HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Subject: Re: Supermodels contribute to spiraling low self esteem?
Followup-To: alt.feminism 
Organization: University of Hawaii
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:17:32 GMT

>>> If someone makes you feel relatively unattractive by what they say
>>> or do, and then you happen to see some poster of some supermodel...
>
>Perhaps feminists would feel better about themselves if the only pictures
>in magazine ads, posters, etc. were of ugly sloppy pathetic women.  Is that
>a solution to their self-esteem problems?  I doubt it.

Umm ...  and perhaps there are very attractive women [*and* men] who don't
happen to fit the "supermodel" profile. (...personal aside, I lost interest
in Playboy & the like at a rather young age, long before I would have
consciously labeled myself "feminist"  -- because, quite simply, the
models they use are all *really* skinny and it just doesn't float my
boat ...)

& more to the point, it really seems that this *isn't* a discussion
of erotica [I know, I know, there's a heated feminsist debate about
erotica *too* but I think it's a little outside the scope of this
thread] --  but rather of a society saturated with images in which
women are depicted primarily or exclusively as sex objects, and
where it's totally normal for these images to be used to sell beer,
cars, whatever, and in which women in their personal lives find them-
selves again and again being judged on the same terms.


>
>--Brian
>

Mike
______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson    ---   U.Hawai'i, Manoa   ---   Fat Messiah Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"At the beginning of the movie, they know they have to find each
other, but they head off -- in opposite directions" (Laurie Anderson)
"Iko-o, iko-o, isshoni iko-o-oh..." (Shonen Knife)
----------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 05:45:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.015425.13595@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark) writes:
> 
>>Poor old
>>Rob, like me, finds very few women have that tingle-up-the-spine feeling
>>about him and yet oh so many find him to be a great friend. 
>
>Gosh, poor old Rob.  I didn't know.  You guys must be close to share 
>these intimacies. 

Royte, me & old Jeff 'is bin 'Mayts sints we first lerned to do the
Ostralian Salute together out on the billibong. We still meets in the pub
most every weekend.

-- 
  
        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"
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:58:27 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: abortion

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>In article <1992Nov16.081048.19399@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>I agree. It is also my choice to grab a knife and shove it in
>>someone's back. It is also my choice to get drunk every night.
>>It is also my choice to lie. It is also my choice to accuse someone
>>of rape (perjury). It is also my choice to practice insider trading.
>>It is also my choice to drive my car off a bridge if I'm unhappy.
>>It is also my choice to rape someone. Anyone can do anything they
>>want that they are physically able to do.

>All of which are ILLEGAL.

Getting drunk every night may be unwise, but it is not illegal. 
Neither (in most cases) is lying.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 23:10:53 GMT

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.

If your talking about snuff films -- I am sure as one can be that they
don't exist.  I would *welcome* meaningful evidence to the contrary.
If Katherine MacKinnon thinks she can find meaningful evidence --
more power to her.

>: (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". 

Yes, I hate dogma too.  The irony here is that I found SI to be very
dogmatic.  That was *precisely* my problem with it.  

rini
-no, I am *not* a paranormal fan.  That's why I subscribed to SI in
the first place.
From: falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 23:43:02 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: peregrine

In article <MUFFY.92Nov16164828@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <lgg7r8INN9l8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>
>Three, two male, one female.  All feminist...*smile*.

Ahh, there's my problem.  Time to quit hanging around with environmentlaists
and go back to hanging around with feminists. :-)

>>Can I move to your area?
>
>You *live* in my area, so I'm afraid you can't move here.

Just a rhetorical point.  I've run into you at enough parties to know
we live in the same part of the country.  On the other hand, the Bay
Area has as many social and political micro-climates as it has physical
ones.

		-ed falk, sun microsystems
		 sun!falk, falk@sun.com
To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags 
-- that is a loyalty of unreason, it is pure animal (Mark Twain).
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 22 Nov 92 09:38:23
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov16.172842.16463@netcom.com>
	<1992Nov16.202344.25055@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Nov21.041944.20013@netcom.com>
	<jay.5.722366787@uuserv.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu's message of Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:26:27 GMT

In article <jay.5.722366787@uuserv.cc.utah.edu> jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:
> P.S. Is it true: "man-hatred [that] came into existence very recently"?

I doubt it.  We've just been free enough to express anger at our
oppression very recently.  Unless you assume that women are very stupid
and did not recognize that they were oppressed until this century, it
seems quite likely to me that there was plenty of hatred of men in the
past...but anyone intelligent enough to recognize the problems with
society would probably also be intelligent enough to recognize how
dangerous it would be for her to object to them.

I have no references on this, it's just speculation.  The oldest thing I
remember having seen at the moment is "Lady Molly of Scotland Yard" by
the Baroness Orczy (she also wrote "The Scarlet Pimpernel"), in which
the two main female characters express a good deal of veiled contempt
for the attitudes of the men around them towards women.  These were
collected in 1910.  Anyone have anything older?  Still, that's hardly
that recent...

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Date: 23 Nov 92 23:31:29 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
| >| Feminists discovered, that 2+2=4 ! Congratulations !!

gf:
| >That is your capacity of understanding; but others may be
| >less limited.

mk:
| Well , I'd agree that the whole story is more complicated. Originally
| feminists (after too complicated for me reasoning :-) ) decided, that 
| 2+2=5 . Now they're saying : " Well, 2+2=4.5, but we'd be lenient to
| those nasty males (who think that 2+2=4). Let's tell'em, that 2+2=4.1  "
| *sarcasm off*

Thank God, we could have not borne much more.  Michael, your
forte is not satire.

|  Major failure of any leftist ideology is the reluctance to admit that 
| truth DO exist and do not depend on anybody's opinion.

That truth does, or truths do exist independent of anyone's
opinion, is a religious belief; if one does not believe it, or
has doubts about it -- in other words, if one is an atheist or 
an agnostic in that regard -- there is no reason for one to 
"admit" it.

However, you err in saying "any" leftist ideology.  Some
people normally defined as leftists do profess such beliefs.
For instance, there are a large number of Christians, most of 
them in Latin America, who are generally of a socialist,
anarcho-socialist, or communist persuasion; they certainly
believe in transcendent or absolute truth (their religion) 
and certainly are leftists by most definitions.  In fact, in 
terms of population, they may now be the dominant 
manifestation of the Left.
-- 

 )*(    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: sex in the good ol' days
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:59:29 GMT

johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie) writes:
>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?

I'm now fairly convinced that it cannot be confirmed.  (Frankly, I 
didn't think twice about it when I posted it, because I have seen
bona fide tracts which were of a similar flavor.)  Anyway, I think
I have pie on my face for this one.

I wrote the person who originally posted this material, and he said 
he has no idea where the original text can be found.  I'm going 
to drop it off with my friend who is an editor for Church History 
(a journal) and see what she thinks.  I suppose she might have a
good laugh on me.

rini
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Are Whites Worse Off in the Deep South?
Date: 19 Nov 1992 20:16:05 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1ec9ovINNi1d@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>
>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?

The media does a great job of disseminating this so-called "careful
research" from well-paid scientists around the world that directly
contradicts itself every few years or so.  Look at the medical community, 
which publishes lots of contradictory research.  High cholesterol causes 
heart attacks, so low cholesterol is better.  Oh, no, low cholesterol 
patients have just as many heart attacks.  See below article.  Increase 
your intake of oat bran, it lowers your cholesterol.  No, fiber does nothing 
for your cholesterol.   Careful research, perhaps, but not totally 
infallible.  Gotta take it with a grain of salt.  Seems to me a while
back everyone thought the earth was flat, too.

>>...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.

It's relevant to the basic assertion that relative "happiness" is a good
indicator of satisfaction with life.  For example, you claim that women
have no right to assert that they are less well-off, since they are just as
happy as men.  Who is to say that *men* are as happy as they can be?  What
*is* happiness, anyway? 

Teri
--------------
Reported in the Oct. 18, 1992 Mercury News were the results of
a study on cholesterol which indicates that low levels are not
always healthier.

The study has prompted some experts to suggest scaling back
the national cholesterol-reduction programs.  "The most
startling finding:  In women, cholesterol levels appeared to
have no influence on how often they died from all causes.
High-cholesterol women died at the same rate as low-cholesterol
women.  In men, the only groups that died more often were those
whose cholesterol was either very high or very low.  Men with
moderate to borderline high cholesterol - which includes 64%
of US men - didn't die any more often."

The article went on to discuss various aspects of the study
as well as the predictable critizisms by those saying it can't
be true.  Also mentioned were other studies indicating a link
between very low cholesterol levels and higher rates of suicide,
homicide, and accidents.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:03:53 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Nov16164828@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <lgg7r8INN9l8@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> falk@peregrine.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>half-dozen women after them).  Liberal men can be a "hot item" among a
>>>minority of women, can they not?
>
>>My own experience has been the opposite; it's the liberal *women* who are
>>the hot item (how many lovers did you say you have Muffy?)
>
>Three, two male, one female.  All feminist...*smile*.  However, both the
>men have more people actively interested in them than I do (at *least*
>seven each).  Neither of the men makes very much money...barely enough
>for them to live on.
>
>>>They certainly seem to be in my area. 
>
>>Can I move to your area?  The majority of the women I've gone out with
>>have valued me for my ability to make money more than my liberal ways.
>>The vast majority have wanted to quit work, move in with me and have
>>me support them.  It gets old real fast.
>
>You *live* in my area, so I'm afraid you can't move here.  However, I
>was talking about a "circle of friends" kind of area, too, and you might
>be able to move into that.  I don't dispute that there are many people
>who are more interested in money than ideas.  However, most of the
>people I hang around with *like* working for their money and would not
>like being financially dependent on someone else. (For reference, I had
>a party recently and, just inviting all the people I consider
>medium-to-good friends, I ended up inviting over 100 people, fairly
>evenly divided between men and women.  So, I think there are plenty of
>such people around...)

Muffy, you post from Berkeley, do you live there? I live in the South
Bay, and Berkeley is far enough from here to not be a casual drive. I
think Ed Falk is also in the South Bay (Milpitas or Mountain View for
Sun). So he is not exactly in your area.

And Berkley is a bit more liberal than other places (like the rest of
the U.S. :^) is it not? One of the students there goes to class
naked (from the San Jose Mercury News, and TV news). This -could- happen 
anywhere, but it did happen at UCB.

The campus is beautiful, wish I could've gone to school there.
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: /usr/lib/news/organization
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:24:10 GMT

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.

The trivia one picks up reading murder mysteries ...

Miriam Nadel

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Summary: Some math
Organization: Usenet Addicts Gung
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 04:32:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.165429.9368@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>
>| Feminists discovered, that 2+2=4 ! Congratulations !!
>
>That is your capacity of understanding; but others may be
>less limited.
>-- 
Well , I'd agree that the whole story is more complicated. Originally
feminists (after too complicated for me reasoning :-) ) decided, that 
2+2=5 . Now they're saying : " Well, 2+2=4.5, but we'd be lenient to
those nasty males (who think that 2+2=4). Let's tell'em, that 2+2=4.1  "
*sarcasm off*
 Major failure of any leftist ideology is the reluctance to admit that 
truth DO exist and do not depend on anybody's opinion.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise (was: the Male Gaze)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:31:56 GMT

In article <BxGrHL.4pG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>
>>  I have read
>>accounts of incidents where male students took too strong issue with
>>what the feminist professor was saying, and were not merely booted out
>>of class, but charged with Thought Crimes under P.C. statutes, and
>>forced to perform Revolutionary Self-Criticism if they wanted to stay
>>in school.
>
>I'm interested in hearing a fuller account of such events.  I have associated
>with and had classes with many instructors and professors who can be 
>considered PC and feminist.  No one I know has ever resorted to misuse of 
>power.  Verbal skill and well-reasoned arguments usually suffice to 
>CHALLENGE, not necessarily convert or convince, those who are critical.

Well, Dinesh D'Souza tells of such cases, or read any issue of the
new anti-PC magazine "Heterodoxy" ($25/year, 12400 Ventura Blvd.,
Suite 304, Studio City, CA 91604). They both specialize in Horror
Stories along such lines.
-- 
  
        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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Criticizing Good Intentions (Re: Child Support)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:01:36 GMT

In article <By6C8o.Arq@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

<post about Demoss foundation deleted>
 
>The number of "we want to adopt" ads in the paper is large and persistent.
>(And racially biased.  But that's another (and upsetting) issue.)

Just out of curiosity, are you claiming that there is something wrong
with a white couple wanting a white chil and a black couple wanting
a black child?
 
>Don
>beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
From: jpsb@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (Jim Shirreffs)
Subject: Clinton and the Vietnam War
Keywords: clinton
Organization: Software Technology Branch - NASA/JSC
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 18:26:10 GMT

        There seems to be quite a discussion going on these days about the
Vietnam war and the role (or lack of) played by Mr. Clinton. As someone that
served in the military (USMC 1969 - 1971) during the Vietnam war, I feel
compelled to comment:

        * Nobody wanted to go to Vietnam
        * Everyone thought LBJ was wrong in committing massive ground
          forces to the war effort.

        There were two reasons for opposing LBJ's war
                * The Vietnam war was a civil war of no concern to the US
                * LBJ *refused* to win it! The war was a meat grinder that
                  simply consumed American and Vietnamese lives at an
                  alarming rate.
        There was also the radical Lefts' view that the Vietnamese where
        fighting the good fight against the evil Americans. Very few people
        outside of Hollywood believed this. No one has, to my satisfaction,
        proven that this was Mr. Clinton's views at the time.

Men of Mr. Clinton's and my age where caught in a moral dilemma. We opposed
(for various reasons) the War effort of LBJ and the Democrats in Congress
but we realized that, as members of a democracy, we had a DUTY to serve if
called. What to do about Vietnam was an all consuming issue, some of us
did our *duty* and served, others dodged, and some where never called.
Each acted according to our own conscience. Who am I to judge?

The problem is that Mr. Clinton now claims to have the moral authority to
command the men he refused to serve with. He is unique in that regard, many
people seem to think that because we criticize Mr. Clinton's draft record
that we are criticizing all those that did not serve when called. This is
not the case.  We are criticizing a man that wants to be the commander
in chief, but refused to be a citizen soldier. Surely that is not to hard
to grasp.

Jim Shirreffs

The road to hell is paved with good intentions