HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Jym Dyer <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Urgent (30-Sep) Request for Camille Paglia Statements About Rape
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:38:05 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

=o= I'm trying to collect some Camille Paglia statements about
rape, and I need them by today (30-Sep-1992).  If you know of a
reference for such statements, please email them to me:

                    <jym@mica.berkeley.edu>

=o= Why?  Well, it's like this.  A popular Bay Area morning
radio show is having Paglia as a guest tomorrow.  A friend of
mine, cartoonist Nina Paley, was a guest on this same show
yesterday morning.

=o= The topic of Paglia came up, and Nina brought up Paglia's
statements about rape, from Paglia's book, _Sexual_Personae_
(which Nina happened to have with her).  (Nina kicked butt on
the topic, and on sexism in the comics industry, by the way.)

=o= The host of the show flipped through the book and found
one or two anti-rape statements and suggested that Nina was
taking things out of context.  And in today's show he mentioned
that he'd gotten the book himself and couldn't find what Nina
had said anywhere in the book!

=o= The host may repeat this tomorrow, and Nina is considering
showing up in the studio audience for tomorrow's show in case
she may need to make a rebuttal.

=o= As I recall it, Paglia's book (minireview:  all sizzle no
steak, that managed to divert criticism of its lack of substance
by pointing to a purported lack of substance within feminism)
did in fact say a few things that would excuse rapists.  As the
book is anti-feminist, Paglia was thrust into the male-dominated
limelight.

=o= But as the limelight waned, Paglia presumably figured she
could extend her 15 minutes of fame by saying *more* about rape,
and started making explicit statements excusing "date rapists."
I'm looking for sources of *this* material.
    Thanks in advance,
    <_Jym_>



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: falcao@felix.Metaphor.COM (Ronnie Falcao)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Women as AIDS scapegoats
Date: 28 Sep 1992 20:12:25 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

> Piercarlo Grandi (pcg@aber.ac.uk) writes:
>Some of my friends get very worried about having sex with women; they
>might be carrying AIDS, and men think that women can be far more
>promiscuous than men, and thus be a bigger risk.

It's my understanding that it's much easier for a woman to
be exposed to HIV through heterosexual intercourse than for
a man.  This is because the mechanism for transporting sperm
to an egg happens also to be very effective in transporting
HIV.  In order to get to the Fallopian tubes, sperm travel
across an often blood-rich uterine lining.  If the sperm
happen to be carrying HIV, there's an excellent opportunity
for transmission.  The implication is that other
opportunities pale in comparison.

This means a couple of things: with equivalent precautions,
women are at greater risk of exposure, and, consequently,
with equivalent histories, women are more likely to be
carrying HIV.

Of course, statistics are little comfort if you find that
you're carrying HIV.  Anyone who's about to engage in
potentially HIV-transmitting activities should be concerned
about the possibility of being exposed or exposing someone
else.

I forget the statistics about what percentage of the
population is carrying HIV - something like 1 or 2% - and I
assume that the percentage is much higher in the category of
sexually active young adults.

Instead of blaming one group or another for carrying and
transmitting HIV, you might want to recommend to your
friends that they take personal responsibility for not
becoming themselves victims and carriers.

	- Ronnie




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: you just don't understand (was: control of display ...)
Date: 7 Oct 1992 00:12:37 GMT
Organization: VERITAS Software
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <MUFFY.92Sep30103453@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.berkeley.EDU (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
> ... The
>real problem with display of women's bodies is out on the streets.  It
>is there that women whose bodies do not measure up to the standards feel
>the full weight of "them" (= society) not wanting those bodies
>displayed.  I'm thin, so I can go out in a tight dress and get
>compliments.  A friend of mine is pretty large, and she hears insults
>frequently for wearing anything at all revealing, even though what she
>wears is generally less revealing than what I wear.  Sure, she could
>have a picture of herself published in this proposed magazine, but she
>still can't walk down the street and not be insulted by other people
>because her body doesn't look like what *they* want to see.
>
>Muffy

I see.  It must be a terrible burden--not just on women who don't
conform to the image, but on those who do as well.  And it is a
double-bind, since when a woman does conform to the image she is then
targeted for sexual harrassment.  Isn't it, in fact, sexual harrassment
in both cases?

In all this discussion I haven't heard any solutions or courses of
action proposed other than the "publish your own" idea.  That idea
now seems woefully inadequate.

How sad for us all.

-r


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: uunet!mailrus!gatech!meshugge.media.mit.edu!cindy@ncar.ucar.EDU (Cindy Blank-Edelman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: marriage/parental role models (was Re: social activism)
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:26:22 GMT
Article-I.D.: meshugge.CINDY.92Sep30105131
	<19vbk7INN58i@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<9209252201.AA06964@mica.berkeley.edu>
Organization: M.I.T. Media Laboratory

Muffy writes:

> We could fight against these imbalances for years, but that would
> not solve the problem (especially since the role models causing the
> problem are not only divorced couples).  The problem is in the
> current popular view of marriage and families.  Adults who choose to
> produce children should make a commitment to those children,
> distinct from any commitment to a partner.  The people who want to
> work should be able to work, the people who want to take care of the
> children should do so, regardless of their gender.  Of course, it
> may be finanically necessary for all the adults to work, especially
> if there are only two of them.  One thing that would improve this
> situation is to have multiple-adult families.  This would also take
> some of the stress off each adult, as there are more to share the
> work.  In addition, such groups would not be limited by how long the
> adults involved were "in love with" each other.  Romantic partners
> could split up, but they would still have the same responsibility
> for the children.
>
> *That* would be a good set of role models for children.  People who
> honor their commitments, acknowledge their responsibilities, *want*
> to be with the children, enjoy their work, etc.

I agree.  I also think that we have to recognize that parents'
abilities to be role models is quite limited, no matter what gender
distribution there is.  For example, my husband and I will not be able
to be "good role models" for a gay or lesbian child, a child who
converts to Catholicism, a child who has conservative views, a child
of a different race, a child with a disability, etc. etc.  Our
"modeling" is limited in that we have not experienced any of these
"lifestyles" (for lack of a better word), and so we can not show *by
example* how to be a good/happy Catholic or Republican or whatever.

However, what we can do is to raise our children to be open-minded,
happy with themselves, and able to think for themselves.  We can also
respect them for who they are, and help them to seek out role models
in the areas in which we are lacking.

I think the same is true for a parenting situation with only women or
men (single parents and gay/lesbian parents).  Parents cannot be role
models for everything, and I see no reason why gender should be a more
important role model category than, say, religion or sexual
orientation or able-bodiedness (<-- a new word?).

--Cindy Blank-Edelman

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross)
Subject: Re: denial
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Manumission:  The Campus Men's Forum
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:18:29 GMT

I realize that me-too-ism has irritated many people in soc.feminism,
but I couldn't help but respond to this post.  Denial and
insensitivity is yet another sexism complaint that turns out to be a
two-way street.

An anonymous poster to soc.feminism writes:

>I recently had an experience that underscored the level of denial
>commonly found in our culture.
>
>In a company-wide meeting, the vice president of our division made a
>remark that was sexist and bordering on sexual harassment.  When some
>people hissed, he expressed surprise at the negative reaction.
>
>Although most people agreed that the remark was sexist and
>inappropriate, many voiced the opinion that the remark was so out of
>character that they had to discount it.
>
>Rather than seeing this remark as the tip of the iceberg that some
>people have reported seeing, they chose to see it as a mirage of some
>kind.

	I'm in the women's studies minor at Cal Poly.  One quarter, I
	was taking a WS class, and the professor would occasionally
	start the class with a joke.  These jokes usually targeted
	men, and on a couple of occasions the jokes were very
	offensive.  One I remember was about a flasher who asked a
	woman "Well, what do you think?" and she responded, "It looks
	like a penis, only smaller..."

	Kind of amusing, but I'm sure you can guess that with the
	genders reversed, the joke would have been considered sexist,
	offensive, and possibly sexual harassment.

	The real punchline, though, came the following quarter, when I
	had the same professor again for a different WS class.  She
	was doing a unit on sexual harassment and made the following
	comment:

		"There are still some professors here at Poly who
		 don't realize that making jokes about womens' anatomy
		 constitutes sexual harassment."

	So there you have it.  Denial from a professor of the New
	Sensitivity.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
	Ratio of men to women who are arrested on murder charges:  7.4:1
	Number of men executed in the U.S. since 1976:               175
	Number of women executed in the U.S. since 1976:               1

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.EDU (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Nussbaum, Okin, and Rawls
Keywords: principles of justice
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:16:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvBHt6.E8D

In article <1992Sep25.131032.11624@sophia.smith.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.EDU (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>
>	Imagine that "you" were given the choice prior to your
>	birth whether to be born female or male.  Which would
>	you choose?
>
>It is perhaps too difficult to separate yourself from your gender
>to answer this question, but just relfecting on it highlights
>current justice imbalances.
>	These ruminations were suggested by a fascinating article
>in the Oct.8th NY Review of Books by Martha Nussbaum, on Moller
>Okin's suggested revision of John Rawl's "Original Position"
>argument for selecting principles of justice.  Okin modifies
>Rawls idea so that those determining the principles of justice
>are
>	(a) deprived of "knowledge of whether they will be males or
>	females in the resulting society," and
>	(b) charged with determining the basic principles of justice
>	that affect family life (as well as the remainder of society).

Was this a review of "Justice, Gender, and the Family?"  When I read
it a while back, I tried to imagine the "original position" with
respect to family rights and responsibilities -- and though I am quite
happy to be a man and remain so (!), my personal feeling was that I
would rather take the female position, given current family law.

Moller Okin's view seemed to be that, reasoning from the original
position, one would avoid the female position because of the "terms of
exit" (apparently, poverty and abandonment) and their effect on
"voice" within the relationship.

My view is that I would much rather be poor with my children than rich
without them -- and I would rather eat humble pie than lose them.

In any case, even if this is a "grass is greener" effect, it is clear
that both Moller Okin and my humble self reach the conclusion that the
marriage system is not balanced enough to accept it from an "original
position" of not knowing one's future gender.

Don
--
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: alto@vax1.mankato.msus.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: the politics of panels
Date: 30 Sep 1992 20:12:11 GMT
Organization: Mankato State University
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

I'm doing a research project on the politics of panels (i.e. gay, lesbian,
bisexual panels,  survivors panels or whatever) in women's studies classes.
I'm not having much luck so far and would appriciate any information that you
could give me whether you've used panels in your classes, been on panels, or
seen a panel.  I would also like to find some literature about the
subject.  Please mail me whatever information that you can give me.
thanks


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Toplessness
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: 27 Sep 92 20:38:55 GMT

In article <19tsr2INNsnc@agate.berkeley.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
>It's not so much toplessness that bothers me; I quite frankly wouldn't
>mind about not getting tan lines that would show, and it would make it a
>lot easier to put on suntan lotion.  What I DON'T like about this new
>bullsh*t attitude about "women expressing their sexuality" is that
>somehow it's only when a woman who looks like a 14 year old boy with
>implants wants to go topless.  When a woman who's overweight or has
>stretch marks or has DD breasts that ARE acted upon by gravity, as they
>are going to be, or a woman who 70 years old walks by, then a lot of
>guys will say something like, "Man, some people should be required to
>wear clothes."  I've heard this FREQUENTLY.

I think this occurs to both sexes, though.  Remember those photos of
President and Mrs. Reagan when they were in swimsuits at the beach?  I
heard so many comments about how disgusting both of their bodies
looked.  I didn't find either of them disgusting (their bodies at
least, now their politics are a different matter), they just looked
their age.

I've also heard many men with lots of body hair been called disgusting
and ape-like.

I wish our culture was kinder on both sexes.

>I heartily encourage you to read Naomi Wolf's _The Beauty Myth_ if
>you're really interested in the subject -- or even if you aren't.  I
>guarantee, by the time you're done, you'll be interested.

One nice point Wolf makes is that many men do like women who are
heavier than women think they themselves should be.  She cites one
study where the men repeatedly chose a heavier female form than women
chose for either themselves or what they thought most men prefer.


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: bickis@skmath3.pa.dec.com (M. Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: control over display of the feminine form
Date: 28 Sep 1992 22:07:09 GMT
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <19vnthINN7tc@agate.berkeley.edu> rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman) 
writes:
>Some years ago, in the late 70's or early 80's a woman who's name I'm
>having trouble recalling (Nancy Holliday?) put out a book called "The
>Dinner Party."  It was a collection of at least a dozen renditions of
>vaginas made on paper plates at a party they had.  It garnered a lot of
>giggles and groans, but also a lot of respect.  That was one method
>women that those women used to take control over the portrayal of their
>bodies.

I think you're thinking of Judy Chicago (close though :-)), and it was
an art exhibition.  The plates were laid out on along a huge table, as
if for a genuine party.  Perhaps a book was published about this show.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: Laurie.Mann@transfer.stratus.COM
Subject: Re: Turnabout
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.COM
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:58:55 GMT

Paul Wallich writes
>The other night I was accosted in my favorite dive. That is
>to say, I got in a conversation with a woman who had apparently
>had too much to drink, and she started getting physically
>closer to me than I wanted and suggesting I go home with her. While
>this was happening, I couldn't help thinking that this was something
>that various women friends have complained about men doing, and
>here it was happening to me. Time for walking in the other gender's
>shoes briefly, and finding them not at all comfortable.

It is OK to assert yourself.  You could have said "I don't want to
be touched."  You could have moved your seat.  You could have...

Nearly ten years ago, the "Big Dan's" gang rape happend (later
highly fictionalzed in a famous Jody Foster movie).  Two nights
later, I was doing laundry and decided to go to the bar next to
the laundromat.  I had bearly sat down when not one but two
men tried to buy me drinks.  I bolted.  Maybe I was being overly
paranoid, the people's behavior in bars can be really invasive.

*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Bush or Perot, Just say NO! **  Vote for CHANGE in 1992!****
***** "Hollywood still doesn't get it." Dan Quayle, 9/21/92 *****
* "No Dan, YOU still don't get it."  American Voters, Fall 1992 *



--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: control over display of the feminine form
Date: 29 Sep 1992 04:21:49 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <19vnthINN7tc@agate.berkeley.edu> rdh@veritas.com (Robert Hartman) writes:
>
>Some years ago, in the late 70's or early 80's a woman who's name I'm
>having trouble recalling (Nancy Holliday?) put out a book called "The
>Dinner Party."  It was a collection of at least a dozen renditions of
>vaginas made on paper plates at a party they had.  It garnered a lot of
>giggles and groans, but also a lot of respect.  That was one method
>women that those women used to take control over the portrayal of their
>bodies.
>
>The reason I bring this out is because of the phrase Janis used above:
>"allowing women ... to display themselves without being censored."  As
>far as I know, women are protected by the First Amendment, which means
>you are allowed to publish your views about your breasts.  If the
>standard portrayal of breasts is a political issue, then you have every
>right to bring your rebuttal to light: with dignity and with pride.

I think this is an important point. There really is something crucial
to having rights over your own body, history, experiences etc. That's
why it's dicey for men to appropriate images of women's bodies for
display, or for politicians (and others) to blithely use examples from
other people's lives to make their points, or for a person to interpret
someone else's experience for them -- "It really, wasn't that painful,
was it?" or "Now if you think about it, you'll realize you don't really
feel that way" etc. (That's one of the things, btw, that is so infuriating
when people posting in this group deny others' experiences of sexism --
by suggesting that no rational person would intepret an event in a
particular way, they effectively deny their target's personhood.)

One nit to pick: I think you may be thinking of Judy Chicago's _The
Dinner Party_, a large sculptural piece containing place settings
for 50 (?) famous historical women. Many of the plates are decorated
so that they appear to have labia. It has a peripatetic history (I saw
it in london in 1985) and I don't know whether any museum or other space
has found a permanent home for it. Btw, it's quite marvelous, inspiring,
and of a quality to give one to think...

paul





-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.