HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: koc5@quads.uchicago.edu (michael shalom kochin)
Subject: Re: Plato & Women
Keywords: Symposium, Plato, Women
Reply-To: koc5@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:40:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.224044.14030@wam.umd.edu> sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:
>A while back someone brought up the subject of how Plato viewed women, 
>which inspired some questions for me that havent been answered.  Any
>philosophy, ancient Greek culture experts want to take a crack at it?
>
>Basically, in The Symposium, Plato claims that true love can only take
>place between 2 men since love involves appreciating admirable qualities
>in your lover while persuing the idea of beauty.  According to Plato
>women werent up for this, lacking these admirable qualities.  Basically,
>they were considered second rate people.
>
>Plato presents these views in a discourse between Diotima, a priestess/
>female/second rate person who LECTURES the great Socrates?
>
>How can Plato think women lacked sufficent admirable qualities to be lovers
>for men, yet think they have enough admirable qualities to lecture his
>hero Socartes on the nature of love?

This is a very good question.

One answer has to do with the nature of a Platonic dialogue, namely, that
Plato never speaks in his own voice.  This is especially true of the Symposium,
where there are five (?) principal speakers, of whom Socrates, quoting 
Diotima, is only one.  If the fact of Diotima's speech refutes the
inferiority of women, then we would have to conclude that Plato did not
in fact believe women to be inferior.

Second possibility is to ask why Plato thought that women are inferior.  
What reasons we find, and I'm currently working on this but don't have
even a provisional answer, might not be true of Diotima.

  At any rate, Plato thought
that while woman are inferior as a class that does not mean that
they are inferior individually. (Republic V)  So that if Diotima
was the only woman philosopher in the history of Greece her existence
would not refute the claim that woman are on average less philosophical
than men.

Kochin








































-- 
All of my postings are approved by Hanna Gray and represent the official
opinion of the University of Chicago...
             Mike Kochin, Dept. of Political Science
Hi!  I'm a .sig virius!  Join in the fun and copy me into yours!
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: 16 Nov 92 00:15:31 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Nov15.041315.7218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <Bxo2n5.BIJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
>>responsibility for $100,000 worth of child support is mine,
>>and the ultimate choice is hers.  (I'm not rich.  $100,000 divided by 
>>eighteen years gives a pretty unexceptional level of child support.)
>>
>>I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
>>choice of who would raise the child is hers, even though I
>>would unquestionably want to raise him/her.
>>
>>I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
>>choice of whether the fetus would become a child is hers, but
>>I would unquestionably want the fetus to become a child and would
>>be fully willing to raise the child on my own without outside support.
>>
>>I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
>>decision about whether I'd even know would be made by the woman.
>
>May I say you've blown my mind? The only assumption we shared
>is that she would have ultimate choice of whether the fetus
>would become a child.  It is interesting to share these types
>of things...shows the cultural differences :-) between us. Gender-
>related, I'm sure, but possibly class-related as well. 
>
>My assumption...which my hypothetical plan is an attempt to legislate...
>is that I miss a period or two; I check with the doctor; the doctor
>tells me; I tell him; he tells me what he wants; if he's in, we do
>it jointly; if he's out, I take a hard look at myself and my finances
>and I decide if I'm in or out.

   [examples of two who did it that way gone.]

Yes, but it is your *choice* to tell the father, and your *choice* to listen to
what he wants.  The assumptions Don makes are completely consistent with your
idea of how it works and your examples, it's just that with *your* personal
values/ethics, you've only mapped out how *you* would do it [and how your
friends did it].  I believe this is how *most* honorable people, in *most*
cases would behave.
Needless to say, others might do things a little differently...
For a personal example, try to think of somebody you know who *wouldn't* tell
the father...
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 17 Nov 92 22:18:10 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:


>     This document is all-too-modern to have been written in 1894.
>     In fact, it sounds suspiciously like the kind of advice that
>     certain feminist women of today might give each other.

Why do you think feminists don't like sex?

You have this rather annoying tendency Robert to put words in the mouths
of feminists, and assume you know what feminists think. Yet you are *not*
a feminist and have shown time and time again that you have a very poor
grasp of the concepts of feminism.

>     Where did you get this forgery, Rini?

Where did you get your bad attitude towards women?

	Carol


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Has the Fight changed before my very eyes?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:34:08 GMT

In article <misdeva-161192211359@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.003754.2331@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard
>Lynch) wrote:
>> 
>> In article <1992Nov15.135144.2075@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> mpon@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Malcolm Pon) writes:
>> 
>>    [self-description/credentials]
>> 
>> >Lately, perhaps alerted to it by _Backlash_ (Faludi), I've been seeing a
>> >lot of new arguments that for some reason we don't need to actively
>> >pursue feminism, for instance, because apparently all its goals have
>> >been fulfilled and those of us who continue are just nuts who are
>> >overcompensating.  We are told that the things we used as indicators
>> >years ago, indicators of our plight and of how bad it had gotten are now
>> >an indication of our new freedoms.
>> 
>> I think it would be more correct to say that the nature of the work to be done
>> has changed.  Feminism is no longer the underdog.  The ideal of equality for
>> women is far more universally accepted.  Feminists need to change tactics to
>
>Whoa, there.  When you say "universally accepted", I hope you're
>restricting your "universe" to just the US (and maybe some parts of
>Europe).  Worldwide, women are generally looking at the the same structures
>that have lasted thousands of years - forced prostitution, dowry deaths,
>lack of citizenship and all the rest.  Equality is nowhere near
>"universally accepted".

Actually, I was going to include a parenthetical remark to indicate that I
*was* speaking of the world.
Note, however, that the text is "more universally accepted" [an oxymoron, but
hey].
I realize that equality is nowhere near universally accepted, but I believe it
is being accepted in more and more countries, slowly but surely.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 06:12:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.005319.5313@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>Hey, rini, that advice to a bride was *so* wild I gotta wonder if it wasn't
>"A Modest Propsal"?

	I've wondered the same thing since I first saw it. It seems a
little too exact in highlighting modern stereotypes of the extreme
Victorian. But I admit I'm not sure. I've a book from the same period
called _What A Young Man Ought to Know_ on the same general topic, but
addressed to young men. The extremity of viewpoint is no less, it just
doesn't have that suggestion of being for the amusement of modern eyes.
If anyone's interested I can pluck a few choice quotes and post 'em.

						Kayembee
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: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:43:42 GMT


I wrote:

>Granted, my access to primary historical documents is not great, but
>I do know of two histories (one a book and the other a recent journal
>article) which quote documents that are not dissimilar to the one
>I posted here.  (It's true -- I generally have to accept that the
>historians did not make up their sources.)  I can post the titles
>of these secondary sources if you like.

Me again.  

Robert is, I think, correct in being wary of that single, rather 
extreme source.   (It's true -- I didn't think twice before cross-
posting.)  Anyway, the more prudent social historian may be
interested in the following academic references:

(Please refer to the articles themselves for extensive quotes from
primary souces... I didn't take notes on that stuff.... I just jotted
down the basic arguments.)

******************

Seccombe, Wally. 1990. "Starting to Stop:  Working-Class Fertility 
Decline in Britain," _Past & Present_: 126: 151-188.  

  Seccombe argues that in the early twentieth centry, 42% of couples
  practiced abstinence.  (Yes, there was a survey done at the time.)
  His sources clearly suggest that it was the women who were 
  the driving force in this movement.

Degler, Carl N. 1980. _At Odds: Women and the Family in America from
the Revolution to the Present_. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   
  Degler argues that the great American fertility decline in the late
  1800s resulted from a weak form of "domestic feminism" where women
  sought control over sex and child-rearing.  A great literature 
  emerged which directed women to appeal to their husbands to "exercise
  sexual restraint."  

Smith, Daniel. 1973.  "Family Limitation and Sexual Control in Victorian
America,"  _Feminist Studies _ 1: 40-57.

  Along the lines of Degler, Smith argues that "domestic feminism" (i.e.
  the idea that women controlled the household, sex, and children) was
  behind the movement towards abstinence and then the fertility decline.
  Advice books from the period said stuff like, "she should not allow 
  allow access unless she wants a child."

rini
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: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:32:40 GMT

hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
: 
: Well, I haven't seen any evidence of a "vast, underground network", but
: there is some evidence that such groups exist on a local level.  In
: fact there was a case in Western Canada just recently where members of
: the local police force and several prominent citizens from several
: small communities were investigated and eventually charged for what
: amounted to the ritual abuse of some students at a day care centre.

Investigated and charged does not mean that they did anything. Were
they convicted? We have had a couple of cases here in the US - in all
of them, then social workers taught the kids what to say. This came
out when the videotapes of the "interviews" were reviewed.

: This is at least enough evidence that I do not dismiss out of hand the
: possibility of national and international organizations of these
: people. There are, after all, national and international organizations
: set up for the purpose of distributing illegal pornography (like S&M,
: Bestiality, Snuff films (thats a joke son!)). The process would be the
: same, word of mouth and common contacts.

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.

How about some evidence that these national and international organizations
exist?

: I should point out that you seem to be under the impression that
: skepticism works only one way. One should be skeptical about the
: non-existence of these organizations/films/etc as well. Although in the

Why? Is there any concrete evidence that they do exist? If so, how about
providing some.

: case of snuff films, the lack of evidence does point toward (although
: not prove) their non-existence. I will be interested to see what
: McKinnon can find. I will of course treat whatever evidence she
: presents with the grain of sodium reduced salt substitute that any
: information from someone who sets out to answer a question with the
: answer already in mind.

And, please define what you mean by such terms as "illegal pornography".
I can only guess, depending on what I have heard from other Canadians.

Bill
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise (was: the Male Gaze)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 22:47:02 GMT


>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>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.

Exactly right! They specialize in "horror stories", i.e. creative
fabrications, dramatically told, and intended to scare their audience.
D'Souza, in his whole book, does nothing but rest on insinuations, and
the most concrete he gets is with a deceptive retelling of the
core-curriculum reform at Stanford 
(\sarcasm on\ "Oh, my god! Students actually chanted 'hey hey, ho ho,
Western Civ has got to go!' -- heresy! infiltration! conspiracy!
\sarcasm off\).  Basically the whole anti-PC hysteria has failed to
come up with a single concrete case of the "PC orthodoxy" blacklisting
or repressing those "good, traditional academics" or the Right.  I
assume "heterodoxy" (what a joke of a name for such a rag!) is pretty
much the same story, though I haven't seen it.
	Here's a challenge for the forum (hell, distribute the
challenge to other columns as well)... I offer $10 cash prize to every
contestent who can document a single concrete case of PC blacklisting
of an academic (ok, I know $10's not all that much, but I'm a poor "PC"
grad student).  Good luck contestants!
-- 
     _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: _/_/_/_/_/_/ 
   _/_/                              Postmodern Enterprises              _/_/ 
  _/_/  MAKERS OF CHAOS....                                             _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:24:37 GMT

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.?

Bravo! Very good observation of a real hypocricy.  I think it plays
off a very broad denial by SOME "feminists"of subjectivity to women
who make what are not considered to be correct choices.  I hope this
gets discussed more.
	Still, I do hope you're careful in your categorization of
"feminism" -- a large portion of feminists vigorously defend women's
rights to choose to produce pornography, engage in prostitution, et
alia.  In fact, all the feminists whom I don't put in scare quotes as
"feminists" do so.  Examples:  _The Feminist Anti-Censorship Task
Force_, _COYOTE_ (sorry, I forgot what the acronym's for, but it's a
feminist prostitutes' rights group), and so on.
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/
From: jsp@uts.amdahl.com (James Preston)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Date: 20 Nov 92 23:08:04 GMT
Reply-To: jsp@pls.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

}	The following quotes are from _What A Young Man Ought To Know_,
}by Sylvanus Stall, D.D., a 1904 edition of a book copyrighted 1897. 

It seems to me that even a cursory comparison of writing styles and
word usage between these excerpts and the advice to the bride piece
posted earlier makes it abundantly clear that the latter is of more
contemporary origin than it claims.

--James Preston

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: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:49:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.233848.23215@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.230744.595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov18.003136.1182@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov16.000417.13647@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Actually, that's why I put it in quotes.  
>>
>>But putting it in quotes implies quoted material, something she -did- say.
>>You could have delineated with dashes or commas, the quotes have a very
>>specific meaning.
>
>Quotes have more than one meaning.  You wanna get back to the real topic, or
>have a grammar flame war?

Then there was a misunderstanding. As for grammer flame wars, isn't the
who said what war currently in progress enough? 
 
>>>                                       I was looking for a short term that
>>>would imply one spouse accomodating the other, and used "forced sex".  Simply
>>>do a global replace of "forced sex" with "one spouse accomodating the other"
>>>if the term offends you.
>>
>>Would you think it unreasonable to consider that rape is forced sex? Hey
>>rini, here is a chance for another childish dig. Go or it! 
>
>Of course rape is forced sex.

Which was not the topic under discussion.
 
>[gone]
>"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gregor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Subject: New Member
Reply-To: gregor@binah.cc.brandeis.edu
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:36:39 GMT

I am a new member to this BBs and would like to know the goals, aspirations, or anything else this BBs is supposed to accomplish.  Looking forward to participating......  Thanx...
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: LLNL
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:01:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.214342.27711@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>Robert is, I think, correct in being wary of that single, rather 
>extreme source.   (It's true -- I didn't think twice before cross-
>posting.)  Anyway, the more prudent social historian may be
>interested in the following academic references:

	[Conclusion: a favorite method of birth control ca. 1900 was
for the woman to refuse to have sex]

>  Advice books from the period said stuff like, "she should not 
>  allow access unless she wants a child."

	Just like that document quoted, which certainly looks like how
to do so explained in rather gory detail.

	I wonder if these researchers studied prostitution in any
detail, because with sexually unwilling wives, men seeking sex would
find a prostitute a natural person to go to. And given 

	It was widely believed in the Anglo-American world at that
time that only men had a strong sexuality, that women were naturally
averse to sex, that they preferred to lie back and think of their
homelands. Even a lot of early "First Wave" feminists apparently
believed this.

	Of the current "Second Wave" of feminism, it is true that some
sectors, such as the feminist anti-pornography movement, may seem
almost Victorian about sex, but some other self-professed feminists
are downright raunchy. Consider lesbian sexpert Susie Bright. Or
performance artist Carolee Schneemann. It amused me to see in Elinor
Gadon's _The Once and Future Goddess_ (about the "sacred female", and
presumably feminist in intention) to see a picture of Carolee
Schneemann in one of her works lying back, bare naked, fully exposed,
with two snakes crawling over her. How this differs from a Playboy
centerfold is a bit hard to see. Maybe the snakes are the crucial
difference :-)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:51:11 GMT

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

>In article <1992Nov10.175617.17310@netcom.com> 
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> 
>>Indeed, the notion of a "hot liberal man" seems to be at least a
>>little self-contradictory. If a man is always oh-so-considerate of a
>>woman's feminist sensitivities (under which male sexual advances are
>>more or less criminal :)  ), it's difficult to see how he can possibly
>>be "hot". 

>Wowsa!  

>Once again, Sheaffer demonstrates how little he knows about good sex!!!
>It's scary!!

>rini

Ther's a big difference between having good sex and starting it. 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. Mind you that
doesn't mean that he can't be quite capable of participating in great sex.

Jeff.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism