HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: alt.zines
Subject: Re: Lifetime Subs
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:10:32 GMT
Organization: I is a writur

thud@silver.lcs.mit.edu (Ted Thibodeau Jr) writes:

>True. I am not griping so much over the magazine's demise as the lack
>of communication regarding it. I figure that any zine that got 100$ or
>more from an individual has an obligation to at least spend the 45-cents
>(including paper, stamp, envelope, etc) it would cost to send a letter
>saying "we're ceasing publication after the next issue (or two or whatever)"

Since the two most common reasons for zines disappearing are (a) no money
left to publish and (b) no time to publish it, while what you say is
reasonable in theory, in practice it's not so simple. Don't think of it as
$.50 a person. Think of it as $1500 for the mailing, and suddenly it's not
quite as simple. If I had $1500 to send out a letter saying "sorry" to my
3,000 subscribers (picking a number out of my hat), I'd seriously consider
holding onto it until I could turn it into $3,000 and put out a final (even
if small) issue. And if I don't have the $1,500 dollars to say goodbye,
well, that's why it died, right?

And this is ignoring the time/energy it'd take to put the mailing together,
which is non-trivial. (And, no, just sending out a letter to lifetime
subscribers doesn't cut it. Either you send a note to everyone you have
unfufilled subscriptions to or you don't).

>This also gives the opportunity for those who had invested in the future
>of the zine to invest further, and get more involved in it, by perhaps
>becoming the new puiblisher.

Sometimes it just ain't worth it. Sometimes it's clear the magazine is dead,
Jim. Sometimes you don't want to see it under someone else's hand. I know
that whenever OtherRealms dies, it dies. It won't go anywhere else. Now,
someone's always welcome to start up another zine and I could be convinced
to share lists and etc, but it won't be OtherRealms.

>(My circulation may have fallen; I may have been reduced to a xerox-zine
>for a few issues, but I would have published *something*!)

That's mostly my attitude, but I understand it's not always possible, or
practical. 

-- 
Chuq "IMHO" Von Rospach, ESD Support & Training (DAL/AUX) =+= Member, SFWA
  chuq@apple.com | GEnie: MAC.BIGOT | ALink:CHUQ =+= Editor, OtherRealms
	A real SF writur with stories in ALTERNATE KENNEDYS and THE 
	  FURTHER ADVENTURES OF BATMAN, in better bookstores now!

          Painted emblems of a race, all accurst in days of yore,
       Each from his accustomed place steps into the world once more.
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:25:42
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep2193344@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep3.144901.17279@news.nd.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu's message of Thu, 3 Sep 1992 14:49:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.144901.17279@news.nd.edu> slarsen@beethoven.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>Since the worst lines I've seen to women's rooms are sporting events, 
>concerts, bars, etc. [...]
>Why keep women waiting to use a 
>free toilet when you could be funneling them to drop some extra bucks
>at the vending areas?

Good point.  In fact, I often do not get a drink at, say, a concert or a
movie, in order to avoid the necessity of going to the bathroom.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: charter for alt.feminism
Date: 2 Sep 92 21:46:41 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep2102759@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> Here's the charter for alt.feminism, from alt.config.

> As was pointed out to me on this group, all thise does is *encourage*
> people to not flame.  Therefore, Al *snort* was incorrect in claiming
> that I had violated the charter of the group by responding to flames.
> In addition, the group is said to be for discussion of "issues related
> to feminism," and it seems that the posters to this group (the ones that
> flamed me, in particular) have definitely shown that they feel the the
> moderation of soc.feminism is an issue related to feminism.

> So, Al, your claims have no basis.  You'll have to try again to flame
> me, I guess.  Sorry to drag the real charter in...I see now why you
> refused to send it to me, since it did not support your claims at all.

Excuse me?  I "refused" to send it to you since it didn't support my claims?
But I told you where you could find it.  You are indeed a strange person.
I didn't send it to you, (you lazy bum), because it was already on your
system.

And if you actually read it, you'll find the charter specifies talking about
feminist issues.  Not issues about soc.feminism.  Your postings (as you are
so apt to tell others) "aren't relavent to feminism".  It doesn't surprise
me that you want to trash this group to prove that soc.feminism is really
needed.  You feel threatened.  Too bad.

Alt.feminism is here to stay and there isn't anything you can do about it.

If you continue to send me e-mail with swearwords in it, I'll send it back
to your system administrator.  I've met few people on the USENET that are
as childish as you.

You have been warned.

Al *snort*
From: bev@opusc.csd.scarolina.edu (Beverly Huntsberger)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 16:21:58 GMT

In <1992Aug31.125359.8131@NeoSoft.com> jbrandt@NeoSoft.com (J Brandt) writes:

>In article <1992Aug31.074439.20088@news.columbia.edu>, mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>> Eureka!  She is simply trying to anger women into an uprising so they will
>> o'erthrow the evil males!  Logic?  what logic? ...
>  
>Why would Dworkin's ideas "anger women into an uprising?"  IMO, there is
>germ of truth in her work in that SOMETIMES intercourse is used for
>political purposes.  If inequities in the workforce, in medical research,
>in the judicial system, etc. don't anger women enough to 'o'erthrow the
>evil males,' I can't see an academic treatise on sexual politics doing it.
>-- 
>Jaclyn Brandt
>jbrandt@NeoSoft.com
>--

	It seems to me that M. Green gets angry at the notion that
	an author might be considered valid to a group of readers
	by appealing to them on a level other than the purely logical
	or scientific. The result of not being able to "connect" to
	the author on these other (experiential, emotional, etc) levels
	is the obvious display of resentment.

	Bev
-- 
Bev Huntsberger		bev@grover.csd.scarolina.edu
			The University of SOUTH Carolina
Personally, I have nothing against incumbents.
I'm simply exercising my right to vote.
From: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism
Date: 30 Aug 92 03:55:05 GMT
Reply-To: Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Ministry of Silly Walks
Originator: lunde@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <PPESSI.92Aug29010610@vipunen.hut.fi> 
ppessi@vipunen.hut.fi (Pekka Pessi) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.070714.8897@news.acns.nwu.edu> 
Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu (Albert Lunde) writes:
>>Soc.feminism has an ftp archive on the machine which sends mail to the
>>moderators. I believe that this includes all submissions, rejected
>>or approved (barring techincal difficulties).  Therefore it is easier
>>to judge moderation policy on soc.feminism than most moderated groups.
>
>	There is no mention of this archive in the FAQ of
>	soc.feminism. If there was such an archive, I would be quite
>	irritated of this major source to "the Complete Stupidities of
>	Pekka Pessi". However, latest archives of soc.feminism in
>	ncar.ucar.edu dated April 1991. Is there later archives
>	somewhere?
>
>Note: 	Followup-to is set to alt.feminism.
>--
>Pekka Pessi	/	ppessi@niksula.hut.fi

Oops! I remembered reading about the archive from earlier in the days
of soc.feminism. I did a quick check that it was still online, but I did
not verify the range of dates.  I don't know if there is a later archive
or if it was discontinued.


-- 
 Albert Lunde         | Interfaith  |     *Y*Y*      "A branch on the
 Albert-Lunde@nwu.edu |  Bisexual   |      *Y*        tree of life"
 alunde@nuacvm.bitnet |  Feminist   |.......|.........................
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Unisex bathrooms
Date: 4 Sep 1992 00:10:44 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu


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

> spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>> I'm fairly certain men have 
>> considerably larger bladders than women, and therefore the
>> average man can take, if not a longer pee, then at least a 
>> more voluminous one, than the average women.
>
> I'm not just talking about the time to physically empty the bladder.

Fair enough.  If we assume that men and women have about the same
total renal output, and further assume that neither gender
pees with a greater rate of flow than the other, then men
and women should be spending the same cumulative amount of
time each day physically emptying their bladders.

> [differential analysis of dressing/undressing deleted]

I'll go along with this logic -- women need to take
more time at this.  This, combined with what I hypothesize
is a greater number of trips to the head each day for
women than for men, would create a greater demand for
women's facilities.

In any case, my vote goes for unisex bathrooms.

Steve
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Proposed Massachusetts legislation H.5194
From: briand@anasaz (Brian Douglass)
Date: 26 Aug 92 08:01:45 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az

In article <1992Aug24.151024.23081@athena.mit.edu> wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>Somebody mentioned Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon and the
>various pieces of legislation that they've proposed and advocated for
>around the nation... I thought I'd post for general viewing my copy of
>one of them, a virulent and evil (imho) proposed Massachusetts
>anti-pornography bill which, as far as I know, is still under
>consideration in the Mass. legislature.  As a side note, its primary
>sponsor, Democratic state representative Barbara Hildt, is currently a
>candidate for the U.S. Congress; the Demo primary will be held on
>September 15th, I believe.
>
>Any typos are mine, and I've reformatted things slightly in order to
>add some much-needed (imho) interline whitespace for readability.
>Other than that, what you get here is exactly what I got from the
>Massachusetts State House Documents Office on 4-16-92.
>

Clearly another attempt by politicians to legislate their morality upon
the populace.  If it's wrong when Jessy Helm or the Cincinnati City Council
try's it, how can it be right when Feminist try it?  

Government should that which the individual cannot do himself (Lincoln)

>  Section 1.  As used in this chapter, the word "pornography" shall
>mean the graphic sexually explicit subordination of women through
>pictures or words, including by electronic or other data retrieval
>systems, and shall further include the presentation of women's body
>parts, including but not limited to, vaginas, breasts or buttocks,
>such that women are reduced to such parts or the presentation of
>women:
>
>  (a) as dehumanized sexual objects, things or commodities;
>
>  (b) as sexual objects who enjoy humiliation or pain;
>
>  (c) as sexual objects experiencing sexual pleasure in rape, incest
>or other sexual assault;
>
>  (d) as sexual objects tied up or cut up or mutilated, bruised or
>physically hurt;
>
>  (e) in postures or positions of sexual submission, servility or
>display;
>
>  (f) being penetrated by objects or animals; or
>
>  (g) in scenarios of degradation, humiliation, injury, torture,
>shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding, bruised or hurt in context
>that makes these conditions sexual.

Any student of psychology will tell that there are people who willing
partake in all of the above.  And what was yesterday's pornography has the
strange habit of becoming today's art.  And item (e), would that have
banned Sharon Stone from spreading her legs while "submitting" to an
interrogation by all men?  

What crap all thought control is.

-- 
"... For I have sworn upon the alter of god, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  Thomas Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@ee.tut.fi (Sami Petteri Kiiskil{)
Subject: Re: Guys and Gals (was Re: Real world example)
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<=Ph-9dC@engin.umich.edu> <1992Aug24.165748.25298@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:49:05



In article <1992Aug24.165748.25298@midway.uchicago.edu> wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner) writes:

> 	However, since women seek to be as men, they would reduce
> the dramatic attractive effect of their particular physique with respect
> to males.  If the freedom goal were to continue with laws against
> coercion and inter-personal force, reproduction rights would become
> an exclusive market monopolized by women, unless men were to similarly
> 'castrate' themselves, or seek alternative methods of physical stimulation.
Are you mixing here reproduction with sex ?

> 	Thus, the goal of modern feminists is to make strict laws
> protecting interactive rights, attack conventional women, which
> increases supply, and sensationalize the act of consensual sex
> (marketing) with females.  Thus the demand for and control by females 
> physically increases.  Another goal is to eliminate any competing
> factors, such as physical excitement in addition tyo the aforementioned
> elimination of passive females. Men who wish to have families must thus
> pay in some form for the right to bear children.  The added factor
There is however another way. The methods for treating premature babies
are getting better all the time and from the other direction the methods
of artifical pregnation are getting more effective. After a few
decades it propably will be possible to reproduce completely without
women. There is also the method of selecting the gender of the baby by
centrifugal separation based on the different weight of X and Y chromosome.
Because social changes happen more slowly than technological, there should
be no big threat of the human race to disappear though women refusing from
pregnancy.

> of abortion now allows increased cutting of supply and thus increase
> in demand and marketable price for child-bearing, adding up
> to an increase in the estimation of women.


> 	To eliminate this 'slavery' I suggest that men not be illusioned
> into believing the sensationalization of sex, but rather that they
Sex is not vital for the survival of the species .It is also much
easier to deactivate sexual drive with surgical or chemical means than
to achieve a working artifical reproduction.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women's Studies
Keywords: Feminism
Date: 1 Sep 92 15:35:49 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| ...
| It gives me a warm feeling to know that I can be subjected to "male
| bashing" everywhere, but it is not personal. Obviously, I have no idea
| what either "men's" studies or "women's" studies must be about, as both
| seem to involve male bashing.  ....

I wonder if the term "male bashing" could be defined.  I get
the idea that some people feel that any reference to sexism or
patriarchalism is derogatory to all men.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:10:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Aug26.052545.12706@news.columbia.edu> mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Meir I Green) writes:
>In article <!+bn0_p.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug25.212641.24944@sfu.ca> probst@fraser.sfu.ca (Scott Probst) writes:
>>>In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>>>>
>>>how about the fact that most grad schools make no allowance for providing
>>>or subsidising childcare? 
>>
>>Curiously, here we have a case of equal treatment being given as a case
>>of blatant sexism. Would not this be -required- by the ERA.
>>
>>I am not making a value judgment here. And if the male student had a
>>child to care for, he would receive no extra funds or considerations.
>
>According to Al Gore, in an interview with MacNeil Lehrer, Pres. Bush vetoed an
>employer health/child-care act which would otherwise have been passed.  He
>stated that Bush did so because big-business interests are more important to
>Bush than family values.  I don't think this is as much an issue of sexism as
>it is the Republican party's sources of support--trickle down economics!

Ah yes, the "family values" president, -not-.
 
>By the way, speaking of equal rights, should desired pregnancy be put into the
>same category for health care as undesired illness?  Should pregnancy leave be
>subtracted from vacation time?
>etc?

The big problem here is that men and women are not equal in regards to
pregnancy. And I see no way that equal rights can be granted. We must still
care for our homes and families.

The above would seem to point out that "equal treatment" would be unfair
to one group or the other. I think that there needs to be some balance.
The needs for raising a child are well known. If they are allowed for
or subsidized, then there should be some compensation for those not
receiving the childcare subsidy.

When I was in the Marines, I found myself covering for the married guys
all the time. A thankless task which cost a great deal of my personal
time for which I receieved no comepnsation whatsoever. 
 
> * * * * *  =================== Internet address is  mig@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
>* * * * * * == Meir I. Green == Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@W2XO.PA.USA.NOAM
> * * * * *  = mig@columbia.edu= Amateur Packet Radio N2JPG@K2KJC.NY.USA.NOAM
>* * * * * * =================== Amateur TCP/IP       N2JPG@uhm.ampr.org     /EX

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: wag5@quads.uchicago.edu (john peter wagner)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminism
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:54:00 GMT
Reply-To: wag5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

Could someone explain to me what feminism is?
I don't think there is a generally accepted definition on the net.
So, if there is anyone who feels that they are representative or
truly understand what it is, please post the definition.

			J. Wagner
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: equality
Date: 26 Aug 92 06:35:53 GMT
Organization: Boogie Rats on Speed

In article <25AUG199211354714@vx9000.weber.edu> kkidman@vx9000.weber.edu (Kent Kidman) writes:
>
>Maybe the reason women aren't as fast as men (at least in the Olympics) is 
>that they have been discriminated against for so long that they are just 
>behind.  Maybe they will catch up if they are allowed to try.

Oh come *on* now! I got exactly the same training as my brother when we both
swam for USS. In similar events he kicked my butt, and believe you me, I
tried everything short of tying an anchor to his speedo, but to no avail.
Another pair on the team was the other way around, *she* kicked *his* behind.
I've competed against guys. It didn't really do much for me, timewise or
otherwise. 
 
>Kent Kidman                  kkidman@cc.weber.edu

   Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:05:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.211150.4550@unislc.uucp> chris@unislc.uucp (Chris DelPrete) writes:

>   Becky
>   Julie
>   Dawn
>   Linda
>   Mr. Bennett

This also is a reminder that it might be a good idea to totally
obliterate "Mrs." and "Miss" in the English language and only use
"Ms." as a form of respect.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Feminism & Women's Studies
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:57:39 GMT

aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:

...[explanations about how Al manages to keep his cool when women bash
men in general deleted]...

>...I have learned to not let my defenses
>get the better of me, because for the most part, in my experience
>anyway, sweeping generalizations about `men' usually are more or
>less true to a large extent.

Get a grip, Al. You really don't have to hate your own sex, and agree
with the bashing of men just because some women feel oppressed by men.

To get you back to reality, try this little exercise. In the quoted
sentence above, try replacing the word 'men' with 'women', or 'blacks'
or 'Jews'. Still feel it's a valid statement with these changes? No,
I didn't think so. Now for the hard part: why do you suppose sweeping
generalizations, especially negative ones, are true for men, but not
for other minority groups? 

Clue 1: take a good, long look at the values of your mother, sisters,
father, and brothers, if any. Whose values do you share, whom do you
respect, who do you think has been most influential in your childhood?

Clue 2: often the people whom we admire, whose opinions we value the 
most, are disturbed, angry, and controlling. Perhaps their views are
not as unbiased as we would wish our own to be.

Regards,
       H. Biesel


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Dworkin...
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 20:42:27 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

...[a lengthy defense of Dworkin deleted]...

>Hmmm...  So, if she is a fanatic, what then?  Instant dismissal of all
>her ideas?

Let's just suppose this is something other than a rhetorical device, intended
to portray the poster as biased and unable to disassociate his personal
distaste for the author and her methods from the alleged novelty of her
ideas.

Should we dismiss the ideas of fanatics? Can we in fact act in any other way, 
or should we strive to? Does the subject of the fanaticism have anything to
do with it? Should we perhaps listen carefully to the ideas of skinheads
on world trade and immigration, because these ideas may be new, or insightful,
and expressive of an injustice? John Brown, a fanatic by anyone's definition,
believed fervently in abolition. Does that make him any more right, his
ideas any more worth listening to, because slavery is an abomination?

Fanatics are terribly unbalanced people, driven to extremes of thought
and action. The fact they they are *loud* does not give them a right
to be heard, nor does their pain give them a claim to my attention. There
are plenty of people who suffer their pain with more grace and modesty; 
I'd rather attend to their needs first.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism