HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item? (yet another ref!)
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:07:15
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1dvpi7INNq4e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov13083614@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1e0of0INNrt8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 13 Nov 1992 17:25:52 GMT

In article <1e0of0INNrt8@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov13083614@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Nope.  I considered, as I made clear in my response, that I thought they
>>were relevant to the "original claims" in  article I was responding to.
>>So, why is it that you feel so strongly that you just *must* find some
>>incorrectness or inconsistency in my postings?  You're starting to get
>>kind of obsessive about it.

>Not obsessive, just mildly amused at a person's unwillingness
>to admit error at all costs, no matter how silly (as if Robert's
>article can be reasonably thought of as 'the original claim' about
>liberal men).  Small serendipitous humor is better than none.

Well, since it was the first article I *saw* on the subject, I thought
of it as the original.  However, you're right about humor...and I always
appreciate the humor in the obsessing of people on this newsgroup about
me, as if I was the root of all the evils of the world.  So, I guess we
can both enjoy...*grin*...

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: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 00:49:14 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.210834.14626@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard
Lynch) wrote: 

> 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.

O.K.
 
> I suppose you imagine that because the only feminists you know are the ones
> that say crap like that.

?

Garry.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3682 rec.humor:32987
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: the demonization of Muffy (was Re: Clinton Gore position on women)
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:04:17 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov2.000154.13400@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
DSA>Considering a lot of the posts I see up on this board, I would not blame Ms.
DSA>Barkocy for putting some posters in her kill file.  

MEC>Case in point...

Ouch.

DSA>If she does not wish to be a masochist why blame her?  

MEC>Actually, I'm pretty sure she *is* into S&M.  :)

She has three eyes, no?

DSA>If I put some of you in my kill file (I don't have
DSA>one), would you be as outraged?  No, women should sit and listen to your
DSA>abuse because the thought of it turns you on.  Damnable misogynists.

MEC>Well, I sure hope you don't think women should sit and listen to you
MEC>rant irrationally and hurl insults, because the thought of it makes you 
MEC>feel righteous.

After reading what I have written, I am starting to consider putting myself
in my kill file.

MEC>Or am I a damnable misandrist?

Yes.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:14:46 GMT

Sorry, I got a little carried away there.

-dave
From: tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Honest Question -- No flames please
Date: 10 Nov 92 07:46:58 GMT
Reply-To: tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king)
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: tzeking@sleepy.cc.utexas.edu


	I'm a bit new at this, so I don't quite know what to expect, response-
wise, especially on a news group such as this.  I have to know, though, so 
please, if you wish to respond seriously, send me email instead of, how
do you say 'taking up bandwidth'.
	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.  So, this in
mind, shouldn't you all just find a good, strong man that can provide for you
and remain at home to raise his (and yours of course) children until you are
beyond prime reproductive age?  I think the examplum for your behaviour is
clear, in the animal kingdom, as well as in the religious philosophies of your
western culture.  And please, I don't mean to reflect on your worth as persons
, quite the opposite... if you fulfill your role as child barers of the species
you are of paramount importance.  I only want to remind you of what most see
to be your obligation to wellbeing of the race.  So stop fighting the system 
and return to your roles, beside your man, providing for your children until
your role in this function has passed.
	Many Thanks for your time, and good wishes to your fertile future.

.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:56:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.030726.25981@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes to Stewart Schultz:

>So far I have seen nothing from you that has not been
>negatively critical of feminism except this thread --
>which seems to be snuffling along in the same direction --
>which would seem to belie your profession of cool, 
>objective rationality, wouldn't it?  Or does your cool, 
>objective rationality tell you that feminism is entirely 
>bad?  Or have I missed those articles in which you find
>something to praise?

Gordon, I think you have indeed missed something.  Stewart has
posted a number of ideas that are not critical of feminism, 
and indeed are very supportive.  

He has more than once argued/agreed that women face barriers 
to acting assertive and ambitious (just as men face barriers
to acting passive and demure).  He has argued that these sex
roles are unjust.  How can that be critical of feminism?  

That seems to be at the very heart of it, if you ask me.  
I think his input is valuable, and that you have missed the
point.

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: test please ignore ->I can't seem to follow posts
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:58:54 GMT

Just a test

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:51:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.034720.13410@midway.uchicago.edu>,
mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) wrote:
> 
> In article <garry-041192190514@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> 
> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>  
> >There's an awful lot of young men
> >wandering around upset with their categorization as "nice guys" and hence
> >not suitable mating material (not until they have substantial $$$ or a
> >clearly high-status future, anyway).  
> 
> Setting aside the important and still relevant issue of "marrying up" 
> (income, status, age, height) for the moment, I just want to note that 
> the men who are in highest demand in the marriage market are those 
> with less macho and more egalitarian views, especially in regards to 
> female labor force participation, housework and child-rearing.  
> 
> On the other side, it is the "traditional" women who are the valued
> commodity on the other side of the marriage market.
> 
> References can be dug up on request.
> 
> rini

Please do, though it's somewhat off the point unless these less macho, more
egalitarian men can also have lower incomes or social status.

Garry.
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 6 Nov 92 04:52:55 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <1992Nov5.231113.1703@panix.com> 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>| Gordon, I think you have indeed missed something.  Stewart has

>| posted a number of ideas that are not critical of feminism, 
>| and indeed are very supportive.  
>| 
 
>Could be.  But a "balanced viewpoint" is often the preface
>of an attack.  

Well, better a "balanced viewpoint" than a skewed one.

>I find the whole thread on homelessness
>pretty curious, with the recurrent idea that the reason
>men are on the street is due to prejudice against them.

Are you confusing two concepts of "on the street"?  I haven't
seen anyone say that sexism "put" them on the street, but 
rather keeps the number of beds in shelters proportionately low.

>As I've tried to show, this is a fairly speculative 
>idea.

Well, of course.  Gosh, who doesn't speculate around here?  At 
this speculation came with a published reference or two which
used Real Data.  (Though the study was not unequivocal, IMO.)
 
>Since it's posted in alt.feminism, and as there is a fairly
>constant complaint that feminists are prejudiced against
>men, the connection being set up seems fairly obvious.

Well, if this argument was coming from, say, Shaeffer or Garry King,
I could see why you might be suspicious.  But this guy seems polite 
and reasonable to me.  I've never seen him show an inclination to
bash feminism.  Do you know something I don't?

>There's no question that some of the people pursusing
>the thread have exactly that outcome in mind.  And if so,
>we might as well get it out in the open now.

Yes, no doubt there are those folks.  But maybe you should wait until
*that* argument actually shows up before you bite.

Of course, that's my opinion.... and as we all know, I'm an unjust and
opressive arbiter.  Oh well.  :)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:18:38 GMT

In article <1dpir5INNr24@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com> teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>
>>The point is that when a woman has a problem with something (anything
>>at all it seems) she is perceived as having a valid complaint, regardless
>>what, if anything has happened. But when a man has a problem with 
>>anything regarding women, -he- becomes at fault, and a direct, unsupported
>>attack upon his sexuality is accepted. This from the same group which
>>just recently discussed gender expectations.
>
>Hmm, seems to me a few women just said they have a problem with the media
>presenting practically unattainable images of beauty and they were basically
>told (by men) to "get a life, stop watching TV, it's your fault."  

Since you went to all the trouble to put those quotes around the text, hows
about re-posting the post. I did not say "get a life".

>                                                                   I believe 
>you were one of them.  

I believe you misrepresented my post then, rini, you missed one.

>                          I believe most people on this group would agree with
>me, but they don't have time to post a response like you will.

There is no way to counter proof like that. You win.

And your condesending style is sure to win you friend and influence people.
 
>Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
> San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
>  teri@sdd.hp.com  
>=============================================================================


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:33:07 GMT

In article <BxEw74.JGs@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov7.211232.26686@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> >beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> >>>rini writes:
> 
> 
> >It's fairly well established, as well, that women vote along
> >more liberal lines than men. 
> >
> >>>A working mother can be as good a mother as a non-working mother.
> >>>
> >>>                      % men       % women
> >>>-----------------------------------------------
> >>>Agree                  55.3         68.1
> >>>Disagree               44.7         31.9
> >>
> >>
> >>Now, how do men and women feel about the following?
> >>
> >> A working father can be as good a parent as a non-working mother.
> >
> >I don't know, but I bet most of both would disagree.  It's still a 
> >fairly "traditional" world....
> 
> This scares me no end.
> 
> I guess the women aren't going to vote along lines *that* liberal.
> 
> signed,
> 
> a working father
> -- 
> beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

Dear Working Father:

As the child of a non-working father and a grad student mother, then a
working father and a non-working mother, then a working father and a
working mother, and  soon again a non-working father and a working mother
(these are only 2 people), I submit that a working father CAN be as good a
parent as a non-working mother.  In fact, given that my non-working mother
wasn't particularly happy about not working, I'd say that my working father
and my working mother were both better parents because they had jobs and
responsibilities outside the home.  Dissatis- faction or unfulfilled-ness
in a parent is a feeling that is surprisingly perceptible to children. 
Much as I hate '80s cliches, there really is something to the concept of
"quality time".  

This is one woman who is *that* liberal. 

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:11:13 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
| Gordon, I think you have indeed missed something.  Stewart has
| posted a number of ideas that are not critical of feminism, 
| and indeed are very supportive.  
| 
| He has more than once argued/agreed that women face barriers 
| to acting assertive and ambitious (just as men face barriers
| to acting passive and demure).  He has argued that these sex
| roles are unjust.  How can that be critical of feminism?  
| 
| That seems to be at the very heart of it, if you ask me.  
| I think his input is valuable, and that you have missed the
| point.

Could be.  But a "balanced viewpoint" is often the preface
of an attack.  I find the whole thread on homelessness
pretty curious, with the recurrent idea that the reason
men are on the street is due to prejudice against them.
As I've tried to show, this is a fairly speculative 
idea.

Since it's posted in alt.feminism, and as there is a fairly
constant complaint that feminists are prejudiced against
men, the connection being set up seems fairly obvious.
There's no question that some of the people pursusing
the thread have exactly that outcome in mind.  And if so,
we might as well get it out in the open now.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item? (yet another ref!)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 17:25:52 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov13083614@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Nope.  I considered, as I made clear in my response, that I thought they
>were relevant to the "original claims" in  article I was responding to.
>So, why is it that you feel so strongly that you just *must* find some
>incorrectness or inconsistency in my postings?  You're starting to get
>kind of obsessive about it.

Not obsessive, just mildly amused at a person's unwillingness
to admit error at all costs, no matter how silly (as if Robert's
article can be reasonably thought of as 'the original claim' about
liberal men).  Small serendipitous humor is better than none.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:42:43 GMT

In article <carol.721259026@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol
Gibson) wrote:

> >    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)

An absolutely verifiable figure to be sure ...

> 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.


The opinions of anyone who casts child sexual abuse in this fashion deserve
belittlement.  What's the equation again ?


Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization:  Boogie Rats on Speed
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 05:57:12 GMT

I heard that both the American and European congress of Bishops are trying 
to come up with an acceptable proposal to:

1) Let women deliver the Holy Sacraments (handle priests duties)
2) Let clergy of either sex marry.
3) Some other goodies I can't remember...

Apparently His Holiness, the Pope, who has heretofore been against women
priests because of the Biblical precedent of Jesus selecting all male
apostles to spread His word, has indicated that he would be receptive to 
a well-reasoned plan to begin introducing women to the priesthood, and letting
current clergy marry or not as is their choice. American bishops and their
European counterparts are meeting to come up with a proposal...

Looks like interesting times ahead for the Roman Catholic Church...I just
hope that his Holiness stays healthy until the reforms are in place. A
new pontiff might put a wrench in things.

Now, I could be remembering some factoids wrong, but the above is basically
as it came off the evening news.

Interesting RC Factoids: In a Gallup poll of Roman Catholics in the US, 2/3
                         are all for women clergy and the changes, but at the
                         same time, 2/3 of the women Catholics, both clergy
                         and laity, do not feel they are oppressed by the
                         Church.

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 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:04:24 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>Rini has
>been full of it in many of her claims, and at least once she just made
>up something that was not there. 

Bullshit.

>She has also claimed that I have 
>misrepresented -my- opinion, and there I am positive she is wrong.

You lie.

rini
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:52:54 GMT

In article <1dudf8INNhda@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:


>Where does the government guarantee that a woman won't be rejected
>by her friends and family, won't be discriminated against by her 
>religious community, 

Does *anyone* have a *right* not to be rejected by friends, family, church?

Should government enforce such a right?  How?  Should she be able
to sue her friends, family, church,  if they reject her?


>... won't be abused by her SO if her abortion
>becomes known to them?

Government should certainly outlaw abuse.  It does, doesn't it?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Date: 6 Nov 92 00:14:59 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

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

>>It has been suggested a number of times that the feminists who post
>>to the net appear to be a non-representative bunch (e.g. no one here 
>>has really supported Dworkin/McKinnon, no has argued that men
>>worship death, that intercourse implies rape, etc.). 
>>
>>So this makes me curious: any hypotheses out there as to what mechanism 
>>would link computer literacy and net access to a certain subset of
>>feminist views?  In other words:  are there a priori reasons why we 
>>should suspect that the views we hear expressed on the net are not 
>>representative of the feminist population in general?
 
>Or, conversly, are there any reasons to expect that any clearly defined
>subset of feminists (i.e. those with net eccess) would have representative
>views? As I posted in another post, same goes for the non-feminists.

Yes, the same goes for non-feminists.  Unless I can be given a strong
reason to suspect otherwise, I'll go on the assumption that the voices
on the net are "representative" of feminist, anti-feminist, post-feminist,
non-feminist, [insert prefix]-feminist viewpoints in the population.

I think it's not an unfair assumption, and it is useful because it directs 
us to talk to eachother instead of to the vague nebulous entities that
exist out there somewhere in the world.

Granted, it's not a great sample, but it's what I have to go on.  The
net, and my real.life.friends.

rini