HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:28:19 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Lot's of [printed, preached] ideas have 'driven' people to commit crimes.
>>Anyone see the movie Rope, by Hitchcock?  Now that story is based on
>>a real incident.  Basically, a professor challenges two students (in the
>>movie -- dunno that much about the real version) with the idea that there 
>>is nothing inherently wrong with murder.  The students accept the argument
>>and commit a heinous murder of a random individual.  A terrible crime
>>was the direct result of a professor's teachings.
>
>The problem that I have with this analogy is one of numbers.  How many
>young boys are killed by young men who read about supermen?  How many
>women and men are raped?

I don't know what supermen has to do with it, but yes, there are
fewer murders than rapes.  On the other hand, murder, IMO, is much
worse than rape.  So?  What does that have to do with censorship?

>If we believe some of the numbers (and I know many of the
>"anti-feminists" don't) something like 1 in 4 women are sexually
>assaulted by the time they're 18, and something like 1 in 7-8 men.

Yes, LOTS of women, LOTS of men.

>So, what the hell is going on?  If rape is happening at these rates,
>something is terribly wrong with our society.  How do we stop this
>violence?

Yes, something is terribly wrong with our society.  Yep.  I don't know
how to fix it, but I *know* censorship is not the answer.

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2663 soc.men:17828
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:13:05 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Oct16094916@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <SK73171.92Oct16181353@peippo.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>>In article <1bfsf1INNdsq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>>> Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
>>> control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
>>> pants and stick it into a woman.
>
>>And the woman didn't make any decision if she will have sex with him
>>or not since women just do what their men want ??? Therefore she is not
>>responsible for any results of her action ???
>
>Oh, wow, you're right!  I bet it *never* occurred to anyone here that
>women might be able to make choices too!  But now that you have
>enlightened us on that matter, I have this great idea!  What if they're
>*BOTH* responsible?  What a concept, eh?  Or is that way too difficult?

You -should- have expressed this view to Michal Leah Peri, who quite
clearly stated that 

MLP>>> Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
MLP>>> control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his
MLP>>> pants and stick it into a woman.

Your sarcastic attacking of one who apparently shares your view, but
seems to be male looks suspiciously like prejudice. Most would apply
their sarcasm to those with opposing views, "What a concept, eh"?
Or, dare I say it, "is that way too difficult"?
 
>Muffy
>Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2467 soc.men:17634
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 12 Oct 1992 18:10:22 -0700
Organization: HP/San Diego Technical Graphics
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <718926242@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>
>Do you know about even a single example of a woman who became a 
>parent because of a birth control failure and was required to 
>hand out 25% of her income for the next 18 years?

Yes; every woman who becomes a parent spends much more than
25% of her income on her children, especially if there is no other
financial support.

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Female "Wiring"
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:45:01 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <1992Oct12.211719.26542@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:


>	While it is true that some feminists may seem overly
>preoccupied with lesbianism, I've never encountered _that_ accusation
>before, so if it is really as typical as SS claims, others would have
>charged lesbian feminists with trying to seduce them.

For anyone who has read the FAQ for soc.feminism, is there any comments on
the role homosexuality plays in that groups charter?

Ken
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:09:31 GMT
 <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com> <1992Oct7.184953.10618@netcom.com>  
 <1992Oct8.044305.5298@panix.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct8.044305.5298@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> I said
> that MacKinnon and _Playboy_ favor more restriction on freedom
> of expression than I do.

Will you give me examples of expression that _Playboy_ would rather you
not be free to make, but which you would rather be free to make?

Thanks.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:54:58 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#OK, we all heard all the stories how feminism is for equality,
#and Muffy even said that she is for choice for men, now we see 
#what happens in the political reality.

#Should feminism be judged by the nice talk of Muffy & Gordon, or
#by the political programs and laws that feminists push?

In article <1992Oct13.161314.375@ils.nwu.edu> 
lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>You are absolutely right to complain about the sexism of these laws, but
>Do you *really* think these laws are stated the way the *majority* of 
>feminists want them?

Have you ever heard any feminist outside of the net who supports
"choice for men"?

Don't you read the demands of NOW for a crack down on fathers who
don't pay child's support, no matter why they don't pay?

Has any feminist had anything to say against the "choice for women,
no choice for men" that Clinton pushes so nicely?  Has any feminist
had anything to say against Clinton's program after a feminist posted
it as a way to gain support for Clinton?

>I don't.

And what *actions* by feminists make you think so?

>I can't claim to know a whole lot, but *most* of the ones I 
>know would agree with you.

And if they vote for people who think otherwise then please don't
blame them...

#Tell me Gordon, if y'all don't ever think about zero sum games,
#then why do you behave like if you play one?

>Tell me, Hillel, why do you attack Gordon for a law he probably would be just
>as happy to have re-worded non-sexist as you?

Because Gordon posted anti-choice-for-men articles when there was 
still chance to bury the subject with enough flames.  He had 
never went back on even a single word he said.

The different between us is that he wants the laws re-worded while
I don't care about the nice words, just about the meaning.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Hillel                                         gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I'm prochoice on EVERYthing." -- STella
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:03:30 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| >gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >You mean the issue upholding the Canadian laws?  I haven't
| >seen it either.  But those issues of _Ms_ that I have seen
| >have generally contained diverse viewpoints.  

mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
| Okay, let's make a deal then.  I will give you the reference
| to one issue (I think I can come up with two, in fact) which 
| uphold the Canadian laws as a victory.  Now can you tell me 
| which issue(s) contradict that opinion?  I am genuinely 
| intrested.

Sure, go ahead.  But I don't have every copy of _Ms_
handy; I'll have to write to them.  They didn't answer my
last letter, in which I complained about an article which
I thought prejudiced and stupid; so I don't know what the
prospects are.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 03:49:55 GMT


	Robert Sheaffer attempts to argue that there is no such thing
as wage discrimination on the ground that it would be self-defeating.
This presupposes an idealized world of Smithian/Randroid capitalism.
But the world just doesn't work that way.

	For instance, consider how black people have been
discriminated against for a long time. And yet Robert Sheaffer
vehemently rejects the logical consequence of his beliefs -- that
black people are fit only for low-quality jobs, and should leave the
really good ones to white people. This is precisely parallel to his
belief that women are only fit for low-quality jobs since they are
natural-born wimps.
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: A Belicose psychoslut from hell
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:43:25 GMT
Reply-To: Your Mother
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

isar@ac.dal.ca (Isabel R.) writes:

>Get a clue, people.  I have the right to be assertive about my views and
>to flame inanities w/out being considered a belicose psychoslut from hell.
>If you want us to be nice, start by showing some respect for our views.
>Sheesh... and they wonder why there is so much racial tension in America...

Sorry, but Rini doesn't agree.  YOU may have that right, but she says that
I don't.  Then again I'm a man.  Oops!  I'm "male" not a "man". 

Your Pal Al ;)
From: litow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (bruce e litow)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Rights and Responsibilities
Date: 13 Oct 1992 20:55:45 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.41
Originator: litow@proclus.csd.uwm.edu

Normally, I refrain from serious posting because of my views about this
medium. However, The following may be useful. I am not interested in
debating the following points. Comments that seem to be to the
point will be studied by me.

1. I am opposed to laws that would impede a woman from having an
abortion at any time during term, prior to onset of actual delivery.

2. Given (note the word) that women may safely obtain abortions as
in 1., then there are certain repsonsibilities attaching.

 a. Outside of marriage, where the father has expressly disavowed
    support, and the woman elects not to abort pregnancy, then the
    the child will be her responsibility, solely.

 b. Within marriage, if a woman has an abortion without consulting her
    husband, then this constitutes grounds for divorce with prejudice.
    That is the husband may sue for divorce (in the absence of a
    significant contest on other matters) without the threat of
    alimony. Child support, however, is not affected. Please note that
    consultation is the key word, not consent. The idea is that a wife
    who has an abortion without confiding in her husband is in
    breach of the marriage contract, understood as a collection of
    implicit expressions of trust. 

 c. On abortion, the fetus is a ward of the state/county, etc. That is
    all rights and perquisites attached to the fetus revert to
    the trust of the state and abortion is understood to imply
    complete renunciation of such rights, etc. by the woman. Thus
    disposition of the fetus is a matter of law. This is
    a can of worms of course but hasn't anything to do with the
    the issue of obtaining an abortion. In particular, one can
    imagine laws having to do with maintaining the baby for some
    period on request of interested parties, e.g., the father.
    These things would be legislated not mandated by executive or
    judicial bodies. Such laws cannot, however, materially interfere
    with obtaining abortions. I expect that in general the burden of
    funding maintenance, except through private monies, will be
    rejected by taxpayers. There are many other issues here.

To summarize, no abridgment of a woman's access to abortion but on
that assumption, some new responsiblities should be made law.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Date: 12 Oct 92 00:33:43 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile


     "Under my thumb
         her eyes are just
            _kept_ to herself!
      Under my thumb --
         but _I_, _I_
            can still look at somebody else!"

                         -- Rolling Stones, "Under My Thumb" (1966)


It's a power thing.  But later, I think the French (e.g.
Lacan, Irigaray) made a bigger deal of it.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:14:20 GMT

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>I would go one further rini; IMO the so-called "feminists" who 
>are pro-censorship are doing those of us who fight for women and
>men to have equal standing in looking for jobs, school admissions,
>etc a major disservice. A) They not only look like the shitheads 
>they are, but by calling themselves "feminists" they make feminists 
>look like shitheads; B) they give the same men who won't let women
>in the military have the same jobs as the men in the military pass
>a stupid, anti-constitutional bill and then talk about "how they
>support women"; C) they paint women as stupid. Read the bill before
>the Mass. legislature?  Women who were involved in creating 
>pornography can sue the Men involved. *OBVIOUSLY* Women are Victims;
>*OBVIOUSLY* Men are predators; *OBVIOUSLY* Women don't KNOW ANY BETTER;
>*OBVIOUSLY* pornography could not be created in a company run by a
>Woman which featuring gay males; *OBVIOUSLY* a Woman-only company could
>not create pornography (or a Man-only company, either)....

Hallelujah, Sister!  Right on!
 
rini
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Date: 12 Oct 92 22:12:49 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit):
| I claimed that MacKinnon said that porno causes rape; Gordon asked to
| see some proof for it.  I gave long quotes from the anti porno ordinance
| that MacKinnon herself wrote.  Gordon has never even acknowledged that,
| (even though other people had no problem understanding her claims...)

The part of the ordinance I saw simply stated that
pornography caused rape and other forms of harm.  I would 
like to see MacKinnon's reasoning, but I didn't see any.  
Maybe there isn't any; I guess I'll have to try to get 
hold of her books to find out.

gf:
| >I haven't changed the subject: right along, it's been the
| >demonization of MacKinnon by anti-feminists to attack all of
| >feminism.  There is more than one aspect of this.  There has
| >been the hiding of her real views beneath the simple-minded
| >shibboleth "censorship."  

hg:
| Well Gordon, is the legislation MacKinnon wrote hides her "real views"?

So far, I've very slowly elicited something besides ritual
denunciation, so I'm encouraged.  Not that it matters very 
much.  I've made my point (that MacKinnon is not the real
issue) and you've made yours (feminism is bad, bad, bad.)
The fact is, I've blown up your MacKinnon game like I blew
up your draft game.  It's time to start a new one.  How
about AA?  The AA pot is already bubbling merrily in this
newsgroup, and all the old ingredients have floated to 
the surface ofthe stew.

If you were really interested in freedom of expression, you
would use feminism to attack MacKinnon.  Instead, you use
MacKinnon to attack feminism, which shows where your 
priorities lie.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 10 Oct 92 04:59:48 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
| >I read about NOWs (anti-censorship) stance in LIBIDO.  (A magazine
| >which now has a hard time making it into Canada...)

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
| These Canadian laws have been held up by _Ms._ as shining examples of 
| the "victories" that would be possible if only the tradition of free speech
| weren't so strong.

Are you sure this was the position of the magazine as a
whole?  The last issue of it I read contained many contra-
dictory opinions; the editors seem to think it proper to
give feminism many often divergent voices.

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:07:01 GMT

Hillel Gazit writes:
> rini writes:
 
>>(An aside here.  There has is a lot of talk about how "feminism" is a
>>bout women and not men, both literally and in practice.  For me, it's 
>>not that way.  If there was another philosophy out there that said, 
>>"I think ascribing [encouraging or whatever] people roles on the
>>basis of their sex organs sucks weenies" then I would call myself that.)
>
>But that's not what main-stream feminism says.

Well -- I guess I'm not a main-stream feminist (by your definition).  
So?

>You see, my problem is not so much with what the stereotypes
>say but with their very existence.  

Me too.  I hate 'em.

>>>Why the hell should you, or anybody else, let society dictate your feelings?!
>
>>Yes.  Exactly.  And that is what feminism has let me see.
>
>I don't want to let society, or a political movement, dictate my
>feelings; that's why feminism is not for me.  

Me neither.  I've never found this to be incompatable with being
a feminist, myself. 

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:48:18 GMT

Dave writes:

>>However, this sort of reasoning becomes a little irrational sometimes.  I
>>mean, part of accepting responsibility for rape is maybe to not walk down
>>a dark alley at 3 am.  However, it doesn't mean `s/he was asking for it' if 
>>they do it and then get raped.  You could argue that it was not a very wise 
>>move.
>
>My point almost exactly. I wouldn't say thet someone was "asking for it"
>if they did that, I would say that they share some of the responsibility
>for the acto of rape. There's a difference. 

Maybe you could spell out this difference.  If s/he wasn't "asking for it"
what were they doing?  "Allowing it to happen"??  Would this be different
is s/he was raped in their own home by a family member?

>>Therefore, while I believe everyone is reponsible for everything that happens
>>to them, it does not mean that everyone has *complete control* over evrything
>>that happens to them.  
>
>I will assert that they *do* have complete control over the response to 
>what happens to them.

Yes, a very different point.  Yes, we can choose how to respond to 
the fact of rape, even if we cannot choose to not be raped.

>Let's try another tack...what do you think of this argument?
>
>----
>Given that 
>
>1) there exists a class of people who cry "rape" after consenting to sex
>
>2) the prevailing wisdom says that anyone who continues after saying no
>is a rapist
>
>then from 1, one cannot always determine when someone is really saying "no"
>since the "no" can be retroactive. Therefore no one should have sex for fear
>of raping someone.
>----
>
>Comments?

Hmm.  I totally fail to see the relevance.  Try alt.non-sequitur.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: movin
Keywords: PA ACA
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 23:25:09 GMT

Here's the relevant section of the Pennsylvania law.

Susan

Section 3209.  Spousal Notice.

   (a)  Spousal notice required.  - In order to further the 
Commonwealth's interest in promoting the integrity of the
marital relationship and to protect a spouse's interests in
having children within marriage and in protecting the prenatal
life of that spouse's child, no physician shall perform an 
abortion on a married woman, except as provided in subsections 
(b) and (c), unless he or she has received a signed statement,
which need not be notarized, from the woman upon whom the
abortion is to be performed, that she has notified her spouse
that she is about to undergo an abortion.  The statement shall 
bear a notice that any false statement made therein is
punishable by law.

   (b)  Exceptions.  - The statement certifying that the notice 
required by subsection (a) has been given need not be furnished 
where the woman provides the physician a signed statement
certifying at least one of the following:
    (1)  Her spouse is not the father of the child.
    (2)  Her spouse, after diligant effort, could not be located.
    (3)  The pregnancy is a result of spousal sexual assault
         as described in section 3128 (relating to spousal
         sexual assault), which has been reported to a law
         enforcement agency having the requisite jurisdiction.
    (4)  The woman has reason to believe that the furnishing
         of notice to her spouse is likely to result in the
         infliction of bodily injury upon her by her spouse
         or by another individual.
Such statement need not be notarized, but shall bear a notice that
any false statements made therein are punishable by law.

   (c)  Medical emergency.  - The requirements of subsection (a)
shall not apply in case of a medical emergency.
    
   (d)  Forms.  - The department shall cause to be published,
forms which may be utilized for purposes of providing the
signed statements required by subsections (a) and (b).  The
department shall distribute an adequate supply of such forms
to all abortion facilities in this Commonwealth.
  
   (e)  Penalty; civil action.  - Any physician who violates
the provisions of this section is guilty of "unprofessional
conduct," and his or her license for the practice of medicine
and surgery shall be subject to suspension or revocation in
accordance with procedures provided under the act of 
October 5, 1978 (P.L. 1109, No. 261), known as the Osteo-
pathic Medical Practice Act, the act of December 20, 1985 
(P.L. 457, No. 112), known as the Medical Practice Act of
1985, or their successor acts.  In addition, any physician
who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall 
be civilly liable to the spouse who is the father of the aborted
child for any damages caused thereby and for punitive damages
in the amount of $5,000, and the court shall award a
prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney fee as part of