HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ddw2@quads.uchicago.edu (the Reaper-Dave Wang)
Subject: The Beauty Myth - Is It Real?
Reply-To: ddw2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 21:14:05 GMT

Hello... I was wondering if anyone has read "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Wolf.

Do you agree with her statements and arguments?

OR do you agree with Camille Paglia that everything that Naomi says makes
	things like sex "Betty Crocker Time" -- all nice and fun but unreal-
	istic... therefore Naomi is guilty of being a white, uppermiddle class,
	academic feminist that is out of touch with reality and what real
	men are like!!

ddw2@midway.uchicago.edu

Write me an ACADEMIC response -- not an emotional one.
Thank you.
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Monday, 25 Jan 1993 03:43:14 EST
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
 <93023.062549RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <C1DE6p.7EC@news.cso.uiuc.edu>

-From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
-
-<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
-
->  However, I disagree with the sarcasm because it is true that there are many
->many ways in which men are treated unjustly in this society.  Anita Hill's
->concern with talk of pubic hair receives more attention than hundreds of
->thousands of men who are raped in US prisons every day.
-
-Should either issue *not* receive attention?

   They should, but let us ask.  Which issue is more serious?  I.e. is it
more of a violation to hear about pubic hair in a coke can or to be raped
day in and day out?

  And which issue HAS recieved more attention from American society?

   We all say that we are opposed BOTH to discrimnation against men AND women
but how dow we ACT?  Suppose someone says `I equally respect the need for
white and black children to eat'.  But when dealing with 50 hungry children,
25 white and 25 black, we discover that he has fed 20 of the white children
and only two of the black children.  Would we not call him a racist regard-
less of what he SAYS?

   There is sexism against both men and women in  American society, but
there is a great deal of action and enthusiasm, especially at the official
level, towards eliminating sexism against women.  There is very LITTLE
action and enthusiasm in official-dom towards eliminating sexism against
men.

   This is a reality.  There is a symbiosis between male politicians and
female voters on this issue.  Until men themselves become aware of this,
and they have help from the more reasonable women like you, things are
not going to change.

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 15:27:22 GMT

rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
|       ...
| 	To me, it's a given.  I have tested it.  Act kind, understanding--
| 	no chance.  Be self centered, aloof and somewhat cold?  They come
| 	at you like flys to garbage.

People can generally tell when someone is "acting."  It's
usually very off-putting.

-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: In Defense of Rich Payne (was: Violence)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:45:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.232257.13123@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes..
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>
>>>>That is not what she just said.  But I suppose its easy to make fun of
>>>>someone just after you stuff words in their mouth.
>
>>>Let the innocent poster cast the first stone. But in the act of casting
>>>said stone, one looses their innocence.
>
>>In a spellbinding, tour de force maneuver, here we see Rich deflecting
>>menial attacks on his integrity with the clear profundity and patient
>>understanding of Jesus Christ.   Why not answer the attack head on, you
>>ask?
>
>I recall that he *did* answer the attack head on, Rini.  Indeed, later
>on in your post, you quoted Rich responding to the charge by saying that
>he was *not* stuffing words in anyone's mouth!
 
In defence of -me-??? What an incredible concept. Thanx Steve.

Rini's post was such a masterful work of rhetoric <even though it was
actively incorrect in many places> that I thought it should stand on it's
own. It would have been easy to point out the flaws, but why bother. 

I thought it was an excellent illustration of how rhetoric can make up
for lack of substance. If rini uses smaller words, she may have some
future in politics. :^}

BTW, where -is- rini? She has not posted lately. I hope everything is OK.

[...---...]
 
>Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
>ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
>(416) 322-7876
>
>"Gravity: It's more than just a fragrance.  It's the LAW!"
>   - Will Steeves, President, GOiDS "R" We, Inc.
>
> * SLMR 2.1a * General failure error reading author's mind.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: What do you want?
Date: 21 Jan 93 01:27:46
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: grisha@athena.mit.edu's message of Thu, 21 Jan 1993 04:53:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.045327.2007@athena.mit.edu> grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:
>I've read a large number of articles in this newsgroup and
>I was compelled to ask this question to all feminists out there:

>Just what do you want? If you could, please explain it in calm
>and logical manner. I'm just curious.

Well, I want a nice house, with two floors, four or five bedrooms, at
least one fireplace, a bit of a yard, a hot tub, great water pressure,
and lots of other features.

I want the anti-feminists to explain things calmly and logically.

I want the woman I love to love me.

I want a nice stereo system for my SO.

I want a good job, where I get to do exactly the sort of work that I
want and get well-paid for it.

I want lots more, but that's a start...*smile*.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      |~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            | but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   | light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.| somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:22:07
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.93Jan20192740@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan22.084538.25911@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jenk@microsoft.com's message of 22 Jan 93 08:45:38 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.084538.25911@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
> Muffy, I agree...however, I would point out that "to fuck" doesn't
> necessarily mean "to penetrate". 

Well, that's the way it's generally used around here, as the shorter
form of "to engage in penetrative sex."

> Altho, if you're ever in seattle,
> we really *must* have lunch or ... -um- ... *something*

I'll keep it in mind...*grin*.  And, of course, if you ever come to the
Bay Area, please drop by...*smile*...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                      |~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            | but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   | light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.| somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Duck and Jive (was Re: Pre-Sex Contract)
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 00:41:51 GMT

I'm not interested in discussing welfare at this time,
especially when the argument is cast in the classical
terms which demonstrate that nothing I have said has
ever made any difference.  For example,

In article <728163383@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| ...
| Welfare women have more kids per woman than middle class women.
| ...

The last statistics I saw showed that the number of
surviving children per woman of a given income group
is positively correlated to income.  That is, rich
women have the most children and poor women the
fewest, in the United States, anyway.  If you have
other statistics, Hillel, please post them; otherwise 
we will be burdened by suspicions as to your respect 
for truth.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jhsu@dcl-nxt34.cso.uiuc.edu (Jason Hsu)
Subject: madonna
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:49:02 GMT

What opinions do most feminists have about Madonna and her latest book?   
Am I correct in my assumption that most feminists are offended by Madonna?   
If I am correct, why do only the right-wing Madonna critics get any  
publicity?  If I am wrong, what makes Madonna's sexploits cleaner than  
Andrew Dice Clay, the Swedish bikini team, and Penthouse?  Please e-mail  
me your responses.
From: michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: JPL Pasadena CA
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:20:40 GMT

In article <18110@umd5.umd.edu> jp776@macbeth.umd.edu (sregdoR .S treboR) writes:
>In article <C1BC9M.7zI@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>|       ...
>>| 	To me, it's a given.  I have tested it.  Act kind, understanding--
>>| 	no chance.  Be self centered, aloof and somewhat cold?  They come
>>| 	at you like flys to garbage.
>>
>>People can generally tell when someone is "acting."  It's
>>usually very off-putting.
>
>
>	Wrong, Gordon.  Most people are playfully simple to manipulate.
>

  As a former professional magician and a 15 year veteren of the 
advertising industry I have to agree. The greater majority of humans are
not the objective analytical creatures they imagine themselves to be. In
deed, that very self delusion makes them even more vulnerable to
misdirections. That's how we vanish the elephant, start wars, and sell
50 billion dolars worth of hair color and facial mud every year in 
this country. That's how certain vested political interests have sold
the idea that men are jerks.... even to some men.







-- 
Michael Rivero michael%neuron6@jpl-mil.jpl.nasa.gov
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7708 soc.women:23160
From: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:23:04 GMT
Reply-To: pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them

In article <1993Jan22.095536.1821@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>Well, for one thing, the _Humanist_Manifesto_ doesn't say much about 
>gender/sex roles or gender equality.

The modern one (Paul Kurtz et. al.) has some statements about gender equality.
Not much, though.

> [in other words, last I checked, the term is taken]

Some people have been using the term "equalist," but it's kind of an ugly 
word IMO.

-EMP
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 18:04:01 GMT

<RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>  However, I disagree with the sarcasm because it is true that there are many
>many ways in which men are treated unjustly in this society.  Anita Hill's
>concern with talk of pubic hair receives more attention than hundreds of
>thousands of men who are raped in US prisons every day.

Should either issue *not* receive attention? 
 
> There is a clear
>feeling behind this that men have to take the rough with the smooth and not
>think of their bodily integrity as something worth protecting, unless they
>want to be thought of as wimps.  Also we take an under-representation of women
>in the congress as prima facie evidence of discrimination against women but we
>do not take the preponderance of men in prisons as prima facie evidence of
>discrimination against men.  So there is a lot of sexism against men,
>practiced quite often by men against other men.

True.

>  A second point is that there are many feminists who do in fact detest men.

Not many on the net, or among my personal acquaintances.

>Feminists who do not share these hostile feeelings still do refrain from
>denouncing this man-hatred.

There are many denouncing this on the net, at least. (Check out a
discussion on this issue in rec.arts.sf.written; if anyone is interested
in the exact reference, please email me.)

>  My last point is however that there ARE indeed biological differences
>between men and women (of a statistical but very significant nature) and
>a plan for a good society that ignores these differnces is bound not to
>work and to create at least as many problems as it solves. 

Any plan that ignores individual *human* differences is bound not to
work.

There's an ancient Greek legend of a bandit, Procrustes, who had
a bed to which he tied unwary travelers. If they were shorter than the
bed he stretched them on the rack, thus killing them -- and he took
their money. If they were taller than the bed, he cut their heads off --
and took their money. (History does not record what he did if they were
exactly right.) 

Well, if Procrustes had had *two* beds -- one for men, and one for women
-- would what he did have been any better?

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: What a punishment...
Organization: New Mexico State University
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 23:49:35 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.93Jan25164709@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu
(David Steinberg) writes: 
>
>(note: For those who read talk.rape, I apologise for posting this
>twice.  But it seemed relevant to both newsgroups and I can figure out
>how to crosspost...)
That, of course, should have read, can't figure out...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"Swim with the cactus and      *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* Float with the stone.         * film major, when all I really      *
* I try to convey what          * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* She's trying to condone."     * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Inherent differences (WAS Re: Feminism is a RELIGION! (eureka!)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 12:08:43 GMT

In article <0eeZ02B333vf01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> jjh00@diag.amdahl.com writes:
)
)  levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
)>
)>Are you implying that there are differences in character between
)>men and women that are not just statistical, but almost universal?
)>(That is, more like, "men have beards," than "men are tall".)
)
)Unfortunately, I believe this is quite likely to be true.
)Recent studies show exceptional correlation between
)behavioral aggression and testosterone level --
)that ignoring gender, behavioral aggression tends to
)increase with increased levels of serum testosterone.
)Women with high testosterone are almost universally more
)aggressive than women with low testosterone; the same
)pattern is found in men.

I've always been very skeptical of such hormonal theories, and I still
am.  Do you have any references?

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7536 soc.women:22983
From: libwca@emory.edu (Bill Anderson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 23 Jan 93 04:04:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3


Mr. Name ( may I call you The?), you inform us that "95%" of all
feminists hold "a core set of beliefs," with which you vehemently
disagree; and yet, aside from all that paranoid bullshit about
how good women had it in The Olde Days (which makes me wonder if
you've ever read even a page of any book about... well, anything),
the only specific element of this hideous doctrine that you've
mentioned is that men should pay child support.  If you plan to 
hold feminists to this rigid standard, perhaps you should tell
us exactly what this "core set of beliefs" comprises, so that we
may debate your point in an informed fashion.
I've known quite a large number of people who call themselves
feminists, and aside from a concern with issues affecting women
and a desire to remove barriers to equality between the sexes, I
can't think of a single element common to the viewpoints of all
these people.  Hence my curiousity over what actually is required
by this creeping conspiracy of harridans- obviously, some of my
friends are going to have to be informed that they're out of the
club, and I need to know which ones.    
Thanks ever,
Bill

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7560 soc.women:23002
From: jp776@macbeth.umd.edu (sregdoR .S treboR)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 24 Jan 93 01:00:52 GMT
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park

In article <C1BC9M.7zI@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>|       ...
>| 	To me, it's a given.  I have tested it.  Act kind, understanding--
>| 	no chance.  Be self centered, aloof and somewhat cold?  They come
>| 	at you like flys to garbage.
>
>People can generally tell when someone is "acting."  It's
>usually very off-putting.


	Wrong, Gordon.  Most people are playfully simple to manipulate.



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 04:26:17 GMT

In article <1jsubmINNlh8@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:
>
>>Funny how a WOMAN isn't too concerned about false accusations, which 
>>means an innocent MAN is procecuted!  This seems like the wrong approach to 
>>getting people to listen to true accusations.  (sounds like a witch hunt)
>
>Funny how most women are more concerned that rape trials are such an 
>unpleasant process for the plaintiff that most rapists are never brought
>to court.

Care to substantiate this in some fashion?

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


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:37:45 GMT

In <1993Jan20.152056.28080@news.uit.no> roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:

>Which means that a man even being invited by a drunk woman to have 
>sex should think twice. Isn't that common sense? Not _only_ 'cause she
>can file a rape-complaint, but because she is drunk. 

Besides that, if she's drunk, you do not have any way of knowing where she's 
been and with whom.

There is a name for this line of reasoning; it is called "being a gentleman."  

A good example of this is from the movie "The Philadelphia Story," when
Jimmy Stuart explains to Katharine Hepburn why he didn't sleep with her
the night before: "You were very attractive.  But you were also the
worse, or the better, for wine, and there are rules about those
things."

But that movie is is from the 40's; we all know that such sentiments are
extremely outdated and completely worthless, don't we? [sarcasm off]

Beth
-- 
". . . but if the will to walk is there, He is pleased with their
stumbles."    		--C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 02:12:51 GMT

In article <1993Jan17.014306.7372@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>In article <1993Jan15.182148.7154@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>	Ahem.  Anyone who truly believes that women seek "nice, sensitive
>>	guys" for their mates is seriously deluded.
>
>OK.  Let's define what "nice, sensitive guy" means...
>
>I am a woman and I wanted a "nice, sensitive guy".  I've dated self-centered
>jerks and as I matured and came to care more about my own "quality of life"
>(yep - it's, arghhh, SELF-ESTEEM!), I quit seeing the self-centered jerks
>as better-than-me-and-therefore-desirable, and saw them as self-centered
>jerks not worth wasting my time on.


	How old were you?

	This is precisely my point.  I accept that women change *after*
	they age, but the fact is, young women actively seek out the
	abusive, until they mature and get a little self respect 
	(say, age 28 to 30, earlier for some, later or never for others).

	Men have a different fixation (for which we tend to take a lot
	of heat).  What you fail to realize is that after spending all of
	this time training us to be a certain way, you up and change the
	requirements for what you're looking for.


	And then have the gall to be angry that the only nice guys left
	are those that were shy.

	To me, it's a given.  I have tested it.  Act kind, understanding--
	no chance.  Be self centered, aloof and somewhat cold?  They come
	at you like flys to garbage.


>"senstive" means they constantly question decisions, "Are you sure you
>want to do ______?"  Overly insecure men ARE NOT attractive to most women.


	Are you sure this isn't because they're paranoid about false
	rape charges?  Other things?  (For one, I've had, and my friends
	have gone out with many a lousy date--never has it really gone
	beyond the immediate in-group.  With women, on the other hand, 
	I've seen guys crucified in "passing the news" conversations..) 



>Yamanari, what qualities do you look for in a woman?  What is you concept
>of the ideal relationship - for you?  How do you expect to be treated?
>How do you expect to treat your partner?


	This is not relavent to the issue, and belongs in email anyway.
-- 
	Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape trials are an assault 
        	on out civil liberties.  Support equality, not revenge. 
 ---  boycott == coercion == censorship == closed mindedness == cowardice  ---
	Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 21 Jan 93 23:12:07 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

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

Yawn.

Actually she says it tastes more like Lymon(c). And thank the Good Lord
for heterosexual passion. Good, solid design work Yaweh!

;^)
-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism