifically because of this.
Richer men agree to pay, the fight in court until all her money is gone 
over how much, when.... and access.

male choice is (IMHO) unworkable, but comes down to: the man has the right
to say "no, I don't want the child", then need not pay. The corollary is
]less often mentioned, but "I want it", he gets exclusive custody, she pays.
Problems are the forced abortion, forced incubation thing, and male evasion 
of responsibility, as the cost of signing the form to get out of paying is
probably going to be very low. (emotional cost). Lower than an abortion
is now, at least. This leads into the abortion debate, "how traumatic is
abortion, how much is societies shit ladled onto it".

MOZ
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: THE PARABLE OF THE CHILD REARING COLLECTIVE
Date: 11 Sep 92 16:26:07 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <716182329@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| 
| While answering Gordon's article I found that old gem that he 
| makes a real effort to miss.  Have fun.

I hadn't seen this, but I said that there were problems with
Plan #2, and this story expounds, at length, on one of them.
So what's your point?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 11 Sep 92 23:49:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article<1992Sep11.202744.1737@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I favor the communist or tribal models 

Here we come to the heart of our philosophical differences.

Communism is bankrupt; there is not communist state where most people
support it and want to be there.  The repression is just a by-
product of this situation.  The kibbutz system in Israel is also 
falling apart for reasons that I'm not sure that you want to hear.

The tribes (and the kibbutzs) have a serious problem when people can
leave - the best and the brightest leave the tribe and try their
luck in another society.  The result is a brain drain that no
society can sustain for a long time.

>I trust you understand that we are very far from both
>reproductive freedom 

That's a legal/political problem that should be addressed; 
pro-choice laws seem to me like the really important step. 

>and from honestly presenting the facts of life to young women.  

It is really not a big deal to find the facts about 
birth control in the nearest public library.

>and I don't know how we can solve this problem without
>violating free speech and other rights, especially the
>sacred right to make a profit by damaging other people and
>screwing up their lives.

I really have no objection for you and your friend creating 
your perfect commune and stay away from any TV sets there. 

Just leave me out of the commune.

>All of which is why the "choice for men" proposal is a
>little bit more complicated than the way it's been presented.

The idea is to create the legal tools for choice for men. 

>1. For future reference, could you define "RadFem" in the
>following sentence?  

A RadFem is someone who defines herself as a Radfem.

>2. Can you tell me what you're talking about in the following
>sentence?  I've never tried to develop my philosophy in a 
>pro-feminist mailing list.  

You complained that you can't develop your philosophy in a non-moderated
newsgroup.  I suggested that you may try to develop your philosophy in
a pro-feminist mailing list, and you have never answered this one. 

I assumed (wrongly probably...) that you at least tried to 
understand the answer.

>In fact, I don't even know of a pro-feminist mailing list.  

Drop me a line in e-mail and I'll teach you how to look for the
list of mailing lists in the newusers newsgroup.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
                                 -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism