HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:39:31 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.172931.3859@netcom.com> 
payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>Furthermore, sociology is not a science, they have no causal understanding
>of social interaction, they have never predicted a social event, and what
>social workers seem to do is control people by controlling the funding.
>It works, but there is nothing 'social' about it.

Just to clarify: Social workers are not sociologists.  Sociologists are
not social workers.

(Okay, I do know some people who have been both sociologists and social
workers, but they had to get two degrees....)

Also, there can be *a lot* 'social' about handing out money:
"Hi!  How are you?  Here's your check.  How are the kids?"   :)

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2340 soc.men:17561
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 10 Oct 1992 02:37:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>> "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).

>I think your generalization is very very suspect.

I never intended my comment to encompass all gender-oriented humor.
I merely meant that the specific examples given were unequal.

>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?

I never said that it makes one OK.  

But I do think that jokes or comments about what a person *is* are more 
insensitive than jokes or comments about what a person *does*.  Example:
"you are a slob" is more offensive than "you've made a mess".

							--  Michal
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:49:24 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct12.133458.28046@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct10.052423.15492@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>
>>I must point out that you still haven't answered my
>>question about the two women who are the result of past
>>"preferential" hiring.  The previous form of preference
>>gave just about 100% of the managerial and engineering
>>jobs to men -- the company alleged that women "didn't
>>want them."  Then when a bunch of women who didn't want
>>the jobs sued the company to get them, and the govern-
>>ment also told the compnay it might lose some contracts
>>if it didn't change its ways, it discovered a whole lot
>>of women who _did_ want the jobs.  Then it discovered
>>that they could _do_ the jobs.  Revolution!  But 
>>according to you, it's wrong.  Now, do you want to
>>undo this past wrong, or what?  I mean, wrong is wrong,
>>isn't it?

>It's one thing to "want" high-paying jobs, it's quite another to become
>a single-minded fanatic in pursuit of them (and this *is* what it takes).
>Sure, I would "want" a higher-paying job if I could get one by merely
>filing some lawsuit. But if I have to work endless overtime for many
>years, and metaphorically lick the boss' butt over and over, have no
>life outside work, etc., then maybe I don't "want" it that badly. 
>
>On the other hand, maybe I can drum up some legal pretext so that they
>have to just *give* me one?????

Ah, but that's not what he wrote about, now, is it.

He wrote about people who "want" high-paying jobs, who could _do_ the jobs, and
who weren't getting the jobs because of their gender.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: A feminist who supports male reproductive rights
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:13:22 GMT
Organization: Manumission:  The Campus Men's Forum

In article <719002497@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Have you ever heard any feminist outside of the net who supports "choice for
>men"?
>
>Don't you read the demands of NOW for a crack down on fathers who don't pay
>child's support, no matter why they don't pay?
>
>Has any feminist had anything to say against the "choice for women, no choice
>for men" that Clinton pushes so nicely?  Has any feminist had anything to say
>against Clinton's program after a feminist posted it as a way to gain support
>for Clinton?

Sorry, Hillel, but in a case of remarkable timing, I was at the Cal Poly
library at about the time you were writing these words, and I was able to
find just such a feminist.  Karen DeCrow, a former president of the National
Organization for Women wrote the following letter-to-the-editor to the New
York Times Magazine:

	One aspect of equality between women and men is economics.
	Anatomy has determined that only women have the right to
	choose natural parenthood.  The courts have properly
	determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman
	to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one,
	should she so choose.

	Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral
	decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological
	father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he
	should not be liable for 21 years of support.  Or, put
	another way, autonomous women making independent decisions
	about their lives should not expect men to finance their
	choice.

Karen DeCrow is exceptional among feminists for her integrity.  This isn't
the only issue on which she has taken a controversial stand putting feminist
principles ahead of pro-woman selfishness.  If NOW today were like Karen
DeCrow, I might join.
-- 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   "Do I think we ought to have a Draconian system of national child support
    enforcement?  I sure do.  I really believe that.  I do."
						-- Bill Clinton
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 8 Oct 92 14:55:10 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

| Either give a definition of what *you* mean, or give several examples 
| (with "the subject and the object(s)") of what you see as censorship.
| Adding degrees (X is worse than Y because...) would be nice too.
| 
| If you don't want to do that then your call for definitions of
| the terms first is quite meaningless.

In article <1992Oct7.220103.11037@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I suggest we not use the word, since it requires such
>an apparatus to make its meaning clear in the present context.  

So how do you call MacKinnon's style anti-porno laws?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:20:25 GMT

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>| mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>| >I read about NOWs (anti-censorship) stance in LIBIDO.  (A magazine
>| >which now has a hard time making it into Canada...)
 
>pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>| These Canadian laws have been held up by _Ms._ as shining examples of 
>| the "victories" that would be possible if only the tradition of free speech
>| weren't so strong.
 
>Are you sure this was the position of the magazine as a
>whole?  The last issue of it I read contained many contra-
>dictory opinions; the editors seem to think it proper to
>give feminism many often divergent voices.

I would be interested in knowing what issue that is, Gordon.  I
couldn't find it.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 19:47:58 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> 
>>The fact remains, a statement such as "all the women in Playboy look alike"
>>is purely subjective. It's an example of what C.S. Lewis called "dislike
>>of kind". 

It might be, but I factually agree; they _DO_ look alike; I'm sorry
to say my PlayBoy Magazine experience is quite small(to make generalizations
like this), but they do look alike, and it's boring. It might be
the photographers fault, by uniforming(No I don't mean the shape of
their bodies) the appearance, or the selection of women they _use_
(or, alternatively, the women to contribute to playboy...), but the
result is, that you get magazine upon magazines with varying _faces_,
and those also of a special, unvaried variety.

>Would you, Kenn, settle for the statement, "the women in Playboy are
>not representative of the variety of women in our culture/society/world"?  

I would. Similar, the men _used_ in gay porno magazines, are not
representative of the average blend of men in our / / /. I mention
this, as it is interesting, where gay men/hetero men differ in
their behaviour, in relation to their sexual 'object-of-choice...'
(This might help find out things, that are intrinsic to men, and
very very hard to change, and things that are milieu dependant).
 
>I, myself, would be willing to go one farther, myself, and say "the 
>women in Playboy are not representative of the variety of beautiful, 
>sexy women in our culture/society/world."

>Of course all the women in Playboy do not look exactly alike.  (Then it
>would just be *one* women, no?)  But they do seem to conform to a
>fairly generic, vanilla standard of beauty.  At least, IMO.
>rini

Shit, I didn't read this before I typed what I did above. This is
exactly what I mean. I'm not going to change this post anyway, because
it still says what I wanted it to say. -Comment to your last, better
frasing of what I thought: Maybe it's like pop music - the 'brand'
of look used in playboy equals pop 'designed' to appeal to as many
people as possible, and thereby missing on a lot of chances to
be 'better'. (I'm afraid every other word I write gets 'clauses' about
it, as my native language is not english).
--
      Jakob Gaardsted   .    .  | Black Rainbow(TM)     .         .      .
  Computer Science Department . |. Invaporated      .        .        .    .
University of Aarhus, Jylland(!)|   .            .      . Cordless Life  .  .
 .  pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk   .    |          .    .    .     Pointless Mouse .
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:55:36 GMT


>
>>   50 years ago: "Woman needs man, and man must have his mate, that
>>                  no one can deny .... the world will always welcome
>>                  lovers, as time goes by." (From "Casablanca")
>
>	A throwaway line in a script. What is that supposed to prove.
>
>>   Today:         Woman needs man like a fish needs a bicycle.
     ^^^^^^^^    
>
>	This is just a joke.

Isn't is also rather an *old* joke?

In particular: wasn't it originally meant as a slap in the face of
those who believed in the Confucian law of 3s, that a woman must be
subservient 1st: to father, 2d: to husband, last: to son?

Read Gilman's "Yellow wallpaper".  Then ask yrself again if the bicycle
joke was not really just a radical statement of liberation.
Then let it rest.


______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson  ---  U.Hawai'i, Manoa  --- Fat Messiah Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was one of those movies in which a computer takes over the world
and you jolly well wish it would -- anything's better than the people"
 							Joanna Russ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Porno and beauty standards (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy...)
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:56:14 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct10.213928.27264@fnx.uucp> del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg) writes:
>In <718504427@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>>3) Quite a few beautiful girls who dream about being a movie star prefer
>>   not to leave traces in hard-core porno.  The less beautiful girls (by
>>   the main-stream standards) know that they will never be stars.
>
>Really?  Would you call Whoopi Goldberg beutiful?  Sandra Bernhard?  How
>about Carla from Cheers?  Peggy from "Married"?  The list goes on and on...

And lets not forget Roseanne Barr (sp?). 
 
>del AKA Erik Lindberg                             uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
>                          Who is John Galt?

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 19:17:09 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

...[ ]...

>I see this sort of thing frequently in our society (the context, again).
>I am tall and thin.  When I go out wearing tight clothing, a short
>dress, or whatever, I get lots of compliments and sometimes obnoxious
>advances.  A friend of mine is very heavy.  When she goes out in tight
>clothing, she gets insulted, told she shouldn't be displaying her body
>in that way, etc.  I display mine much more than she does hers, but no
>one tells me to stop, because mine is close enough to the "ideal" that
>people *like* seeing it displayed.  They reject my friend's sexuality
>(or any display which might indicate that she has any such thing)
>because she doesn't have the right body.  Some of the comments she gets
>are *extremely* hostile.

I believe it. What, if anything, do you think we should do about it, and
why, in light of your later comment:

>You know how a mob sometimes just all start doing the same thing, even
>though they didn't talk about it before?  That is not a conspiracy, that
>is just the way people work.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:44:56 GMT

>>is being extremely rude.  Whether it should be illegal or considered
>>harrassment is discussed elsewhere, but I'll just throw in that I wouldn't
>>want federal law to outlaw Playboy on any wall of any workplace, but that if
>>somebody is really offended by Playboy on the wall they have to look at, it
>>should go.
>
>What about that Bikini calander? I have one on my wall right now (not at
>work, the other one is jet fighters, both get used, and I enjoy looking
>at both of them). Oddly, I do not recall a single line in the Constitution
>or Bill of Rights protecting one from being offended. And people get offended
>at the damnest things.

You're probably not gonna like this answer.
Suppose I was your boss.
Suppose somebody else had to spend time in the area where either calendar was.
Supoose that person found either calendar objectionable enough to complain that
it made it hard for them to work/concentrate.
I'd ask you to take it down.
People do get offended by the damndest things.  

For the record:  I DON'T WANT PORNO CENSORED!
I do think a person who HAS to be in an area for work deserves courteous
behavior from co-workers which INCLUDES removal of offensive pictures or
whatever.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Subject: Proposing change (was Re: Women as Victims)
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Grey)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:57:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.081218.26583@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|> 
|> Read what Fitch wrote:  "...this corporation's being busted severely
|> several years ago for never giving women..."  Doesn't this seem that
|> selective treatment dependent on a person's gender had indeed been
|> going on before the women received the jobs--that men were receiving
|> preferential treatment? 
|> 
|> That's what AA is all about, imo.  After years of white men receiving
|> preferential treatment (and damn little outcry by middle-class white
|> men about it), now we're all supposed to have a level playing ground
|> and AA is preferential treatment.  It only matters if white men are
|> being hurt?
|> 

No. It's not about who is being hurt. It's about taking action to undo
a previous course of action, and it why it should be done for this when
it isn't done for other past 'wrongs'.

Consider the 'discovery' of the New World

How nice for them.

Consider the military policeman countries

On a TV program this morning, General N.S. said that the action against
Iraq sent an important message to countries with expansionist aspirations
that it will not be tolerated. How did present countries evolve?

Consider 3rd world environmental policies

Why should Brazil have more world conscience today regarding deforestation
than we had 100 years ago with industrialization?

Issues like this are complex. Potential solutions are equally complex.
And application of those solutions require more consideration than
"give it back" or "let them do it too". I hope you appreciate the similar
delicacy of AA. Naturally it matters which side you're on. But don't
dismiss objection to AA as a rejection of the injustice of the present
situation. It's a disagreement with the proposed solution.

BTW, can you see even a hint of hypocrisy in your views regarding the
previous issues (I'm not suggesting, just speculating)? Do you think they
can be as directly 'solved'?

Grey
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2203 alt.sex:32249
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Porno and beauty standards (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy...)
Date: 8 Oct 92 00:33:48 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct7.180559.10555@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>In my life, I have noticed that the softer the porn, the more likely it
>involves [36-24-36] women only.  Take a look at the swimsuit issue of SI,
>for example.  Then Playboy.  Then maybe Hustler (more likely to have
>a male at least in the background.)  Then hard-core porn mags or
>movies.  Once you get into hard-core, the % of men in the scene
>jumps *way* up.  And then of course you get classic titles like "Fat
>Mommas and Their Machines ."  The airbrushed Sex Symbol is missing.

>Anybody else notice this?  What's the deal?  Theories?

A couple of possibilities:

1) The cook book theory - when you see pictures of food in a cook book
   it always looks *great*, and that's how most people want their cook
   book to looks like.  But when we go to eat we care much more about
   the food's taste than how it looks like.

   In a similar way people care more about the look of the models at the 
   swimsuit issue of SI because they just imply sexuality, but you don't
   *see* them having sex.  In porno movies it is pretty clear who enjoys
   herself and who is "dead in bed."  The 36-24-36 look is not that
   important any more.

2) Hard-core Porno is far away from the main-stream standards while the
   swimsuit issue is not.  May be the people who consume the porno
   are different from the average person.

3) Quite a few beautiful girls who dream about being a movie star prefer
   not to leave traces in hard-core porno.  The less beautiful girls (by
   the main-stream standards) know that they will never be stars.

4) Only few people can do some of the hard-core porno (e.g. a woman who
   has sex with 3 men in the same time), and the special skills are
   much more important, for the success of the movie, than the
   "standard" beauty.

About men in porno, I don't think that most consumers of straight porno
(straight men) care about that.  I think that the men in the gay porno
are more attractive, but I'm not sure that I, as a straight man, is
the right person to comment about that.

>rini

Hillel                                       gazit@cs.duke.edu

"You certainly manage to make a woman feel like an object rather than a person."
   Nancy McLuhan to Billy the Poet (K. Vonnegut, "Welcome to the Monkey House")
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: A feminist who supports male reproductive rights
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:35:53 GMT

>dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

># Karen DeCrow is exceptional among feminists for her integrity.  This isn't
># the only issue on which she has taken a controversial stand putting feminist
># principles ahead of pro-woman selfishness.  If NOW today were like Karen
># DeCrow, I might join.
 
>tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>>Me too!
 
gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>Me too!

I'm thinking of joining just so that there are such voices in their ranks...
Dunno....

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 12:34:25 GMT

I will try to find them.  I knew I should get them before I posted, but I 
thought I should state this before the discussion got off of this point.
Please stay tuned....

Jeff.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Arlen Specter leads Lynn Yeakel by 7 percentage points
Summary: Yet another survey
Date: 15 Oct 92 02:38:28 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

CLARINET and UPI are reporting that in the latest poll Arlen Specter
holds a 7 percentage point lead over Lynn Yeakel.  

They are also reporting that 59% of the voters say the Anita Hill issue
makes no difference in how they would vote.  Although, 28% said that his
actions would make them less likely to vote for Arlen.

Arlen's attack Ads. (about Lynn's taxes) are only slightly effective with
61% of the voters saying that this issue made no difference to them.  But
32% are saying that it will make them less likely to vote for Lynn.

I suppose that surveys will continue each week until the election and the
results will continue to fluctuate, right down to the wire.

Terry
-- 
        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