HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:38:10 GMT

In article <718941241@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.221249.20646@panix.com> 
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>>The part of the ordinance I saw simply stated that
>>pornography caused rape and other forms of harm.  I would 
>>like to see MacKinnon's reasoning, but I didn't see any.  
>
>So learn to use a public library.

I've read some of MacKinnon's writings.  I haven't seen much evidence
of reasoning, either.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:08:51 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <718918204@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.150249.27832@das.harvard.edu> 
 stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:

>>The Bush Administration has failed to do right...
>>
>> [Clinton will...]
>>
>>*  Crack down on deadbeat parents by reporting them
>>   to credit agencies, so they can't borrow money
>>   for themselves when they're not taking care of
>>   their children.  Use the Internal Revenue Service
>>   to collect child support, start a national
>>   deadbeat databank, and make it a felony to cross
>>   state lines to avoid paying support.
>
>One more example of what feminists mean by choice - crack down on 
>deadbeat dads, no matter why they don't pay.   

I trust that you didn't miss that this said deadbeat PARENTS.  
But sure, yes, I'll give it to you:  *most* of the deadbeat 
parents are men. :) 

BTW, did you hear in the debates who said "we need to crack down on 
deadbeat dads"?  Yes, it was Gorgie boy.  (I didn't know he was
a feminist!)

>Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:47:02 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>>Please reconsider your stance that someone who is raped should be considered
>>partially responsible.  The rapists (and the society that releases them 
>>to rape again) are responsible.  Never the victim.
>
>I cannot do this and stay consistent with my philosophy. Sorry. 

Yes, it's clear it's your philosophy.  Maybe you should put down that Richard 
Bach and pay attention to the real world.

Now I'm just curious: do you think that those people who were killed in that
apartment building when that big jet flew into it were responsible for 
their deaths?  (They choose to live in a high-rise near an airway?)
 
I just want to get an idea of what "responsibility" means in DaveWorld.  
That should give us some perspective on this.

rini
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 16 Oct 92 04:19:00 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct14.165802.27866@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| >
>| >But those issues of _Ms_ that I have seen
>| >have generally contained diverse viewpoints.  That sort of
>| >thing seems to confound anti-feminists,
>
>schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>| And why does it not confound pro-feminists?  

I guess it had to happen. The invention of "anti-feminists" begs the existance
of "pro-feminsits". Oddly, the only thing missing is actual feminists.

>                                              If the 'good'
>| viewpoints are arguments in favor of feminism, then aren't
>| the 'bad' viewpoints arguments against it?
>| 
>| Saying the glass is half-full seems a pretty left-handed way
>| to defend feminism.
>
>[ sigh ]  Feminism is not a boilerplated, monolithic ideology
>or political movement.  It is what St. Augustine called a
>community of affections.  

Good so far, although this will make it terribly difficult
for "anti-feminists" to find a target, will it not.

Why is it that the things you support seem to be undefinable?

>                             That is, most people who would
>describe themselves as feminist would tend to be interested
>in similar things and have similar outlooks.   But there is
>no set dogma or creed or membership requirement or central
>authority.  I would think this would be obvious.

Similiar interests and similiar outlooks, but still no set of
ideas which define one as a feminist? I'd say that there are
several different "dogma"'s, rather than none at all.
 
>If you look in this newsgroup (or others) at anti-
>feminist articles, you will find a consistent attempt to
>treat feminism as monolithic, as a method of attack.  

Gee, here we see a clearly directed discussion about Dworkin,
ManKinnon, and those feminists ideas which trouble many of us. That
you continue to label this, as above, as an attack on all feminism
is a measure of your own blindness and dogma. 

>                                                         That
>way, marginal material can be used against the whole project,
>quoted out of context if necessary.  Just look around.

Prove it!  Like you can...  It should be easy, "Just look around".

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2473 soc.men:17639
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:50:28 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <MUFFY.92Oct9095132@anableps.berkeley.edu> muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.084417.18720@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>Yeah, here it is again, Playboy as Rorshach test. Your
>>"examples" don't describe Playboy at all, Muffy. All your "examples"
>>show is that you must never have read the magazine.
>
>I've probably read 2-3 dozen issues of it.  Perhaps your experience of
>it is wider, but I *have* read it.

	Then why does your description bear no relationship to the
contents of the magazine? Playboy has consistently, since its inception,
confined its jackoff material to its photo spreads. It simply doesn't
publish the kind of stories you describe, though plenty of its
competitors do. I can only judge your familiarity with Playboy by what
you write. And when what you write bears so little resemblance to
reality, I suspect someone's trying to force a conclusion.

>>It's still all
>>"context": your own attitudes, and those of our culture, toward sex.
>
>My attitudes towards sex?  *laugh*...I think sex is great, and that
>there should be a lot more of it, and a lot more depcitions of it.

	I never said otherwise. Nor meant otherwise. I've read enough of
your posts in a variety of groups, to know you're not Mrs. Grundy. 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". People's powers of discrimination go on holiday when
confronted with _kinds_ of material they don't care for: rock and roll
all sounds alike to people that don't like rock and roll; Chinese food
all tastes alike to those who don't like Chinese food. The point being,
it's an entirely subjective evaluation.

>> Redefining "Playboy" to mean
>>"everything that's wrong with American sexual attitudes" is not a game I
>>care to play. What do you get out of it?
>
>Really?  You're the only one that is doing it around here - you're just
>then trying to palm that attitude off on me.  I talked about *BOTH*
>Playboy *and* what was wrong with American sexual attitudes.  I did
>(and do) *NOT* equate the two.

	Gordon equates them, and you seemed to think you were agreeing
with him. Don't ask me to read your mind.

	The only "specifics" about Playboy you mentioned in your last
article were either subjective, or simply wrong. I doubt we have any
serious disagreement, frankly; I wonder if you realize this, is all.
And if you hadn't brought up fictional "specifics" about Playboy I'd
have taken your post for what you probably intended it to be, a
complete digression from the original subjects of MacKinnon and
Playboy, and not responded.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:19:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| > I said
| > that MacKinnon and _Playboy_ favor more restriction on freedom
| > of expression than I do.

Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
| Will you give me examples of expression that _Playboy_ would rather you
| not be free to make, but which you would rather be free to make?

I don't believe in libel and copyright restrictions, at least
not as they're presently constituted.  I suspect _Playboy_ has
a more restrictive view on copyright than I do.   Also, I 
recently posted a little story in which people working for 
_Playboy_ allegedly attempted to get the law after some nude 
demonstrators, which I would not have, but I can't confirm 
that that really happened or that, if it did, it represented 
a corporate attitude.  We have to guess on that one.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Womens'" magazines
Date: 16 Oct 92 15:48:46 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory

I agree that most "women's magazines" are just as offensive as
"pornographic" magazines, just in a slightly different way.

I think the most dangerous thing about "women's magazines" is the
mixture of conflicting messages they send to the women that read them.
In the same magazine, you can often find articles on delicious dessert
cooking, why/how to lose weight, careers, how to get a man, how to be
a modern woman, how to keep a man, how to know if your man loves you,
how to tell if he is having an affair, etc. etc.  Add to that all of
the ads that only feature very thin and heavily made-up models, and
you get a publication that makes me go nuts.

I used to read these kinds of magazines because I enjoyed them, much
like I enjoy TV or popular novels.  At some point, I made a conscious
decision to stop reading them because I found that they made me feel
bad about myself.  (Haven't been able to stop watching TV, though :-)

There are some great publications by and primarily for (feminist)
women, and I have been reading them instead: Ms. Magazine, Lilith,
Sojourner, etc.

All this being said, I do not think that one can defend pornography by
merely saying that women's magazines are bad too!  I don't like the
idea of censorship, but if everyone were suddenly to decide that they
didn't want to buy pornographic magazines and the industry went away,
I would not be unhappy.  Not that this seems likely!

--Cindy Blank-Edelman
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 19:59:41 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>So are you saying that it is *legal* to print and sell libelous material?
>>*Legal* to print and sell copyright infringments?  
>
>To censor is to prevent production/distribution.

So are you saying that child porn is uncensored?  (It is both produced
and distributed.)

>>(I know for sure it isn't legal to print and sell child porn in the US, 
>>so there is *some* censorship in our country, right?)
>
>Yes, that is censorship. 

Oh, no, I guess not.  So child porn *is* censored, even though it is both
produced and distributed.  So how do the laws that are meant to censor 
child porn differ from the laws which are meant to censor libellous attacks?

(I'm geniusly curious here.  I *want* to be able to deflect attacks like
Gordon Fitch's.)

Do you have a problem with the dictionary definition of censor (verb):
"to alter, delete, or ban completely AFTER EXAMINATION" (emphasis
mine)?  That *seems* to be to similar to the idea of the laws against
libel.  We examine it, we see if it is libellous, then we can stop
the offending party from continuing to disseminate said statements, right?
I still don't see the difference.  Can anyone else help?

>>You might be on the right track...  convince me...
>
>We still need to talk about your flame posts. Perhaps in email. But
>I have seen very little of anybody being convinced of anything, anywhere
>on the net, not just here. It is not generally what I would consider
>a reasonable goal.

Pardon me for having an open mind.  

So, I'm curious:  why do you post if you're not trying to convince us 
of something?

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:49:55 GMT

In <1992Oct14.171300.28434@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:


>Hey, if you can't stand the rough give-and-take of an
>alt group, maybe you should post to soc.feminism.  It's
>moderated, and personal attacks aren't allowed.

Some people who have followed the recent thread on female warriors and gender
myths on soc.feminism feel that this claim has been thoroughly debunked.

Ken
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Al)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 13 Oct 92 17:54:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
Let me restate what I've been saying.  You added lude and rude comments
to this guy's post at the part where he offered *advice*.  By doing that,
you suggested that giving advice is stupid.

No, not at all!  I think you are projecting! ;-)

You are taking this far too seriously.  I realize that Gordon's Barracade
Binary Thinking [tm] applies in this group most of the time and that
"Myn Bad/WomYn Good" applies most of the time too, but that wasn't my point.

If you want to make this into an "Evil Al" posting a la:

>But no, you just go into some tirade about the size of his dick.

well, then so be it.  I appologize for having shocked you.

>As a side note, I have had friends who not followed my advice and gone
>on paths that I thought were stupid (like drugs). 

>And, yes, evil slob that I am, I have even
>let those friends drift away, 'cause I couldn't take it anymore.

There's a big difference between having drifted away from a person because
their behavior can't be reconciled and "dumping" them because they "fucked"
the "wrong" person (i.e. not YOU).

>Oh, I suppose you were really helping out this guy by calling him a pussy?

Helping him out?  Yea, in a way.  I didn't think of it as helping him out,
but you could call it that.  I'm putting him on notice that abusing people
is bogus.  I gave him a good example of how it feels to be abused.

But mostly I called it as I saw it.

It is FUN though, watching you defend him!  The Binary Thinking concludes
that if I take one position, you MUST take the other.  Maybe Gordon has
something after all!

>Yeah, it's not very nice, I agree.   It's not ideal.  If you raised a
>POINT in your original post, maybe we would be talking about THAT,
>instead of how rude you are.

If *that* was what all of this was about, you would have sent me e-mail.

We both know it's not.

Al
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 11 Oct 92 22:53:30 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
of males! It is NOT about reducing the fundamental human rights of
men and it is NOT about making women the "dominant" sex. It IS about
reducing those so-called "rights" of men that have infringed on
the human rights of women (the "right" to rape your wife, the "right"
to be promoted ahead of child bearers....) - but a desire to make 
things fair is not, I think, to be equated with *hatred*!

In every political movement there are those that may be termed more
"extreme" - but noone thinks all gay men are transvestites, and noone
thinks that all blacks are crack dealers... so why should all feminists
be portrayed as man haters because of an extreme few?


I feel the need to be a feminist - not through any hatred of the male
sex, but through a desire to see my own sex treated fairly. And if in
doing this I take a job that once a man would have had, or even just
tell a man to go to hell for harrassing me, is this a sign of hatred?
Or is it just me sticking up for my personal rights as anyone should be
encouraged to do?


	Carol
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: AAAgain (was: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims))
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:22:14 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

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?

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
| 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?????

You're avoiding the question.  For all we know, the women
work as hard as the men do, if not harder, and are just as
ambitious.  In fact, in the little universe I've been
talking about they do work harder and are more ambitious. 

The simple fact is that, in this company, they would not
have gotten a chance to be managers if it had not been for
strong AA pressures put on the management -- not in their
specific case, generically.  While these pressures are not
being exerted directly now, the corporation is well aware
that they are in the wings and takes care to avoid the
appearance of prejudice against _anybody_ (including 
middle-aged white males, by the way).  They have a whole
structure of supervision for such things.

According to you, this was and is wrong.  Now, should this 
"wrong" be "righted"? This time, don't evade the issue by 
talking about whether the women "really" want the jobs or 
not.  That was the line the management used in the old 
days.  It didn't hold up in court, and no one believes it 
any more.  Except you, maybe.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 12:30:13 GMT

TJ Wood (tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu) wrote:
: In article <1b2as1INN366@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
: 
: > 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 certainly hope that *that* clears all of this confusion up!

Not sure.

EG.

Q: What is the technical term for the useless piece of flesh around the
penis. ?


A: The Male.

Or is being useless something one does, rather than is ?
Hm, perhaps so.  I'm sure most men are far more capable around the house
than we let on. :-|

        Ben
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Repressed Memories, Ruined Lives
Date: 16 Oct 92 06:17:58 GMT
 <1992Oct15.033758.20465@netcom.com> 
 <1992Oct15.055046.759@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>  <13258@hans>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <13258@hans>
hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:

> When will people
> learn that rape is a crime of CONTROL, not of sex.

When will people learn that the real world is more complex than this,
and that generalities about motivations of real people are destined to
be wrong a significant portion of the time.
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Who speaks for feminism?
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:39:28 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct10.031002.326@news.wesleyan.edu>, RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg) writes:

> I.  Who's A Real ... ?

> The question, "Who's a *real* feminist?" is exceeded in discussion only by the
> question, "Who's a *real* Jew?"  The latter never prevented one whit of
> anti-Semitism, & the former never prevented one whit of misogyny.  Focusing
> attention on this sort of question is divisive, diversionary, and itself a
> tactic of oppression.

Well, let's change it then!  Try "What is a *real* feminist".  Or what is
"feminism"?  If this is alt.feminism, that must be a legitimate topic for
discussion.

> II.  alt.?huh?

> Why is this newsgroup named "alt.feminism"?  It seems more like
> "alt.Muffy.bashing" to me.  Muffy: you ought to consider yourself complemented; 
> you draw more commentary than most authors see in their lifetimes.  It means
> people take you seriously.

Muffy is fun, what more is there to say?

Terry "accused MUFFY basher" Wood
-- 
        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