HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:55:46 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Nov4.210834.14626@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <garry-011192155457@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov1.172029.10025@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich
>>Payne) wrote:
>>
>>As Rich has pointed out, through all the name calling, no-one has provided
>>anything but an assertion that greater male utilization of pornography is
>
>You seem to have missed my now infamous theory that discrimination may be
>linked with pornography imbalance in a self-sustaining cycle..  It's only been
>discussed in a few dozen posts, though, so I can see why you might have missed
>it.  Of course, it's just a theory, so Rich says it can't possibly be true, so
>you don't have to worry about it.

	It's not a theory, it's unsupported speculation, and thus easily
ignored.

						Kayembee
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item? (and more refs)
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:12:41
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1du1a2INNn6e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov12113636@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1dv4aaINNpal@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 13 Nov 92 02:35:54 GMT

In article <1dv4aaINNpal@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov12113636@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>>>Which means that your remarks about androgyny have little relevance
>>>>>to the original claim (see the subject line).  I'm pointing this out
>>>>>on the off-chance that you might have thought otherwise.
>>>>
>>>>Well, I *did* think otherwise, because in the article I was replying to,
>>>>Robert Schaeffer was talking about men looking like "hunks."  Sorry to

>These are irrelevant to my question.  I'm referring to your use
>of the term 'otherwise' above, not to any other post.  What
>exactly do you think 'otherwise' about, my point that androgyny
>and liberal aren't synonymous?  If so, then you're directly
>contradicting yourself. 

Ahh, I understand your misunderstanding now.  I "thought otherwise"
about my "remarks about androgyny having little relevance."  In fact, I
thought they were quite relevant.

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Tommy Che Vorst)
Subject: Naomi Wolf
Keywords: Beauty Myth and Scholarship
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:27:01 GMT

I don't want to pre-empt what I'm sure could be a great discussion, nor do
I want to sound like a snobbish academe, but I feel compelled to point
this out, before a debate begins.  While Wolf's book (The Beauty Myth)
contains some interesting points of view, it has been widely criticised as
insubstantial and unscientific in many academic circles.  Scholars
have made the point that it was written more to ruffle feathers than
as a seriuos study.  That is not to say that it should be rejected, only
that it should be read with cautious skepticism with regards to the methods
and 'evidence' inside.  Nevertheless, a very interesting work.

Thanks for listening.

+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  Tommy ( Yogi )                              Dept. of English, UofM
                (the REAL UofM - nyaaaah Vid! (Minn.)) 
                     email:  tvorst@ccu.umanitoba.ca  
            ....residences in Canada, France, and Holland.
                       "YAAH! DEATH TO OATMEAL!"
                   Remember: it's just my opinion.
 +------------------------------------------------------------------------+ 


 

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:16:30 GMT

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

>>>Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
>>>weaknesses. Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>>>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have
>>>sex with their children, etc... 
  
>>Oh please.  You're tempting me to pull your post that says, "Who here has
>>said this!  Give examples!  If things are as you paint, you should be
>>able to point just about *any* post to prove your point!" or something
>>like that.  (Then we could have 50,000 follow-ups where I go, "BUT IS
>>THIS REPRESENTATIVE!!".)  But I think it's not a good idea to get Rich
>>started.  :)
 
>Well, there are a few duplications, but there were 175 instances of the
>word rape in the last 10 days. Here is a list, I can compress the posts
>and mail them to you if you want.

Well, if you think talking about rape, sexually harrassment and
child abuse by default *implies* that's the only things men do, okay 
you win.  I, for one, have not drawn the same conclusion.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:42:47 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| I objected to the lesbian-inspired notion that the phallus is of *no* 
| value for bringing a woman to orgasm. Gordon changes this to have me
| claim that cunnilingus is of no value in hetero sex, which of course
| does not follow. One *just might* do it both ways!

What a limp response.  Have it _your_ way, Robert!
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Is it possible to be a male feminist?
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:28:04 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <garry-071192102708@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>If Mr. Auer is reading, he may wish to attempt an explanation of his post
>above.  It makes little sense to me.

I feel no compulsion to cater to your lack of reading comprehension.
-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Originator: mackenzi@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 14:28:03 GMT


In article <83312@ut-emx.uucp>, tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king) writes:

|> 	Now, perhaps I'm just a bit traditional, but doesn't it bother you,
|> in some way, morally or religiously, to stand behind such a counter-productive
|> ideology?  I mean, it seems to me that women, having been given the mech-
|> anism for bearing children also hold a certain responsibility to uphold.
|> As they do in lower animals, women should feel nothing but obliged to fulfill
|> their reproductive responsibility to the species, bearing as many children
|> as it is within their means to produce.  Along with this production go the
|> duties of feeding their offspring until they are self sufficient, and remaining
|> at the home caring for the children until they are past beyond the age at
|> which they can reproduce consistantly viable offspring.  The counterpart to
|> your role as child-barers of the species is the protective and provident role
|> of men, whose duty, of course, is to father children according to their 
|> ability, by perhaps dozens of women if they are of sturdy stock. 
[...]

I am glad this person posted this - it shows that these attitudes are still
out there.

My arguments:	People are not animals governed by overwhelming reproductive
		instincts.
		The world is already overpopulated.
		No one has any duty to bear children.
		
The poster's theory may work for animals, but for people with thinking minds
things are a little different.

PM



		
		
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 22:02:39 GMT

In article <misdeva-031192023358@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <1992Nov3.041135.1258@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
>Sheaffer) wrote:
>> 
>> Gordon, have you ever looked at any Romance novels? These little books
>> are on sale virtually EVERYWHERE, and many, many millions are sold
>> every year. Most men are practically unaware of their existence; it's
>> like, we see them, but look right past them. Now, virtually 100% of
>> the readers of these books are female, as are the authors as well.
>> 
>> It is the dirty little secret of contemporary feminism that the stories
>> in these books are enormously Politically Incorrect. Yet they OBVIOUSLY
>> reflect the desires and wishes of many millions of contemporary
>> young women, as nobody is forcing them to read this stuff!
>> 
>> So these little Romance novels provide yet another public proof of the
>> mendacity of feminist rhetoric. They present indisputible
>> proof that a large segment, likely even a majority, of the female
>> population really DOES fantasise about being ravished (although not just
>> by anyone; as Davidson notes, "the whole trick is to be ravished by the right 
>
>>         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>>   
>
>For a self-proclaimed skeptic, you really disappoint me.  How do you get
>from the fact that "many millions of these books are sold every year" to
>the idea that these sales are "indisputable proof" that a probable MAJORITY
>of the female population has these fantasies?  Worldwide, that would be
>over 1.4 billion women; in the US, it would be about 62.5 million.  I mean,
>do you have some numbers on this or what?  By your analysis, women the
>world over are currently experiencing ecstasy over the biggest bestseller
>of all time i.e. the Holy Bible.  How many people actually read "Escape Me
>Never"?

While we're bashing his numerical methods, let's not forget that it is highly
improbable that each sale represents a different woman.  Most people I know who
read romance novels:
a.  admit that they are the stupidest thing ever.
b.  read them extremely quickly (compared to other lit they read, if any)
c.  read more than one of them.

So, those millions of books may be read only by, say, hundreds of thousands of
women.

Of course, they are also quite a lot of them that are resold, so there is no
real way of telling exactly how many of them get read.

Actually, I read one of those things once.  [Which basically means I've read
all of them]

BTW, you do have a point about these books being equivalent to porn, and that
they are very non-PC, yet read by women all over.

I would be interested to know if feminists typically read those things, btw.
Anybody know anyone from the book companies who would know that sort of thing?
[I'm sure they try to keep track of their consumer base.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: children and divorce
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 04:31:32 GMT


It has been established for a long time that having children
reduces the likelihood of divorce (staying together for the
children's sake, have an important joint investment, etc.)

There is an interesting footnote here however.  Apparently, boy 
children "hold marriages together" better than girl children.

If the first child is a girl, the probability of divorce is .43.
If the first child is a boy, the probability of divorce is .39.

If the marriage stays together long enough to have two kiddies:

If they are both girls, the probability of divorce is .31.
If they are both boys, the probability of divorce is .27.

It has been argued that this differential may be explained by the
fact that fathers take a larger role in raising boys and thus
releive the mother of over-reponsibility and frustration.  

(see Morgan, Lye and Condran, American Journal of Sociology 94: 
110-129.)

rini
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Date: 8 Nov 92 09:43:07
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov6.054611.23437@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Nov6085825@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Nov8.165909.7801@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:59:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.165909.7801@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov6085825@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov6.054611.23437@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>> Why do people read Stephen King books? Probably for the same reason many
>>> women read romance novels, it fullfills some need. Probably not the same
>>> need though rini. I suspect that the Stephen King books meet some need
>>> for excitement, somewhat like the T2 movie.
>>
>>Why *not* the same need?  Many romance novels are essentially
>>adventure stories with some (often a lot of) sex thrown in (ever see
>>"Romancing the Stone"?).  These do meet a need for excitement in the
>>non-sexual sense.  

>Too the extent that they both *may* contain romance, and adventure, I
>agree with you. But Stephen King writes -->horror<-- novels. People
>get eaten by giant worms, cars which take on a life of their own, and
>do non-romantic things to their owners, the townspeople, etc...

>Are you saying that romance novels and horror novels address the same
>needs? I disagree, any common elements notwithstanding.

They're both entertainment and escapism...different people (not
specifically men or women) have different needs/interests/whatever in
terms of *how* they wish to escape, but I think the basic desire to feel
excitement and escape from often less-than-wonderful lives *is* the
same.  In the same way, both a steak and a salad address the basic need
of hunger, but they are very different.

>>[...]  That is exciting in a different way from the action-adventure type
>>books, but still exciting, especially to a woman who has little power in
>>her own life.

>Do you mean women who do not choose to use the power that they do have?

Nope.  I mean women whose power has been constrained or invalidated by 
our society, and probably more specifically by the people around them.

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: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:27:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.203541.7941@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <BxJ6or.HnC@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>[...]
>>If a woman is presumed able to make a responsible, considered decision
>>regarding abortion, then she should be presumed able to consider
>>economic factors in her decision.
>>
>>If she knows she will become a single parent without taxpayer support,
>>she should take this into account before a child is created.  Don't
>>forget the "pro-choice" convention that there is no child before birth.
>>
>>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.
>
>What else is new?
>
>This is what my mother has drummed into me for years. If a woman
>has children, she must provide for them. If he wants to help, he's
>sweet; she *HAS* to support the children or else she's inhuman.

Your mother's opinions are not represented by our laws and our government.

A mother who can't support her children is regarded as a victim,
not as inhuman.  A mother who has children is regarded as having
a right to demand assistance from government or the legal father,
regardless of how responsible or irresponsible her choice was,
or what the legal father wanted or planned.

She has this right by virtue (ie. by rationalization) of 
presumably representing the best interests of her children.

By the way, was your mother talking about caring for children
or about monetary support?  Does she think that a woman has a right 
to demand *monetary* assistance from a man who didn't want children?


(I admire your mother's responsibility.  In no way do I want to offend
you, but I would like to say that the rather persistent idea that men 
"helping out" is "sweet" is not just derogatory to men but continues
to hinder men from participating in family life [not only in a direct
manner but through legal decisions affected by it].  And from exercising
what should be equal rights.  IMHO.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Date: 8 Nov 92 21:43:46 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

I won't try and get into an argument on Marxism and feminism with Robert,
but I do want to address one point...

>    Almost half of all women, by contrast, are raped or victims of
>    attempted rape at least once in their lives. Almost 40 percent 
>    are victims of sexual abuse in childhood. [!!!!!!!] (p. 174)

Obviously Robert finds this statistic outrageous. But perhaps he is
falling prey to the exact male view of rape and sexual abuse that
MacKinnon referred to - that it must involve penetration. Children may
be sexually abused without even being touched. Sexual abuse on children
may take the form of being shown pornography by adults, or having adults
perform sexual acts in front of them. It may be through adults talking
sexually to them, or telling them all they will ever be good for is sex.
Child sexual abuse can occur at the hands of the teacher who touches you
in odd places as he leans over your desk, or the brother who uses you for
his own experimentation, or the man who masturbates in front of you on
a train, or the doctor who pokes and prods unneccessarily while your
mother waits on the other side of the curtain...... None of these
scenarios are the father rape type thing that many people who don't know
better think of when they think of child sexual abuse. But these 
situations must NOT be belittled - they are sexual abuse and they do
cause enormous amounts of damage to a child's growing sexual awareness
and sense of self. Personally I suspect that figure of 40% to be on the
conservative side.


	Carol

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:18:51 GMT

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

>>Rich, the point is that the useage of the term "rape" does not imply  
>>that the poster is using it to make men look bad.  Why right there, 
>>in the line just you wrote, you have used to the word "rape" without
>>coming off as anti-male to me.  You see, grep isn't able to sort
>>that statement of yours from the very different statement "all 
>>men rape".
 
>That was not -my- point. Make whatever point you wish, but -as- your
>point. 

Yes, that was *my* point.  

>My point is that if the feminists claims about language and it's
>usage devaluing women have -any- validity, than men are devalued equally
>by making rape a common word in everyday usage, as it is here.

But who has made it a common word?  People who want to be pronents
of men's rights.  Are you saying that by using the word "rape" they
are somehow undermining their cause?

If you think this, you should check your own posts more carefully,
because you have done it several times yourself.

>>Second, and most important for your point, there were many 
>>more posts which used to term "rape" to point to a negative 
>>aspect of "feminism" than used the term to point anything 
>>about men.
>
>Actually, most started from quotes by feminists like MacKinnon, but
>the threads often extend far beyond expiration. 

Exactly.  When was the last time people used MacKinnon to say nice
things about feminism?

>>In short, I can't see how Rich got the impression that this news
>>group overwhelmingly refers to men as rapists.
> 
>So you think that this usage is normal.

I'm just anylyzing the data you gave me.  It was your "proof."

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: children and divorce
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:11:40 GMT

mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>
>|> There is an interesting footnote here however.  Apparently, boy 
>|> children "hold marriages together" better than girl children.

 [stats deleted for space]

>|> (see Morgan, Lye and Condran, American Journal of Sociology 94: 
>|> 110-129.)
 
>Before we all start making grandiose conclusions, look at the numbers
>here.  In both cases the probabilities listed are within 4% of each
>other.  Now, if the people who had done this research had used divorce
>stats on many thousands of couples, then the 4% could be considered
>relatively accurate for the general population.  If not, then the 
>margin of error could easily be 4% or higher (just look at most
>government and media polls these days).  At any rate, I don't think
>a result of 4% difference is too significant.

There are two kinds of "difference" too talk about.  "Statistically
significant" difference (related to margin of error, sample size,
hypothesis test, probability, etc.) and "substantively interesting 
difference" (e.g. is a 4% difference in the population big enough to 
give two hoots about.)  

Regarding this article, yes the difference was found to be statistically
significant.  That is, there is a very high probability that the 
difference found in their sample is reflective of a real difference
in the population.  (The sample, btw, is a huge one:  the Current
Population Survey, by the Census Bureau.  That's the same thing we use 
to calculate unemployment statistics.  If memory serves, it involves
50,000 people.)

It's your call whether 4% is interesting or not.

(Aside: the article also shows a large and statistically significant
difference in the amount of time fathers spend with sons and daughters:
twice as many sons as daughters say they do things with father "often."
Relatedly, sons are 47% more likely to be "extremely close" with their 
father than daughters are.)

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism