HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:10:58 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Nov7.155722.26638@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.161630.9723@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>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.  
>
>Lets's turn that around, is rape a normal everyday topic, which, like
>the weather, you would expect to come up in most conversations?

Is this alt.weather?
I didn't think so.


>Because it eventually gets brought up in a majority (I am pretty sure)
>of topics here.

Most of the times *I've* seen it brought up were in Gazit leavings.
You know, those wonderful little posts where he finds some truly stupid quote
from a RadFem to pick apart.
Another time includes that guy who said he couldn't say rape was wrong.
Then there are all the ones that pointed out that only a very small percentage
of men rape.

Face it, your data sampling is worthless.  Your conclusion may be correct, but
so far, you've got nothing in the way of proof.


>I would also like to point out that feminists say that what men say, and
>the way they say it, limits and devalue women. If this is true, does
>not the same apply to the way feminists talk about men? 

Discussing rape does not automatically mean one is discussing all men, as you
seem to think it does.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:09:25 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.234511.15055@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>>Women often have to subordinate their careers to raising children.  
> 
>>What do you propose to do about this? Have the baby then send it off
>>to some state institution?
>
>How about sharing the childcare with a husband (or one or more other
>adults in your family/community) so that parenting no longer requires 
>subordination of mom's career? 

Odd, if I were to assume a husband, some would ask why. Given that there
-is- a husband, then this becomes a decision between the husband and wife,
not you or I or society. And there is much more to raising a child than
the birth. With most families haveing 2 working members now, there are few
free adults in the family/community pool. And the incidence of abuse in
day care seems way too high to me. I suspect there is a high risk in
trusting others with ones child.
 
>Just an idea...

Perhaps in need of more thought...
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Lafave)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:47:37 GMT
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) asks:
#beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
#
#>Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
#>decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?
#
#Why should a man be any less able to do so than a woman?

  If you believe the leadership of NOW; women have an inborn ability to 
nurture and care, that men just don't have.  They are upset that 10% of 
contested custody disputes place the child(ren) with the father.  I presume 
they would like to see the number at 0.000% .
  As an aside; feminism and gender equality do not go hand in hand.  The 
majority of (not all) feminists believe the current system of *female 
requires choice; man made choice when unzipping fly* is equitable.  This is 
useful because it frees women from traditional roles (motherhood) while 
*keeping men in their place* and traditional role (provider of $$).  NOW 
is in the business of promoting feminist issues, and that includes retaining 
female advantages wherever they exist, while eliminating male advantages.
  This is neither good nor bad.  Basically they are just another political 
action committee under the guise of a moral crusade.  Just don't confuse 
feminism with gender equality.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.031851.23323@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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.  

">>>Rich, the point is that the useage", notice you said, "the 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.

Which completely misses the point. Play the blame game with rini!
 
>>>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?

See, you treat comments about MacKinnon as attacks upon all of
feminism. Is this not the same kind of thing GF seems to hate
about anti-feminists? 
 
>>>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."

No, there is no such thing as proof. But there is such a thing
as evidence. You asked for it, you got it. But you still find
something to bitch about.
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3691 rec.humor:32993
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:43:03 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov3.071152.5031@lclark.edu> rorem@lclark.edu (Eric Rorem) writes:
>not really a feminist joke and maybe its been posted, but what the hey....
ER>Q: How many girls does it take to screw in a light bulb?
ER>A: Its women and its not funny.

A: Its a tired joke and its not funny.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:22:19 GMT

maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
    
[Hypothetical legal system of Jen's deleted.]

>>>  >What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?
>> 
>>>Should the man be forced to pay child support if he requested
>>
>>No, because in the default situtation Jen outlined (when no "parenting
>>plan" is filed) the woman becomes the sole legal parent.
 
>Why?

Because she has clearly expressed a desire to parent (that is, she
carried a developing fetus for 9 months), while the father has
not.  

It is my impression from what I read in the net, that many men think
it's a problem that they are automatically *given* responsibility 
for a born child which they never expressed a desire to have.

So, in the absense of a legally expressed desire, it seems fine and
well to assume that he has no desire to parent and accept the 
responsibilities implied.

Remember, we're talking about a hypothetical system here.... one in
which fathers are given a "choice"....  To have that "choice", they
have to *express* it, in a legally binding format.

>'Having it both ways' might as well be _defined_ as discarding the
>responsibility to bring up a child but demanding privilages in the
>choices involved!

What?  I don't get your point.

>Man in a feminist society has to be able to bring up a child just
>as well as a woman. IMHO he can anyway. 

Sure.  Fine.  I have nothing against fathers.   My dad did a great
job with me.

>Why not have the court decide on merit! 

Fine.  If they both have established that they want the child, that's 
fine.  Indeed, it's really the only "fair" thing to do.

>Frankly the number of cases with no parenting plan will be high. This
>in itself shows that the strong emotional pulls experienced when one
>is in this position makes one irrational. Thus it benifits the child, 
>mother and father for the court to be able to choose the best of two
>parenting options rather than defaulting to one in particular. 

Why not make the man decide whether he wants to be a parent before
the child is born, just as the woman does?  What's the problem with
that?  She generally has about five months in which to decide
(from detectable pregnancy to end of second tri-mester).  Why not
have the man express his desire, in writing, during that same
time frame?  Aren't you looking for a more equitable situation?

rini
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Date: 4 Nov 92 23:47:08 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1992Nov2.170406.8136@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I'm not trying to distract those who want to attack
>feminism.  On the contrary, they reveal themselves more
>thoroughly with each article.  Humor is particularly
>revealing, because it points to emotional tension 
>(among other things).  Clearly, if jokes are made about
>the sexuality of feminists, there's an underlying
>tension, probably fear or anger, which the joke 
>relieves.  The psychology of humor has been studied
>quite a bit, and you can probably find material on
>what I'm talking about in fairly basic texts -- or
>even observe it in daily life.

You wouldn't be if you had a moral foot to stand on.  But you stand on
hypocrital ground.  You distract because of feminist hypocracy.  Feminists
themselves though their actions make many of their arguments invalid.

We hear a lot about a feminist's right to be angry.  Anger seems to be a 
feminist trait.  Feminists are proud of their anger, they nuture it.   
And they, like the so called anti-feminist, _make_ the same kind of jokes.
What right could feminists have to bitch about a few jokes given the fact
they are no different? 

Case in point.  In the November 1992 issue of the "NOW National Times",
their was a ad in the classified section that stated for five bucks I
could order a book of jokes.  The ad stated something like this.  

"If you ever wanted to laugh at a penis -- weenie-toons by women cartoonists 
who mock cocks."

What is your read on this?  Is it not as gross as what you suggest the
anti-feminist jokes are?  My read is hypocracy in action.  Liers of the
realm.  Does this humor reveal anything about feminists or NOW?
How can feminists object to jokes about womens bodies? 

You know, this book of jokes called "weene-toons" is trivial and might
even be as much of a hoot as the feminist manifesto.  What I find offensive
is that feminists act oh so offended by one thing and then go do the same
thing themselves.  They seem very confused people.  Like they don't know
the difference between right and wrong.  They are self-centered in how
the define their terms.

Hillel used to say some thing like this, "When you do it to me it is
feminism, when I do it to you it is sexism".  I couldn't agree more.

starbuck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:13:38 GMT

In article <T4MSBCVJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:

>I believe neither polygamy nor making demands from one's partner is
>emotionally healthy.  I can't understand polygamy and as to making demands, I

Do you have any specifics for why you think polygamy is emotionally unhealthy?
I think an open marriage could be very emotionally healthy.
And, considering the rates of infidelity and the emotional aftermath when 
such is discovered, I'd almost be willing to contend that polygamy would be
more emotionally healthy than monogamy.
'Course, it all depends on the people involved and their values, but from a
strictly logical view-point, polygamy looks like a valid answer.

Disclaimer:  I am neither opposed nor disposed to mono/poly-gamy personally.
I'm prepared to work it out either way for the right woman, if she'd just show
up.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: jchason@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Julie Chason)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise (was: the Male Gaze)
Date: 9 Nov 92 19:29:44 GMT
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:


>One *big* factor is that on the net, you GET criticism and, shall we say,
>"peer review" of a sort, whether you want it or not. Hence, in an
>unmoderated forum, it is impossible to maintain the unmaintainable, a
>situation different than, say, a "Womens Studies" class; I have read
>accounts of incidents where male students took too strong issue with
>what the feminist professor was saying, and were not merely booted out
>of class, but charged with Thought Crimes under P.C. statutes, and
>forced to perform Revolutionary Self-Criticism if they wanted to stay
>in school.

I'm interested in hearing a fuller account of such events.  I have associated
with and had classes with many instructors and professors who can be 
considered PC and feminist.  No one I know has ever resorted to misuse of 
power.  Verbal skill and well-reasoned arguments usually suffice to 
CHALLENGE, not necessarily convert or convince, those who are critical.

It sounds like you think all academic feminists are radical feminists.

Julie 


>Nobody on the net (except perhaps the moderators of prissy little
>newsgroups :) ) has that kind of tyrannical power. Hence, no one
>dares attempt to defend the extremists. 

>And, unfortunately, many extremists masquerade as moderates UNTIL they
>gain such power.

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

>       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
>        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
>        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
>        where it will end."
>                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 23:46:34 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov13101321@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>> And of course, nobody made such a sweeping claim.  The original idea
>> (Rini can correct me here if I misinterpret) was that women as
>> a rule are more likely to prefer 'liberal' men than men are to
>> prefer 'liberal' women, other things being equal.  My response
>> is that other things are not equal, specifically that women as
>> a rule prefer 'masculinity,' and that this might create conflicts
>> that are difficult to resolve.
>
>And there it is again.  Why is it that you deleted the rest of my
>response, which addresses this?

Because the rest of your post doesn't address this, as it
says nothing about masculinity.  

>Even if it *is* the case that "a
>majority of women" prefer "masculinity," *AND* you define a "liberal
>man" as (among other things) one who is "not masculine" (which is
>ridiculous, actually, but I'll accept the stipulation for the purposes
>of this argument),

No such 'definition' is required at all.  The point is that,
if 'masculinity' is the primary value, then if there is little
relationship between masculinity and liberalism, or a negative
relationship (for whatever reason, even by chance), then any
preference for 'liberalism' becomes relatively unfulfilled.  A
direct consequence of this is the greater likelihood that conflicts
will result later on, based on these underlying, but less expressed,
preferences for 'liberalism.'

>it is still quite possible for liberal men to be a
>"hot item" among that minority of women.

Which, of course, nobody has denied.

>"As a rule" suggests that it
>is a huge majority of women who prefer "masculinity" (whatever the heck
>that is),

It's quite well defined in the references I offered.

>which *does* suggest that the minority is virtually
>nonexistent.

Nope.  Not by any reasonable interpretation, I'm afraid.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4069 rec.humor:33408
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: please set distribution=world not just USA
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:09:58 GMT

The subject line says it all.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au (Timothy D Little)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item
Organization: University of Tasmania, Australia.
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 08:44:02 GMT

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

>>>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....

Hmm... I don't exactly know what you mean by this.

I would agree with both propositions 'as is', as almost trivially true.
All it is asking is whether the proposed relation is *possible*, rather
than likely.

If the propositions are intended as general tendencies (rather than specific
cases) I would disgree with both, but I don't consider my view to be 
'traditional'.  I just don't think that workers will be generally as good at
parenting as non-workers.  (Regardless of gender)
--
T. Little   a.k.a.   u894793@bruny.cc.utas.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Pornography imbalance, right or wrong?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 22:08:28 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.163500.6655@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>No progress has been made. But you have changed your claim three times.
>1) discrimination causes the differental purchasing of porno.
>2) there is some cyclic variation (it is unclear to me who is too blame).
>3) the differential purchasing of porno causes discrimination.

2) is an expansion of 1).
3) is a necessary part of 2), together with the original 1)
The cycle consists of 1) and 3) together.

>None of these arguments have been supported.

Nor has your biology argument.


>>Did you somehow miss that changing trend we noted earlier?
>
>No, only the cyclic part. An increase in women purchacing porno is not
>sufficient to demonstrate a cycle, although it is necessary. Suppose that
>the consumption goes up, and stays up? No cycle. 

Hey, do you suppose that the "reverse discrimination" that came about at about
the same time...nah, couldn't possibly be linked, could it?  Wouldn't fit
the biology theory.


>>1.  I have *never* claimed that biology is not a factor.
>>2.  Specifically what biological differences cause an imbalance in pornography?
>>    Name *one* such documented claim!
> 
>I have, but you seem to not have read what I posted. <sigh>

You have not.  You have listed biological differences.  You have claimed that
any good library would have these theories available.  You have not specified
any single thoery showing biology as a *cause* of differing views on
pornography.


>>>The imbalance is not a cause, but an effect of a great many things. This
>>>means that to change thie balance, you -must- change something else. What
>>>is it that you plan to change?
>>
>>Well, since you insist the imbalance cannot, in turn, cause discrimination (eg
>>cause people to have differing views on male and female sexuality), then of
>>course we would have to change something else.
>
>The very word 'balance' is incorrect, as there is not, and never has been
>any sort of balance. Nor is there any clear reason why there should be,
>other than the super-simplistic {men and women are equal, therefore they
>-should- do everything equally}. 

Ok, fine, we'll use the ratio from now on.  As in:
        quantity of male-oriented porn
ratio = --------------------------------
        quantity of female-oriented porn

Or, if that doesn't suit you, call it anything.
The fact is that the ratio above is > 1.

>>And, of course, since you insist that the imbalance is an effect of biology,
>>then it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest any changes.
>
>I insist that biology is a -factor-. And one which you refuse to consider.
>I guess it does not meet your political criteria or somesuch.

I have *never* refused to consider biology as a factor.  I have only asked you
if you had any better proof than I.  So far, you don't.
I do not have political criteria, just a theory that doesn't fit your political
criteria.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:42:53 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.045255.22400@midway.uchicago.edu>,
mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) wrote:

> 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?

Is this like being inducted into the pantheon of demons ?
If so, I deeply honoured, but probably don't deserve it.

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

No, just a bit thin-skinned and ineffectual, but we understand. :-) 


Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism