HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:52:39 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov3.063920.16923@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <T4MSBCVJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
DSA>I believe neither polygamy nor making demands from one's partner is
DSA>emotionally healthy.

KMB>	So tell me this, Dave: why should I care? In the short space of
KMB>time you've been posting to this group you've probably expressed more
KMB>opinions in fewer lines than I would have thought possible, but
KMB>pronouncements from strangers are pretty uninteresting. Make a case for
KMB>something, and stop sitting back and passing judgement.

When I went out with one of my ex-girlfriends and she was in the mood to be
affectionate, I would respond even when I did not feel like it, because she
was rarely enough in the mood.  I did not mind that as long as I knew I was
appreciated.

She was quite a feminist.  I still miss her very much even though she was not
terribly affectionate because she appreciated.

I am quite possessive when it comes to signifigant others.  Once a woman who I
went out with dumped me for a guy who she was still "in love" with.  I cannot
understand polygamy.  How can you make someone feel special/appreciated if you
are interested in having romantic relations with more than one person?

Do you care now?

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:00:15 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[...]
>None of it has been funny. But I would like to point out another
>anti-symmetry in these feminist arguments. (did i invent a new word?)

Undoubtably.

>In another thread, it was pointed out that women who are self confident
>could care less what the models look like, while those who are insecure
>may well feel threatened. This was taken as an attack the victim post
>by at least one person, and I suspect more to follow.

How prophetic!

>                                                      In another thread
>it was directly asserted that any male who feels threatened by feminism
>is obviously not getting enough sex, because it could only be the result
>of sexual frustration. None of the other feminists commented on this.

As author of said attack, I must protest that you were overgeneralizing my
attack to all males.  It was an indirect assertion at best and was
related to your argument that there was a scarcity of available women.
This context has gotten lost in the above synopsis.

[More contrasts between male and female victims...]

With this I agree.  Men and women who are victimized should be equally
defended.  I came to your defense at least when I apologized for that attack,
publically, I might add.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ppalmier@MtHolyoke.edu (Patricia S. Palmiere)
Subject: absentee for lynn
Organization: Mount Holyoke College
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:15:46 GMT


Is it true that they (the election board) does not count absentee ballots
unless there is a slim margin?  I know that I actively campaigned for Lynn
and cast an absentee for her myself.  I would hate to think that it had
gone to waste.
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Homophobia causes Sexism? (was Re: Feminist Jokes)
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:17:30 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov10.025521.8946@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[...]
>This has me confused. By "so-called hetero men" hating women, do you
>mean that the men who hate women are not -really- hetero? I guess
>that would make then gay or non-sexual.

Or bi or questioning?

In an earlier post I indicated that certain sexism arises from homophobia.

Let me elaborate here.

If a person does not wish to consider him/herself homosexual out of societal
pressure a natural response is hypersexuality -- exaggerated interest in
members of the opposite sex.  This distortion of desire can result in a
painful tension between imagined and actual desire.  The victim may then
turn this resentment upon the object of his/her imagined lust object(s)
who/which do not fulfill the victim's unrealistic exaggerated desires.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: FEMINISM AND MODERN WOMEN
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:39:27 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

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 ....

Wait a minute.  Did your Grandfather ever tell you
about unlocking the caps key?

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:58:55 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
  
>>>And if you want to see a word debate on much less offensive words, 
>>>check out the thread rini started in sci.skeptic.
  
>>Ex-squeeze me?  This sure doesn't ring a bell with me.
 
>They say the memory is the first thing to go... {humor mode on for 
>the impaired}

OH!  You mean the thread I *contributed*to* on *alt.sex*!!!  That
one!  You mean the one where I said that there is nothing inherently
offensive about using a gender nuetral pronoun!  Where I said that
language is not static!  Oh yes, I remember now.

>Curiously, alt.feminism is one of the few newsgroups -not- in the
>newsgroups line. Where did you post from?

alt.sex of course!  After all, us feminists are horny buggers.  :)

rini
- gosh, I'm kinda worried that Rich will cross-post my tips on
scrotum shaving next....!
From: maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 12 Nov 1992 18:14:44 -0000
Organization: Computing Services, University of Warwick, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk
Keywords: abortion

In article <1992Nov11.164401.6552@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>  
>>>I would expand on "request". I would support requiring that the 
>>>woman must notify the man within [some period of time] after becoming
>>>pregnant that she is pregnant. Within [some period of time] after
>>>they will file a "parenting plan" with the state.
> 
>>What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?
> 
>>Should the man be forced to pay child support if he requested
>>(but was clearly unable to force) an abortion?
>
>No, because in the default situtation Jen outlined (when no "parenting
>plan" is filed) the woman becomes the sole legal parent.
>

Why?
'Having it both ways' might as well be _defined_ as discarding the
responsibility to bring up a child but demanding privilages in the
choices involved!
Man in a feminist society has to be able to bring up a child just
as well as a woman. IMHO he can anyway. 
Why not have the court decide on merit! 
Frankly the number of cases with no parenting plan will be high. This
in itself shows that the strong emotional pulls experienced when one
is in this position makes one irrational. Thus it benifits the child, 
mother and father for the court to be able to choose the best of two
parenting options rather than defaulting to one in particular. 

>
>rini

~Morley
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 00:15:22 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov8094307@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.165909.7801@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>> Why do people read Stephen King books? Probably for the same reason many
>>>> women read romance novels, it fullfills some need. Probably not the same
>>>> need though rini. I suspect that the Stephen King books meet some need
>>>> for excitement, somewhat like the T2 movie.
>>>
>>>Why *not* the same need?  Many romance novels are essentially
>>>adventure stories with some (often a lot of) sex thrown in (ever see
>>>"Romancing the Stone"?).  These do meet a need for excitement in the
>>>non-sexual sense.  
>
>>Too the extent that they both *may* contain romance, and adventure, I
>>agree with you. But Stephen King writes -->horror<-- novels. People
>>get eaten by giant worms, cars which take on a life of their own, and
>>do non-romantic things to their owners, the townspeople, etc...
>
>>Are you saying that romance novels and horror novels address the same
>>needs? I disagree, any common elements notwithstanding.
>
>They're both entertainment and escapism...different people (not
>specifically men or women) have different needs/interests/whatever in
>terms of *how* they wish to escape, but I think the basic desire to feel
>excitement and escape from often less-than-wonderful lives *is* the
>same.  In the same way, both a steak and a salad address the basic need
>of hunger, but they are very different.

So you choose to categorize both genres as 'entertainment and escapism',
while I choose to make a different distinction, 'horror and romance'.

Seems to be another of those darn context things Muffy.

Hows about we compromise. I'll agree that they might meet the same
need for some, and you agree that for others, they might meet different
needs. 
 
>>>[...]  That is exciting in a different way from the action-adventure type
>>>books, but still exciting, especially to a woman who has little power in
>>>her own life.
>
>>Do you mean women who do not choose to use the power that they do have?
>
>Nope.  I mean women whose power has been constrained or invalidated by 
>our society, and probably more specifically by the people around them.

By definition, literally. There is no use arguing with propaganda.
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: omori@ee.fit.edu (Ricardo Omori)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Women in Japan
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:29:26 GMT
Organization: Florida Tech, CP/EE Dept.

Hello Feminist World:

I'm currently collecting different perspectives/views
about how women are treated in Japan.
I'll like to read different opinions on what happens in
Japan.
According to an article published in McClean's in Nov 92,
many Japanese women have to quit their jobs when they
get married. Reasons: company's policies, husband's opinions.
Moreover, most women have to serve coffee at work, even though
they may have an engineering position.

If you have more information on this issue, or if you would like
to comment on what I mentioned, could you please e-mail me at:
kcs97087@zach.fit.edu ?

Sincerely,
R.O.

    
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:57:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.161630.9723@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>>>>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>>>>sex with their children, etc... 
>  
>>>Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
>>>said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
>>>able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
>>>like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
>>>THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
>>>started.  :)
> 
>>Well, there are a few duplications, but there were 175 instances of the
>>word rape in the last 10 days. Here is a list, I can compress the posts
>>and mail them to you if you want.
>
>Well, if you think talking about rape, sexually harrassment and
>child abuse by default *implies* that's the only things men do, okay 
>you win.  I, for one, have not drawn the same conclusion.  

Lets's turn that around, is rape a normal everyday topic, which, like
the weather, you would expect to come up in most conversations?

Because it eventually gets brought up in a majority (I am pretty sure)
of topics here.

I would also like to point out that feminists say that what men say, and
the way they say it, limits and devalue women. If this is true, does
not the same apply to the way feminists talk about men? 
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
From: cravener@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Patty Cravener)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:26:11 GMT

You're Not particularly adept at logical thinking, I note.. 
Those romance novels are sold on stands adjacent to tabloids
with headlines so astounding I have difficulty recalling any, there 
being no link to real experience or plausibility...
At any rate, the books you mention are probably read by the same
people who read those tabloids newspapers - likely both men and
women, It is possible, given the discrimination that tends to keep 
women from decent education, that there are somewhat more women
reading romance novels. Probably a combination of low ability levels
and limited exposure to literature...
Too bad these offensive posts seem to have corrupted the humor newsgroup
lately. Could we perhaps ask that the neurotic bigots take their input
elsewhere, and let the rest of us enjoy jokes?
................................................................PC  .
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Is it possible to be a male feminist?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:24:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.054628.15603@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) wrote:
> 
> In article <X1NSB1PV@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
> >In article <garry-311092125420@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
> >>In article <fraserdt.720476274@unixg.ubc.ca>, fraserdt@unixg.ubc.ca (David
> >>T.S. Fraser) wrote:
> >DTS> [omitted] 
> >DTS>The thoughts of _feminists_ on this subject would be appreciated.
> >
> >GCK>Good to see you have such an open mind, boy.  You'll go far.
> >GCK>You may wish to consider forming a coffee klatch with David Auer.
> >
> >Was this meant to be derogatory?  This board is supposed to be alt.feminism,
> >not alt.sexism.  Get a clue.
> >
> >I know, feminism = sexism.  Give it up.
> 
> Watch it, Auer.  If you really get on King's bad side, he'll call you
> a cunt.  Ohhhhhh....


As you know, ljf, I promised I'd use male terms of abuse to atone for my
earlier egregious (not to mention transparent) misogyny.

True to my word (I am not a feminist, after all), I have already called
David a "dickhead" (see the "Why I am a Feminist" thread). Since he now
appears contrite over his absurd abuse of Rich Payne, I'll downgrade it to
"Cowper's gland".

If Mr. Auer is reading, he may wish to attempt an explanation of his post
above.  It makes little sense to me.


Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.235053.15307@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>    
>>>>No, of course not. But it is still a valid question to ask exactly what
>>>>it does mean. These novels must be fullfilling some need of the women
>>>>who read them.
>  
>>>Yea, I suppose in some tautologous sense Payne's comment is probably
>>>true.  
> 
>>A nice snobbish, condesending point.
>
>But, yet, appropriate.  :)
  
You must be slowing down, you could've posted that. Or would a
little thing like that fact that it was a result of miscronstruing my post
bother you. Apparently not, you did not correct the poor poster who
miscronstrued my post. Actually, you seem to have applauded it.

Also you left rec.humor in the newsgroups line. For some reason that
do not think your posts humorous.
 
>[T2, Clint Eastwood movies...]
>
>>>                       I myself have enjoyed similar films from time
>>>to time.  I don't think that one need necessarily say that the whole
>>>audience must have murderous urges which are expressed by the
>>>characters in these films.  
> 
>>Good for you. There is a difference however, watching a film is a passive
>>experience, all the work has been done for you. Reading requires a more
>>active participation. Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be applied to
>>reading posts as well (wink-wink-nudge-nudge).
>
>How about reading Stephen King?  Would that be a better example for you?
>I don't think Stephen King readers have murderous urges any more than
>I do (though I could be wrong).

Very good. Too bad I never claimed reading books caused one to do anything.
Why do people read Stephen King books? Probably for the same reason many
women read romance novels, it fullfills some need. Probably not the same
need though rini. I suspect that the Stephen King books meet some need
for excitement, somewhat like the T2 movie.
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:37:23 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king) writes:

>	Now, perhaps I'm just a bit traditional, but doesn't it bother you,
>in some way, morally or religiously, to stand behind such a counter-productive
>ideology?  [several paragraphs deleted]

I guess it just depends what one thinks one is here for.  Your answers don't
work for me.  I do not suggest that mine would work for you.

>	Many Thanks for your time, and good wishes to your fertile future.

Thank you.  May your future be fertile in the manner you wish it to be.

							--  Michal	

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Another example (Was: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:50:40 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.210001.12896@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct27.154956.16038@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>Feminists, civil-rights activists, equalitarians, etc have attempted [with 
>>>>much success] to question these theories and change these practices.  
>>>>And if you want an admission that it's gone too far in some ways, fine.  
>>>>But sometimes it seems like you want to throw out the baby with the 
>>>>bath-water.
>>  
>>>So you think that it is OK to call it rape when the woman 
>>>did not initiate sex, and to paint men as worshippers of Thantos, 
>>>and bringers of death while women are the lifebringers and healers. 
>>>Where in this is there a baby?
>>
>>Gosh, that seems like a pretty good example to me.  You seem to want
>>to lump all "feminists, civil-rights activists, equalitarians, etc" 
>>into a bunch of people who cry rape, and think poorly of men.  Tch
>>tch tch tch tch.
>
>No, just another matter of "writing" between the lines. That is when
>you go a step beyond just reading between the lines and add stuff that
>was not there.
>
>There is no mention of "feminists", mush less "all feminists". Your
>post however is a pretty good example of what may be deliberate misunderstanding
>in action, unless you can come up with some connection between your claims
>and the quoted text. You have an active imagination, I have no doubt
>that you will find something. Search -all- the other posts, OK?

Actually, in the stuff *I* wrote, there is a mention of "feminists" and it was
meant to include *all* feminists.
Context clues to support this are:
1.  other larger groups were included, which indicates inclusiveness rather
    than exclusiveness.
2.  the activities ascribed to "feminists" were extremely general and
    minimalist.
3.  I wrote it, and I just said that's what I meant.


Your reply does not mention feminists per se, but you were responding to what I
wrote, and it was about all feminists.  Now we all know you would never post a
non-sequitor, thus it is a forgone conclusion that you were talking about all
feminists.


>But your assertion is so clearly false, it is rather funny. Do you still
>claim to be unbiased? BTW, this does verify to me that you seem to
>be anti-Rich, and that you are attacking me personally. I think that
>your irrational bias needs to be spelled out just in case anyone
>mistakes your posting as rationally based and unbiased.

I'm afraid that you'll simply have to label her anti-Rich-Payne, as she has
never attacked me.  :-)
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hartman@informix.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:25:57 GMT
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <83SSB10H@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <Bx9J2M.GEt@news.cso.uiuc.edu> parker@ehsn17.cen.uiuc.edu () writes:
>>[...]
>>It seems rather arrogant to presume that a man knows more--or even as *much*--
>>about what women enjoy than a woman does.
>>[...]
>>-Rob
>
>It seems arrogant to me to presume that a man would be unable to know more
>about what women enjoy than a woman does.  This was not your stated point,
>but it seemed like somewhat of a logical extension.  Sorry, if I am putting
>words into your mouth.
>
>-dave

I'm sorry.  I don't quite follow this.  It doesn't seem arrogant to me to
acknowledge that it's probably easier for women to relate to the experiences
of other women than it is for men to.  Women and men are raised with such
different values and experiences that I'd think it would be obvious that
people of the same gender would be in a better position to relate to each
other.  An exceptional man might be able to deduce a lot about what women
tend to enjoy, but he'll never be able to experience life as a woman.

The same is also true about women relating to men.  I should think it would
be easier for men to relate to the experiences other men more readily than
it would be for women to.

When it comes to relating to women, I think that in general, men would do
better to listen and ask for clarification rather than presume an understanding
that may or may not be there.  When it comes to relating to men, I think that
women would likewise do better.

-r
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh