HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:31:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.230409.298@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>In this case, I'll have to side with Rini.  Sheaffer was ridiculing
>MacKinnon for even *bothering* to research the issue.  Now, it could
>very well be that the research will be fruitless.  But, then, that's
>MacKinnon's decision to waste her time.  She may very well be disappointed
>with the lack of evidence she finds.  I fully expect her to be.  But

No, I was ridiculing the claim that MacKinnon began to be the victim
of an apparently organized harassment as soon as she dared to investigate
the dreaded Snuff mafia.


-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: eating crow
Keywords: abortion
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:09:03 GMT

In article <1e17pfINN91k@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>In article <1dudmvINNhkj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>
>
>>By the way, Michal, I consider it offensive of you to make explicit
>>suggestions about what I do, don't do, should do, or shouldn't do 
>>in my sex life.  You went seriously out of bounds.  Apparently intentionally.
>
>I hoped you would accept my e-mail apology as sufficient.  But since you 
>have made your rebuff publicly, I shall have to apologise publicly
>as well.  I hope you will accept my intent to disagree in a more civilized
>fashion.


I posted this objection before we had any email on the topic.

I accept both apologies -- and I hope we can continue
with some civilized disagreement...  :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.culture.african.american
Subject: Are Whites Worse Off in the Deep South?
Followup-To: soc.culture.african.american
Date: 18 Nov 1992 02:28:47 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: kynok.ucs.ubc.ca

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >My observations of the pre-Civil Rights South were that
>| >the white people were psychologically worse off than the
>| >black people; this was consistent with many other observers
>| >I spoke to at that time, although I don't know of a
>| >quantified study.
>
>schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz):
>| As it happens a large body of research has addressed this question,
>| and the indisputable conclusion is that the black population suffers
>| from higher rates of total psychopathology and general negative
>| well-being.  In fact, the issue is not and never has been whether, or
>| even why, but rather what can and should be done to mitigate these
>| inevitable consequences of racism. ...

Gordon Fitch:
>I'm well aware of such
>studies, and in general I don't trust them.

Do you mean to imply here that your own casual assessment that white 
people are worse off is less biased and more valid than the independent 
consensus of over 20 research labs across the continent, and over 100 
professional psychologists and sociologists, in careful peer-reviewed 
research?

Perhaps you're suggesting that all these people are independently biased 
in the same direction, towards finding pretty much the same array of 
psychological disorders.  Do you consider relevant to this question the 
fact that black/white differences in psychopathology disappear when 
socioeconomic status is controlled in blind studies?

>My problem with these studies lies in their immateriality
>and the necessity of interpreting them with a preexisting
>theory which is likely to dominate the outcome of the
>interpretation.  If more women than men get the services of
>therapists, what does this prove?

I'm afraid this is a serious misunderstanding of the methodology of the 
research in question.  There's not a single study using such dubious 
methods to report the differences I mentioned. 

>Even the most materialistic epidemiology can be suspect.

And the higher mortality rates in blacks?  Infant mortality?  What 
exactly is suspect here?

>...even if a slave-owner were relatively less happy
>than his slaves, it would not make slavery right.

I'm afraid that this particular ethical question is not relevant to your 
assertion that white people in the Deep South are worse off than black 
people.

>By the way, the follow-up line, at least on the article
>that arrived here, was set to soc.culture.african-
>american exclusively.  How come?  Did you think we had
>wandered away from feminism entirely?

I'm not discussing feminism or gender, but rather your assessment that 
whites are generally, globally, worse off.  Cross-posted again and 
followups set to soc.culture.african.american (if readers there are not 
interested in this subject, I'm happy to desist).

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:04:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.221449.12257@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.015616.4142@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
[redundant attributes gone]
>>>>>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>          [men required "forced sex" of wives more often than the reverse]

Actually, Carol did not say "forced sex". She is partially quoted below.

>>>>>>>>Proof by stereotype, how compelling. 
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is hard to representative data for historical situations.  
>>>>>>              | (find)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Does not the "I think you will find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>>>>accomodating the husband" seem like a clear representative claim? But

*******************************************************************************
******I have had it claimed that a) women have the same sex drive as men,******
******and b) men more often want sex. The above seems more in line with (b).***
*******************************************************************************

>>>>>Not necessarily.  It could easily be that women and men wanted sex equally
>>>>>often; but that women were expected to perform when he wanted and she didn't,
>>>>>but not vice versa.

[tons mercifully executed, really, it was for the best]

>>>I am sorry to have confused you.
>>
>>There is more than enough confusion to go around. Look, it seems that
>>you might have gotten some on yourself. 
>>
>>>Disclaimer:  I have already said that I think men and women have equal sex
>>>drive, so please read carefully all the embedded disclaimers.
>>
>>Why, you still miss the original point, which is simple. 
>
>As I understand it, you contend that _equal sex drives_ would imply the same
>_frequency of "forced sex"_.

This is wrong, I have not made -any- contentions about -forced- sex. After
all the text that has gone back and forth, you still misrepresent what
I have said.

The original statements are surrounded by *****'s above. 

You are misstating my original statements. Why, I don't care, hows about
you just get it straight.

[rest deleted, based upon incorrect argument]
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com


PS < Go ahead ljf, claim that I am the one guilty of misrepresentation >


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:35:01 GMT

In article <BxwCD1.9pJ@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu 
(Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

>_COYOTE_ (sorry, I forgot what the acronym's for, but it's a
>feminist prostitutes' rights group), and so on.

Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics. 
=    =   =    =   =     =

Just FYI. 


--Barbara  



Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:42:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.085059.21174@fys.ruu.nl> johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.192410.2352@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.091322.4300@fys.ruu.nl> johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>>>In fact, I think it highly unlikely that the present Pope will ever
>>>allow women anywhere near the priesthood; he's likely to go for married
>>>(male) priests several aeons before he'll even think of women, no
>>>matter what the priest shortage. 
>>
>>This is trivially true as there are already married male Catholic priests.
>>Usually as a result of a priest from another denomination (e.g. Eastern
>>Orthodox, Anglican, or one of the others the Catholic church accepts as
>>legitimate) converting to Roman Catholicism.  They're not allowed to
>>remarry if their wife dies, but that's another matter.
>>
>And nor are they a self-perpetuating part of Catholicism; once that
>priest dies, his successor can't claim "right of marriage"! It will be
>interesting to see what happens if this breakaway group of Anglicans who
>want to join the Catholic church is allowed to join; will they be
>allowed to keep married priests, or will Rome insist on celibacy?

I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that those in the Byzantine rite
are still able to marry, even if ordained after the re-merge.
That's how the deal was explained to me, anyway.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:27:15 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini):

>Take tennis.  Without segregation by sex there might be a handful of women 
>competing on the circuit--it would be no where near the 50-50 it is today.

Very true.

>I don't know what the final alt.feminism definition of sexism ended up
>being :), but since Lendl is banned from trying to earn prize money in half 
>the tournaments because he's male, it probably qualifies.

Most sports also segragate according to age, and professional/amateur status.
Some segregate by weight (boxing and wrestling).  Some sports have special
events for wheelchair athletes (basketball, marathons).  Do you think that
all these distinctions are -isms?  (ageism, weightism, etc.)  Do you think
that this segregation is unfair?

rini

(BTW, I thought that the pro-BB women's league broke up in 1981... did 
they get back together?)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:05:57 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
:  
: >It is better than believing them blindly and without question. That is
: >often called religious dogma or "faith". 
: 
: Yes, I hate dogma too.  The irony here is that I found SI to be very
: dogmatic.  That was *precisely* my problem with it.  

Yep, it is the other side of the coin.

Bill "living on the edge" Nelson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 22:57:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.031110.17444@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <BxKz4M.5J7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1drm22INNgjk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?
>
>The state of Utah has passed a law which makes having an abortion
>illegal.
>
>A group (I think NARAL and/or ACLU) immediately challenged the law.
>In addition, they got an injunction against the law being implemented
>until the case is settled.

So, are you saying a woman in Utah does or does not have a right
to get an abortion?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:04:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.205845.10463@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>: 
>: What's interesting about this debate is that Robert Sheaffer writes
>: for the _Skeptical Inquirer_.  I thought those folks *liked* to
>: investigate things they suspected were false and *welcomed*
>: any evidence to the contrary.  (??)
>
>Certainly - how about presenting some evidence that is meaningful?
>Then, we will listen.

In this case, I'll have to side with Rini.  Sheaffer was ridiculing
MacKinnon for even *bothering* to research the issue.  Now, it could
very well be that the research will be fruitless.  But, then, that's
MacKinnon's decision to waste her time.  She may very well be disappointed
with the lack of evidence she finds.  I fully expect her to be.  But
I fail to see what harm it does.  It could be the best debunking
of the myth if one of its most famous proponents were to come forward
and admit that there's no evidence that there's a snuff film industry
killing dozens of women a year for prurient interest.  

>: (Of course, the reason I dropped my subscription to SI was that the 
>: rag shows the bias Sheaffer here illustrates.  It's easy, fun,
>: intellectually "pretty", and, most importantly, *effective* (IMO) 
>: to debunk paranormal (and other mythological) claims respectfully 
>: and scientifically. It was mildly irritating (IMO) to see them 
>: stoop to condescension and sneers.) 
>
>It is better than believing them blindly and without question. That is
>often called religious dogma or "faith". 

But there's a happy medium in between.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Date: 20 Nov 92 20:53:05 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: abortion, pornography

In article <jay.1.722047982@uuserv.cc.utah.edu> jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:
>As my first posting to this group, I would like to pose the following:
>
>	Why do feminists consider a woman's right "to do with her body what 
>she will" so basic when talking about abortion, yet so forien when the 
>subject is pornography?  How about prostitution, suicide, drugs, etc.?

Which "feminists" are you speaking of? The only "feminist" I 
know who is against women participating in or enjoying "pornography"
is Andrea Dworkin, who is IMO incredibly brain-damaged.

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 06:00:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.040242.18561@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com 
(Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.204644.23648@u.washington.edu> twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin) writes:
>>
>>Oh, exactly ... it was very obviously meant to be satirical.  
>>
>>What's *really* funny about it is Robert Sheaffer's utterly predictable 
>>response that it's a Politically Correct Feminist-Lesbian-Man-Hating 
>>CONSPIRACY!
>
>     So, Barbara, do you believe that it was written in 1894??????
>

I doubt it.  It was more likely written in 1896. 

Satire and parody aren't inventions of the 20th century.  (See Mark 
Twain, Alexander Pope, Jonathan Swift.) 

My comment, Robert, was addressed to your hysterical response that it 
had to be recent writing because it was man-bashing! phallic-sex-hating! 
(while of course it was nothing of the sort), and that *therefore* it 
had to have been inspired by <shudder> those conspiratorial FEMINISTS. 

It was a piece of writing that was specifically making fun of conventional 
notions of Victorian sexual mores. 

By *making fun* -- a concept you appear to have trouble with -- it was 
making the point that it is ludicrous to characterize either women's 
attitudes or men's natures this way. 

It wasn't bashing anyone.  Only a dummy would immediately leap to 
this conclusion. 


>-- 
>Robert Sheafferr
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics 

Kick you out for credulity, did they? 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Choice?
Summary: What choices do women deserve?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:53:02 GMT

As my first posting to this group, I would like to pose the following:

	Why do feminists consider a woman's right "to do with her body what 
she will" so basic when talking about abortion, yet so forien when the 
subject is pornography?  How about prostitution, suicide, drugs, etc.?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Lafave)
Subject: Re: Reverse -isms?
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 14:51:30 GMT


#mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
#
...  much  deleted  ...

#but I don't think it undermines feminism's basic analysis of 
#*institutionalized* sexism, which largely hurts women not men. And
#

  There is institutionalized sexism that goes both ways...  Which is greater?
I don't know.  The bottom line is it all hurts us all.   It hurts victims 
for the obvious reasons, and it hurts the perpitrators in the long run 
because it encourages their own stupidity.

Rich
 
P.S. Not meant to be a flame, just a comment/observation.
From: johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 17 Nov 92 06:04:18 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>This is a set of instructions to the new bride, written by the wife
>of a Methodist minister in 1894.

Can anyone confirm whether or not this is genuine?

J

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:46:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.210414.6486@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>I have problems reconciling the concept of a "women in a man's body" (or vice
>>versa) with the concept of sexual identity 100% assigned by social 
>>conditioning.
>
>As for myself, I have problems reconciling the concept of a "woman in a
>man's body" (or vice versa) with the concept of sexual identity 100%
>assigned by biology....

Very good, and completely irrelevant, since this was never a claim of mine.

Rini, is taking cheap shots all you feel up too?
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen)
Subject: Pornograpphy laws et al.
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:11:37 GMT

In article <13562@hans>, hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> 
> >S&M and Beastiality photos would be illegal pornography in Canada, that
> >is true. But then, a photograph of an exposed tit is also illegal
> >pornography in much of Canada.
> 
> If you believe this to be true, then you really don't know much about
> Canadian laws. Hell, we have exposed breasts on National television
> occasionally.

OOOHHHHH! To a European like me this stuff makes me curl up with laughter.
In Luxemburg there's a Show called Tutti Frutti, which is basically a 
televised audience-participation strip-show. Get to see *lots* of nude breasts
and more. Also here in the Netherlands, we have a couple of shows like
the Pin-Up Club and Club Verotique, which feature fully nude women, lots of
soft-focus-women-caressing-themselves-in-places-they-aren't-supposed-to-know-
they-have, young models and soft-sex. This show is quite popular, and is
shown on the Country's largest network at around 23:30. So, come to Holland
and learn.

> >How about some evidence that these national and international organizations
> >exist?
> 
> Well, A couple here in Ottawa was recently busted for distributing some
> illegal pornography. They found a rather large mailing list from all
> around Canada and the US, as well as some other evidence (I don't know
> what) that there were contacts with other distributors around NA. I
> didn't include this in the original post, because this is all by the
> words and interpretations of the local police.

I have even better evidence ( and proof ) and can even name some 
organisations. Here in Holland you can buy pornography at most large
petrol-stations. There's a Texaco were I live that even has some bestiality
mags. There's an Esso a little further up that cheaper though (no, not the
petrol) so I usually go there :-) How's that for an international 
organisation?

But then again, Holland is a country where you buy your marihuana at a 
coffee-shop, your porn mags & video's at a petrol-station and hamburgers at
an electronics store, so whadja want? 

--Ralph
Newsgroups: alt.feminism