HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:04:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.093136.4738@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>So, what the hell is going on?  If rape is happening at these rates,
>something is terribly wrong with our society.  How do we stop this
>violence?

Certainly not by banning pornography!  If we're going to fund
sociologists with our taxes, we might as well listen to what they
say, after all.

In my opinion, urban decay and inner-city poverty are mainly the
cause of predatory rape.  And our hopelessly repressed, puritanical,
guilt-ridden approach to sex is largely responsible for acquaintance
rape.

If you can do something about these, put your name on the presidential
ballot!

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:26:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.155313.28270@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> 
>>Action taken after the fact is not censorship. To censor if to filter
>>and allow only PC material through. If porno was censored, then it would
>>not be legally printed or sold. That is, to sue for libel is not to
>>censor, because the libelous <whatever> has already gone into the
>>public domain. It's the difference between a while loop and an until
>>loop.
>
>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.

Libel can only happen if the libelous material is printed -and- distributed.

--

Censoring happens -before- distribution.

Libel can only happen in uncensored material -after- distribution.

This is what I am saying.
 
>(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. And as far as I know, this is about the only
form of censorship most will agree too. But sadly, the news still
has many cases of child molestation. I have a theory of how this came
to be, but it is not really on topic. 
 
>>>>>and some forms of harassment.  
>>>>
>>>>What does harrasment have to do with playboy or censorship?
>>>
>>>Some forms of harassment, which could be considered forms of
>>>expression, are illegal.
>>
>>These still happen after the fact.
>
>This distinction seems slightly weird to me.  Things have to *exist*
>before they can be censored.  You could never censor porn until *after*
>the possibly offended item was produced, right?

How is this wierd. If you hit me, you have assaulted me. But if you 
hit me -after- I hit you, then I have assaulted you and you have
defended yourself. The difference is the same `before` and `after`
as above, surely you can see the difference.
 
>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.
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 8 Oct 92 13:10:56 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>Only those businesses whose highest priority is to earn a *profit*.
>They'll hire whichever qualified candidate is willing to do the
>work for the lowst pay. And if, as Warren Farrell points out, women
>*really were* (as in the fairy tale) paid 59 cents on the dollar
>for doing the same work as men, then corporations EVERYWHERE would be
>dumping overpaid men on the streets, and hiring women in their place.

This arguement assumes that men and women who are equally qualified are
PERCEIVED as equally qualified. This is the arguement for AA, that
companies given a woman and a man who have equal qualifications will
hire the man because they PERCEIVE him to be better qualified. You
still hear some of the 'logic' as to why the man is better: "He won't
get pregnant and leave me hanging", "she won't be able to work as hard
as he because she has kids to take care of", etc. (All bogus but still
being argued).

And AA doesn't HAVE to be evil if it is implemented properly. What if
it is implemented as "Company A must hire at least (x-y)% of women for
jobs in profession B", where x is the %of women in profession B as a
whole and y is some adjustment factor to account for variation in the
amount available at this time. And I say "Company A" because I believe
that AA should only be imposed as a last resort on those companies who
have been shown to discriminate in their hiring.

-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Date: 16 Oct 92 01:57:02 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <23009@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>Sinead Update
>
>Singer reveals why she tore up the photo of the Pope.
>
>Sinead O'Connor, in her fires comments since teaaring up a photo of the pope
>on "Saturday Night Live," says what she's _really fighting_ is child abuse.
>
>In a statement, the Irish singer accused the Vatican of distoring histoy and
>said ignorance of history "has resulted in the highest manifestion of the
>disease of child abuse, which is also the root of all evil."

My theory has similiar results, but by different means. There is a big
(covered up) problem with priests molesting children. It just is not
proper to say bad things about a  'man of god', so these things get
covered up.

Now studies have shown that most child molesters were themselves molested
as children. (who is the victim here? I think both). In other words,
it is not a natural behavior to have sex with children, but a learned
behavior.

I thought about how this could start (since it seems to be self-perpetuating).
The only factor that I have come across is priests who have taken chastity
vows molesting children.

This is the best theory that I have been able to come up with, but I
am not willing to fight it tooth and nail to the bitter end. Feel free
to disagree, or add more information better yet.

But I think that this could potentially explain the problem.

Then again, maybe that is what she was referring to.
 
>"That is what we need to fight and why I am fighting.", she said.

Unfortunatly, our current method of 'fighting' the problem seems to
be by way of blaming the victim.
 
>At the end of the Oct 3 show, O'Connor tore up a photo of Pope John Paul II
>and said, "Fight the real enemy."

Maybe she -is- on the right track.
 
>Extracted from the Press Enterprise.
>
>starbuck


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2364 soc.men:17583
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: movin
Date: 10 Oct 1992 21:40:28 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>DB> The "excessively restrictive" portion of Pennsylvania's law was struck down:
>DB> the husband "notification" requirement that was, in essence, "permission."

>Are you sure of this, Don?  Since you are from Pa., would it be possible for
>you to take a jaunt to the office of your nearest legislator, and pick up a
>copy of the original law, especially the notification provision.

>My understanding was that it was notification-only - *not* permission or even
>"permission in disguise".  Could you please clarify this for me?

I'd like to know about this too.  In particular, I'd like to know
whether the law applied only to husbands(as opposed to unmarried 
parthers).  If so, did it depend on whether they were married at
the time or conception, or at the time of the abortion?  Thanks from
me too.

						--  Michal
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 11 Oct 92 13:03:55 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| >> 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?

muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
| >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.

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

That's not correct.  I said that _Playboy_ exists in a
context of certain attitudes about sex.  Those attitudes
could be projected into its contents, unless it explicitly
challenged them.  Is this too subtle?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:25:38 GMT

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>I think Muffy's point was that all the Bunnies look similar and this is
>>consistent with the general opinion in our society that women have to
>>look like a Bunny to feel good about their sexuality.  
>
>	Sorry, I guess I still don't get it. Sure, I suppose I feel bad
>that some women don't have a good self image. I also feel bad that
>sunshine can give you sunburn, and that I won't live forever. But I
>don't spend much time bemoaning the inevitable.

I try not to either. 
 
>	Some people just don't know _how_ to be happy, Rini, because
>they think it's something outside of themselves that they have to locate
>and obtain. 

Yeah, sad isn't it?

>Beauty myths aren't the problem. I doubt the correlation
>between happiness and good looks is any better than the correlation
>between happiness and wealth, which ain't very good. A fulfilling sex
>life with a caring partner will do far more than a hunk's or playmate's
>body for anyone's sexual self image, and neither wealth nor good looks
>seem to be necessary for that.

I agree completely.  Except that beauty myths (like wealth myths) are
a problem in so far as they promise what they cannot deliver. 

>	My gripe is not with sad but obvious truths, but with the Blame
>Game, as played by MacKinnon and others: "Blame the angels, blame the
>fates, blame the Jews or your sister Kate". Or blame Playboy or porn for
>violence against women, or breast implants, or anorexia. 

I hate that too.  (Although sad but obvious truths, like cancer, sexism,
and Bad Things in general, *are*, IMO, worth fighting against.)

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2673 soc.men:17835
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Anti-Feminism (was: Re: Who speaks for feminism?)
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:25:22 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

[Bronis V. thinks anti-feminist a vague term]

When I use the term "anti-feminist" I refer to people who
overtly and consciously attack feminism and feminists as
such -- not just anybody who happens to hold views different
from, or contrary to, those usually taken to be feminist.
The attackers are usually pretty indifferent to differences
or contradictions within feminism, as witness the recent
discussion about "censorship."
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Anita Hill Remembered During Candlelight Vigil
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:48:33 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

The PITT NEWS reports, in the Oct 13th issue, that Anita Hill was remembered
by candlelight vigil on Sunday by the Campus Women's Organization.

"About 40 students attended the candlelight vigil honoring Anita Hill's
courage during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings", writes Kelly B.
Casey, Photography Editor of the PITT NEWS.

The vigil began with the reading of part of Anita Hill's testimony:

        "I am here to tell the truth.  I don't want to spend the rest of
        my life fearing this man".
        

One of the events during the vigil was a reading of a poem by an unidentified
woman.  The poem reads:

        I am a vitim of sexual abuse,
        I didn't ask for it,
        I didn't solicit it,
        But I got it.

        I was six.
        
The poem repeats, with only the last line changing from "six" to "seven" to
eventually "fifteen".

Then the poem concludes:

        I'm 23, I've lived with this for 18 years;
        I still don't know Anita Hill,
        But I do know her pain.
        

Another student, with tears falling down her cheeks, spoke about her
experience when she joined the all-male Pitt debate team.  Some of the
members told her she was worthless and could not debate and that they
would leave her behind if she held them down.  She said that she admired
Anita Hill for not quitting, as she had quit the debate team.

Men attended the vigil too.  One said he had an "enormous feeling of
depression and anger about my own gender".


The NEWS also reports that the Campus Women's Organization got the idea
for the event from "Off Our Backs" magazine.


If you are interested on more on this story, check out the full front page
article in the Tuesday, October 13th edition of the PITT NEWS.


Two other articles, written by John Temple, staff writer for the PITT NEWS,
may be of possible interest to alt.feminism readers, appear on the front page
as well.

One details assults of students and police officers by an unidentified man
at a party near campus.  Several men suffered injuries including lacerated
necks and broken noses.

Another details the attempted rape of a woman who signed an intoxicated man
into her dorm room as an overnight guest.  The man made sexual contact with
the woman against her wishes.  Later, when asked to leave, the man left.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:46:14 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

#|
Gordon:
In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms
a bit.  For example, _Playboy_ is "against censorship"
when it comes to suppression of certain kinds of sexual
material, but is probably "for censorship" when it comes
to libel

Rich [Payne]:
libel n.  1. A written, printed, oral, or pictoral statement that damages
             by defaming a persons character or reputation.

Hmmm, don't see anything here about censorship. Libel is about reputations.
I'd like to point out that as far as I know, to win a lawsuit for libel, the
statements, etc... must be false. You can libel all day long. But you may
have to explain to some judge why you should not pay damages and print
some sort of retraction.

Rini:
The censorship part follows from this statement:  libel is illegal.
That is, the law would like you not to say it.  That is, the law
can punish you for saying it.  I'm wondering how that is different
from censorship...  I must admit that I don't know.
|#

Me:
[Similar exchange for copyright infringement]

It has long been accepted that libel and slander as well as copyright
infringement take precedence over "freedem of expression".

Y'all left out the old "Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater." which is often
described as endangering the public or something like that.
This, of course, is where the REAL trouble lies, since many of those who wish
to censor certain materials do so "for the public good" and "within the values
of the local community".
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 05:34:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.182944.22601@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>I am a somewhat lapsed Catholic, and I don't make it to church all that 
>often, but Sinead makes me ill. No, the Pope is not infallible, nor yet
>Catholicism as a creed/religion, but I get damn sick and tired of hearing
>both on the net and off, about how awful Catholicism is, and how we're all
>just sheep following His Holiness, and how Catholicism is something rooted
>in fear, a do-it-or-thou-shalt-be-damned compulsion. I don't know what church
>these people went to, but it wasn't any Catholic church *I've* ever been to!

The problem is the difference between the parishes and THE CHURCH.  I
know priests who date women, I know priests who date men.  I know
priests who would probably laugh if their parishioners confessed to
using birth control.  Those are the parishes I know.

Now THE CHURCH, that's the one that tells its American bishops to
campaign against laws to protect lesbigay people against
discrimination.  The church, that's the one that is funding Operation
Opress You.  The church, that's the one that has wrecked the US
funding of population control.  It's the one that fights against
contraception being available in schools.  It's the one I hate.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: A fish w/out a bike
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 01:36:58 GMT

In article <BvyLvt.7oJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>Actually, didn't U2 reword it to:
>
>  "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"  ?
>
>Maybe I'm wrong -- but that was my impression of the meaning, anyway: 
>
>   Women have no use for men.
>
>Hence it's a slam.  In either direction.

Camille Paglia knows what men are good for.  From an interview of her
by Gary Kamiya published in the San Francisco Examiner Image:

"...I want men to express their lust.  Why else _be_ with men?  Unless
men feel free to be men, and free to express lust, you might as well
be with women.  Because women get along better with women than they do
with men."
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:31:50 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Al) writes:

>>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.

What a wonderful and enlightening technique.  I'm sure the whole net
learned a lot from 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!

Yes I can see how the Binary Thinking work.  Since I bitched against your
*tactic* you assume that I disagree with your position.  Too bad.  Well,
at least you're having a good time.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:16:57 GMT

In article <7196@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct9134657@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>>>Gordon equates them, and you seemed to think you were agreeing
>>>with him. Don't ask me to read your mind.
>
>> Funny how everyone here keeps telling me what I think.  What I *think*
>
>Perhaps it appears that "everyone" does this because you are mistaken.
>He didn't say that YOU THOUGHT this, he said "you SEEM to think".  This
>means that HE believes that you think this.  It is an invitation for you
>to clarify the situation.

Wait a minute, in a previous (err) discussion, -someone- already expressed
doubt that the word "seemed" is much of a qualification.
 
>Terry "Or so I think" Wood

And this ain't much better, sorry Terry.
 
>        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct5.023340.5327@netcom.com> <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon
Fitch) writes: 
   This is pure speculation, but my theory is that the reason
   human beings have very large sexual organs with     ^^^^^^
   respect to body size compared to most mammals, are in heat most of 
   the time, and have a sex drive far beyond the need to 
   reproduce in spite of the most dire environmental 
   conditions, is that the emotional result of sex is 
   important in keeping humans from killing one another.  


Excuse me, why should there be any REASON for human beings to have any
of our characteristics.  Do you believe that we were created by a God?
Do you believe in some life force that shaped evolution?  If either of
those two are true then fine.  But if you believe in an evolution
"caused" by pure chance, than the "reason" we have large sex organs
and are in heat all of the time is because it happened by chance.
There is a fallacy in some arguments involving evolution: just because
something would be an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean that it
exists.  We might be more fit to survive if we had two heads, but we
don't...

(And if you DO believe in either a God or a life-force, and you think
removing Playboy from our lives is beneficial based on that belief,
then how do you differ from the pro-lifers.  Either way, you would be
forcing your beliefs upon others...)
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************