HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Date: 2 Oct 92 21:09:15 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Oct2.004930.16563@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>From the National Enquirer, Sept. 26 (approx), 1992:

	[How Di supposedly batters Charles...]

	You, Robert Sheaffer, taking the National Enquirer seriously???

>Of course Di should batter her husband - her *needs* weren't being *met*!  :)

	What is the point of this sarcastic remark?

>Poor Prince Charles (indeed, poor Royal Family); yet another casualty of
>the contemporary headlong rage for gender-bending.

	So you think it should be Charles who should be battering Di?

	Ugh.

>Some questions for the Net:

>  A) Should Charles fight back?

	_If_ attacked, yes, but he shouldn't be too rough. If this
abuse is real (_if_ it is real, that is), then Charles has every
right to complain.

>  B) Why isn't Di just *delighted* with Charles? He's the very model of
>     a soft, sensitive, non-exploitationist husband, a dependable
>     provider and loving father, exactly what feminists SAY they want.

	I got the impression that Charles wasn't paying that much
attention to her. He _is_ a known womanizer, so he hardly fits your
Alan Alda portrayal of him.

>  C) Might his marriage now be in far better shape if he had stood up
>     to her abuse from the beginning?

	Look, here is a rather badly mismatched couple, so there is no
way that the marriage could work beyond any initial infatuation.

	And are you suggesting that Charles do all the abusing?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:20:10 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.180053.17246@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct2.132202.142@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>>
>>The National Enquirer?  Lady Colin Campbell?  Come on, Robert, you've got 
>>to be joking.......
>
>Why? Actually, the "National Enquirer" has gotten pretty careful about
>checking out the facts before reporting a story, since they lost some
>big libel suits in the 1970s. (This does not guarantee that a story is
>true, of course, only that people have been quoted accurately).

Oh, right.  Like the royal family is really going to sue for libel.  <snort>

>Why do you disbelieve this? Is is because sweet little women never
>belittle their husbands to test their manhood?

Hey, could it be because the _National Enquirer_ demonstrably has no
journalistic integrity at all? 

Nahh!

Charleen

--
Mary had a little lamb
She fed it castor oil
Every time it jumped the fence
It fertilized the soil
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape? No way!
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 03:22:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.221842.6563@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>One may also wish to consider carrying Mace.  I gave a can to a friend who
>moved to a not-so-nice neighborhood recently, and she feels much safer having
>it handy.  [Unfortunately, they were out of Mace and I got PepperGuard <tm>
>instead.  Is it inferior enough to warrant going back someday and getting "the
>real thing"?]

A couple of posters in talk.rape post fairly frequently on the effects
of Mace, that it feels like hell, makes you mad as hell, yet probably
doesn't deter someone bent on attacking you.  Maybe a pistol would
have been a better housewarming present.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Property, Patriarchy, and all that (was: women in engineering)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:10:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.202558.21840@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <qx9ny7h.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep22.200612.3695@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

[ #1 omitted as irrelevant ]

>>>#2.
>>>This statement is also fairly old (in terms of the feminist movement).  The
>>>family was perceive at one time as necessarily oppressive by many feminists.
>>>IMHO, this was because it was utilized as a tool of oppression, rather than
>>>being inherently oppressive.  Current mainstream feminism merely insists that
>>>a woman or man should have the right to choose their place in the work-place
>>>or home or any combination thereof without illogical and unethical societal
>>>forces to one or the other.
>>>
>>>In short, you have failed to show a clear citation for your position; and your
>>>citation is out-of-date.
>>
>>Let's see, your argument is "De Beauvoir never said that the family is
>>slavery, and we've decided we don't believe her any more, anyway!"
>
>Yep to the first half:
>ie, You're not able to equate what de Beauvoir wrote with your statement.
>[Lynch 1; Payne 0]

Listen, you have your attributes as messed up as badly as Gorden Fitch has
my post messed up.

I suggest you get yoursely un-confused.

>That's a gross over-simplification:
>You specifically said that "family = slavery IS the basic feminist position";
>the use of IS (in caps, no less) and basic does imply current mainstream
>feminism;  de Beauvoir doesn't qualify as current.
>[Lynch 2; Payne 0]

You may be able to count, but that does not mean you have things straight
either. "Payne" is not in this argument, I suggest you get your attributes
straight. For the hard of reading, do not use my name here. In fact, I
think a correction is necessary.

[even more fun stuff ommitted, also irrelevant ]
 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1679 soc.men:16982 soc.women:17091
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: MEN-BASHING
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 00:06:57 GMT
Organization:  I didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, you can't prove anything!

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>>>I find it interesting that there is so much discussion on this episode
>>>>of men bashing (where women get together and call all men scum) and so
>>>>little comment on the use of cunt as a perjorative.
>>>I have no idea why. In my experiences, men rarely get called cunts. Perhaps
>>>this is a more appropriate subject for the topic of female bashing.
>>
>>But men thought by other men to be wimps can be called pussies...innit the
>>same thing, to a certain degree?
>
>I agree that it is the same thing, but it is not the same term. And is this
>not a discussion of terms?

True...actually, what I find interesting is that most women can shrug off 
being called a bitch and any number of other things, but call them a cunt, 
and you had better start running! Most of the women I know/have observed go
absolutely berserk.

>>At any rate, what I think ljf was talking about was the preponderance of
>>articles talking about male bashing as compared to articles about female
>>bashing, and I would have to say that I find it interesting that both sides
>>of the <gender>-bashing issue seem to think that the other is off their bean
>>to say that <gender>-bashing is meaningless, a bonding thing, a stress 
>>reliever.
>
>Hmmm, I've heard of 'male bonding', but never 'female bonding'. There are
>often no matching terms. 

No, but many of the women posting to this thread have referred to male-bashing
as a bonding ritual of sorts, a tread on common ground. Females bond too, we
just don't get drunk and bowl to do it...:)

>>Personally, given what all this bashing discussion was started with, I don't 
>>see what is so awful about it either way. I thought the Seminars for Men list 
>>was funny, and I also thought that the Seminars for Women list that I saw 
>>part of was funny as well.
>
>Must've been in something that I killed. Guess it's time to edit the kill file.

Um...if memory serves, I think Hillel posted it...

>Rich

   Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:04:17
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Sep25182331@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<6403@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu's message of 28 Sep 92 17:44:13 GMT

In article <6403@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>If you want examples of men's groups being seen as threatening to women's
>groups, get a subscription to Playboy.  (Check out the copies for the blind
>at the local library if the pictures offend you).

That is very funny, I must say.  I have been looking at the pictures in
Playboy since I was about 8-9 years old; my stepfather subscribed and my
mother would let us look at the cartoons.  Are you, by any chance,
exhibiting some assumptions about feminists here?  I don't find the
pictures particularly enthralling or exciting, but I have never been
offended by them.

>Their are some groups, but they are struggling.  I assumed that you were
>interested in helping to lend them some financial support.  The groups
>really need it.  If you truly believe in equality, you'll want to help with
>your very own pocketbook.

I'm already contributing to a lot of groups which *are* interested in
equality.  You make a lot of assumptions, don't you?  I might be
interested in contributing to a group that was truly interested in
equality, or I might think that the groups I am already supporting are
more important.  Here's a question: Who do *you* contribute to, and why?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 92 14:34:59 GMT

In article <22563@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>I wonder what you have agianst "white het-boys", sounds like a rap group.
>I have noted that some feminists on the net quite frequently like to bash
>white het-boys".  Does bashing "white het-boys" have anyting to do with 
>sexual orientation?

I thought "white het-boy" was equivalent to the term feminazi,
shorthand to express one's disgust and contempt for a certain mindset.
I know many white hetero men who are never white het-boys.

Clue:  Pat Buchanan was born, lives as, and will die a white het-boy.
Phyllis Schlafly is an honorary white het-boy.  George Bush is a
wannabe white het-boy (he's got the whine down, but he's a bit too
goofy).

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:37:24 GMT
X-Posted-From: fnalno.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct2.004930.16563@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> From the National Enquirer, Sept. 26 (approx), 1992:

[article cut]
> -- 
>   
>         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>   
>  Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
> 

I think that sums up Mr. Sheaffer's credibility as a skeptic rather nicely.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 30 Sep 1992 17:33:53 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

>> Those who have the means to do so should have to
>> finance the costs of raising children out of their
>> after-tax income.  Just because it's an expensive
>> proposition doesn't mean you should soak the taxpayers
>> for it.   [Steve Pope]
>
> And this attitude is probably why it is so difficult to get any decent
> money for education in this country, including good schools and decent
> wages for qualified teachers.   [Marguerite Petersen]

The "attitudes" may be related as Marguerite suggests; however
I do not personally begrudge the amount of property tax I pay for
schools because I believe that educating children is good
for society in general.  Whereas subsidized daycare is just a
a pocketbook issue for those raising childre, with no social
value in and of itself.

(Joe Francis' point -- that there is much precedent for public 
education, and none for subsidized daycare -- is well taken.)

Steve
From: ajo9763@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Attack Pattern" #2
Date: 5 Oct 92 20:26:08 GMT
Reply-To: ajo9763@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology

I totally disagree that women are more backstabbing than men.  I think that
the male ego (machismo) is responsible for a great deal of what is wrong
with this country.  Someday, I believe, women will rule the world and there
isn't really anything that can be done.  As a man, I know that I am slightly
inferior to the women around me in emotions.  I just can't seem to relate to
the way people (particularly women) feel sometimes and I find in observation
that my male peers are also this way...or they feel they have to put forward
this sort of 'image'.

TJ
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:21:59 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Sep29.175008.18682@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.160823.15340@ils.nwu.edu> 
>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep26.172400.29654@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>(Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>>>> (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>>>
>>>>> Boy, are you... (holding my toungue).  "Real feminists"?  Where on earth
>>>>> was that defined for you?  I challenge you to find one radical, extremist,
>
>>>>Even reading this newsgroup a while will show some examples.
>>>
>>>Oh please, share with me one statement that says that men should have no 
>>>rights, since you persist on insisting it is so rampant.
>>
>>I'm not sure since y'all trimmed so much of the arguments out, and <deity>
>>knows you can't trust Subject: lines in this group, but I think the legalities
>>of a woman's right to bear/abort a fetus without consultation with the father
>>is such a statement.
>
>You're right -- can't trust Subject: lines.  
>
>For historical perspective on this debate, this Sami person implied that
>feminists believe men should have no rights, period.  I know it's
>hardly worth arguing to someone so uninformed (read: ignorant), but...
>I tried.
>
>>Note that this is merely one example in a complex issue, but let's not be
>>extreme and say that men have NO rights OR that men have ALL the rights, ok?
>
>Right.  Silly to make that sort of statement.

Almost as silly as baiting him to find one statement that men should have no
rights?  :-^

My point was that there's bound to be an idiot somewhere who said it or
something close enough.  There *are* a FEW radical feminists who have said
some pretty stupid things over the years, no?
Challenging him in that way isn't much different than his statement.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2090 soc.men:17360
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Johnson and Nixon (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and ...)
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:14:02 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#I think that a liberal like Johnson sent 500,000 drafted men to Vietnam,

In article <1992Oct5.220750.15640@fid.morgan.com> 
sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:

>Johnson only sent soldiers over for the first few years of the war.

Johnson became a president in 1963 with almost no soldiers in Vietnam.
He left the job in 1969 while 500,000 soldiers were in Vietnam.

#Nixon stopped the draft

>No, Nixon first sent Americans to Vietnam for four years (probably
>more than Johnson; I don't remember the exact numbers).  

So check them and get a surprise.

Nixon did what Johnson did, just in reverse.  He became a president
when when 500,000 soldiers were in Vietnam, and five years later
almost none were left.

>Then the
>draft expired, and was not renewed.  I don't recall Nixon attempting
>to end the draft; he could have stopped it by Executive Order, but he
>didn't.

I don't say that Nixon was a saint, I say that compared 
to Johnson Nixon was almost a saint...

>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

Hillel                                              gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I'll take the GOPs over the liberals who would try to tell me how
I may and may not live anyday."  --  Clay Bond
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:22:07 GMT
	<1992Sep26.132403.19468@panix.com>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gcf@panix.com's message of 26 Sep 92 13:24:03 GMT


In article <1992Sep26.132403.19468@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>   I've seen it repeatedly said that women who have put in
>   the same time get the same money and the same promotions;
>   may do a little bit better, in fact.  "Time" refers to
>   both hours per day and years of employment.  

  References, please?  I'd very much like to see proof of this; there
are many things that I have seen repeatedly that aren't true :-)  This
would give me more hope if it were so (pardon my doubt... *smile*)

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:01:10 GMT
Reply-To: shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us

In article <v=_pqha.barry@netcom.com>, barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

> 	Test question: which is worse, a male-only draft, or one where
> both sexes are eligible? Stinking choice, but I prefer the former. At
> least only half the population gets shat on that way. If you'd choose
> the latter, perhaps the draft isn't your main concern?

Interesting point. Perhaps that's why the middle-aged women of NOW were
willing to accept a draft (of young women) if that was the price they
(ahem, somebody else) had to pay to pass an ERA.

-- 
_________________________________
Steve Homer  shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshman
Date: 2 Oct 92 00:17:48 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <BvGtvz.40y@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>, moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
|> To repeat another post, what is wrong with `fresher'?

For one thing it strains an already known mechanism. Adding 'er' to 'fresh'
makes me at least think of 'one who freshes'. I prefer the terms newbie,
(new)meat, or grist(for the mill).

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Arlen Specter vs Lynn Yeakle race and feminists, etc.
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 14:59:08 GMT

In article <6512@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>, tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
wrote:

>  [ material on Specter vs. Yeakle deleted]
> His
> big blemish IS his cross examination of Anita Hill (even a bigger blemish
> than his "magic bullet" theory that was used by the Warren Commission
> investigating President Kennedy's assination). 
> 
> Terry

After all this time, I'm still highly amused by the Thomas hearings and the
resulting fallout.

It seems that much of the displeasure following the hearings was due to the
fact that Prof. Hill was not accorded some special deference due to
womanhood.  She went to the hearings to oppose Thomas.  Did people expect
the Republicans to smile, thank her kindly, then quickly ditch their
nominee ?  Instead, they gave her a moderately tough time, as any threat to
the nomination would have received.  It was a profoundly equalitarian
stance.

The aftermath was a crude exploitation of the Woman Good - Man Bad gestalt.
 It could be argued that using Prof. Hill as a standard bearer for sexual
harassment both trivializes the issue and ups the ante by making *anything*
that a male says in the vicinity of a female that is even vaguely sexual
"harassment" if the female chooses.  Nice deal if you can get it.


Garry.