HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 22 Nov 92 13:43:59 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:

>williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>>>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>
>>>}Should one express oneself in a manner that is offensive to another?
>>>}Legally, this should be allowed; yet, if one knows that one's expression
>>>}will wantonly offend those who do not wish to be offended, is not appropriate
>>>}to move one's expression elsewhere?

>>So while you may claim
>>to be offended by my freedom of expression, you are both attempting
>>to curtail my freedom of expression *AND* offending who I am.  You
>>are saying that *I* am causing you harm by me just being who I am.  

>You certainly have the right to display what you want in your room.
>You say that the presence of Elle in your room is somehow a
>reflection of who you are as a person. If this is indeed the case, then don't
>be surprised when women take offence and/or change their attitudes towards
>you. In displaying an anti-model, you are displaying your attitudes about
>what you consider beauty. You are accepting and perpetuating all the
>(bleached) roots of the misrepresentation of women at large.

Trish, do _you_ think that the presence of Elle is a true reflection
of who he (or me, say) is as a person?  Or is human nature
sufficiently complex that it cannot be meaningfully judged
by a single "reflection"?

I agree that "freedom of expression" that someone else finds
offensive should most likely be moved elsewhere.
What I would really like to know is this: Do you see a distinction
between avoiding a meaningful relationship with someone because
a) the presence of an Elle calendar symbolises the "misrepresentation
of women at large," and b) the presence of an Elle calendar indicates
a person so badly flawed in outlook that you cannot have a meaningful
relationship with him? For example, (a) would be akin to avoiding
a meaningful relationship with someone of a different religion
simply because he or she was of a different religion, while (b)
would be like avoiding a relationship because his or her
membership in that religion necessarily makes the _individual_
impossible to relate to.

(Does this question make sense?)

>I would not *force* you to remove the calendar from your wall. I wouldn't
>take away that freedom. I *would* avoid your room and any sort of meaningful
>relationship with you. 

>Trish

John

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mvincow@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Michelle Vincow)
Subject: This week's Newsweek:  GRRL...
Organization: UIUC Department of Psychology
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:56:33 GMT

Any reactions to the article in this week's Newsweek
on a "movement" among younger women (14-25).  I'd give
more detail, but I left the article at home. (To better
identify the issue, the cover says something about 
Doomsday and shows a space picture.)  The article is
on p 84.

Michelle
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Date: 19 Nov 92 13:07:56 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>: Description of abuse case deleted.

>Investigated and charged does not mean that they did anything. Were
>they convicted? We have had a couple of cases here in the US - in all
>of them, then social workers taught the kids what to say. This came
>out when the videotapes of the "interviews" were reviewed.

Well, I didn't put anything, because I'm not sure of the accuracy of my
memory, but I'm pretty sure that some (including the local chief of
police) were convicted. Others, I believe, were acquitted for lack of
evidence. And social services was not involved in the investigation,
that I know of. I believe that the investigation started when the
parents of one (some?) of the kids believed (shockers!) the wild
stories their kids were telling and brought the story to the RCMP in a
nearby city (they didn't trust local police).

>: Description of pornography distribution organizations

>S&M and Beastiality photos would be illegal pornography in Canada, that
>is true. But then, a photograph of an exposed tit is also illegal
>pornography in much of Canada.

If you believe this to be true, then you really don't know much about
Canadian laws. Hell, we have exposed breasts on National television
occasionally.

>How about some evidence that these national and international organizations
>exist?

Well, A couple here in Ottawa was recently busted for distributing some
illegal pornography. They found a rather large mailing list from all
around Canada and the US, as well as some other evidence (I don't know
what) that there were contacts with other distributors around NA. I
didn't include this in the original post, because this is all by the
words and interpretations of the local police.

>: I should point out that you seem to be under the impression that
>: skepticism works only one way. One should be skeptical about the
>: non-existence of these organizations/films/etc as well. Although in the
>
>Why? Is there any concrete evidence that they do exist? If so, how about
>providing some.

You are missing the point. What I am saying is that we shouldn't draw
conclusions one way or the other until concrete evidence is provided.
Believing that snuff films don't exist without concrete evidence is
just as closed minded and non scientific as believing that they do
exist.


>And, please define what you mean by such terms as "illegal pornography".
>I can only guess, depending on what I have heard from other Canadians.

That is what the parenthetical reference to bestiality and S&M was. You
will note that I made no moral judgement one way or the other about the
material, I only described it as illegal.
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:54:29 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:

| Feminists discovered, that 2+2=4 ! Congratulations !!

That is your capacity of understanding; but others may be
less limited.
-- 

 )*(    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: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:15:10 GMT

maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:

>>I'm in agreement with Axel, I see advertising (esp. the ones which depict
>>unreal women) as mind rape. 
 
>Mind Rape!?!?!?
>'Rape' is the unwanted and forceful penetration of a woman. 

[50 plus lines of discussion of the term "rape"]

Perhaps you have forgotten that rape also means "despoil" or "pillage", 
as in "raping the land" ???

>Bloody annoying when strong words are used in innapropriate contexts isn't
>it? Now multiply your annoyance by the seriousness of Rape, and you will see
>what I mean.

Boy, I sure hope we don't get into a discussion of rape seed oil...

rini
- I don't really know what Trish meant by the word... my own reading was
closer to the useage in "raping the land."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 10:21:17 GMT
Organization: Institute for the Human Sciences

In <1992Nov22.210818.955@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>I think he means you can't have sex repression without pornography
>and vice versa.

What does it mean to say this?  That if there is complete social
acceptance of all ways of expressing sexual impulses there won't be
any movies, pictures or books specifically intended to be sexually
arousing?
-- 
Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)
"Alles Erworbne bedroht die Maschine, solange
sie sich erdreistet, im Geist, statt im Gehorchen, zu sein."  (Rilke)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Why are there only men on
X-To: DAVID S. AUER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 04:02:00 GMT

auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes...
DSA> It seems like well over half the posts on this board are by men.  I guess i
DSA> just a male thing to shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing abo
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Sure, Dave, and "it's just a female thing to stay quiet and submissive about
things you know everything about," right?

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876

"Cthulhu for President in '92 - Why vote for the _lesser_ of two evils?"
                                                          - Bronis Vidugiris
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * << Sorry, the TAGLINE Department is closed >>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Forced PC
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:12:01 GMT

Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:41:48 EST
From: <REA105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Forced PC



<REA105@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

     Now on to my topic.  PC.  Maybe this is the wrong net to place this, but I
see forced PC see and forced feminism in the same light.


	Please, Im not being contentious by asking this, but exactly who
	is trying to force exactly what on you?



    One should not force one's ideas on other's.  It is not right to force othe
rs to submit to thine own method of thinking.  


	I agree.  Is it wrong to try to convice someone in a respectful
	manner that they may have unwittingly done this injustice to you?


.  I s
hould not be forced my others to change what I call myself.  I am a man and so
I can be a chairman.  Just as a woman can be a chairwoman.  It is my right to d
ecide what I shall call myself.  It is not your right.  If I want to call mysel
f white, I can call myself white.  If I want to call myself caucasian,  I can d
o so.  Forcing me to call you by want you want to be called in not right though

	Once again, I think you are correct.  If a woman wants to be called
	a womyn, not a "girl", if a black wants to be called an african
	american, etc. etc. they should not be forced to call themselves
	something else, just as you should be entitled to call yourself
	a "chairman" if you so wish.  If that is your preffered title for
	yourself, others have an obligation out of respect for you to
	call you that, just as in turn you have an obligation out of
	respect to call them what they wish to be called.  It works both
	ways.




.  If I can not call you a woman, can a call you a lady.  The word lady used sy
molize respect, now it seems to refer to someone else.  What is it safe to call
 those that have two "X" chromosomes?  If I call someone black.  I am wrong.  I
f I call the a negro.  I am wrong.  If I call the an African-American I am wron
g.  What can I call them  any of them.  


	Try asking "them".  They will respect you for it and treat you
	in kind.




Steve Russell




















Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4841 alt.folklore.urban:29294
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Date: 21 Nov 92 18:20:26 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| >...
| >No, I was ridiculing the claim that MacKinnon began to be the victim
| >of an apparently organized harassment as soon as she dared to investigate
| >the dreaded Snuff mafia.

thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
| I see no evidence that MacKinnon made this claim.

In the article on the censorship dispute at U. Mich. which I
posted in soc.feminism, there was some mention that anti-
prostitution speakers and "sex workers" had been subjected to
threats connected with pornography or opposition to it.  In
addition, I have read accounts of sellers of pornography 
being subjected to death threats.  Given the passions aroused
by the subject of sex-repression-and-pornography (can't have
one without the other, so it's really one thing) and the very
large amounts of money involved in the business, it would not
be suprising if any public move by a figure mainly identified
with the matter would elicit death threats.  Of course, not
having access to police records or Ms. MacKinnon's telephone
line, I can't verify her assertion, but it's certainly not
inconceivable that such threats were received.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator)
Subject: Re: FEMINISM AND MODERN WOMEN
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:06:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.123422.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> pjz2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>
>
>TO ALL FEMINISTS,
>
>   MY GRANDFATHER ONCE SAID THE ONLY THING A WOMEN IS GOOD FOR IS FUCKING, AND
>SOME ARE NOT EVEN GOOD FOR THAT. BASED ON WHAT I HAVE READ ON ALT.FEMINISM,
>THIS APPEARS TO BE TRUE. LETS GET SOME DOCUMENTATION AND CITE STUDIES AND
>PEROIDICALS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.
>
>                                        MAX MAN

	Don't we wish all misogynists and anti-feminists to be like
this!  I think this guy's so laughable that its even pleasurable
to hear from him, like the flat earth society people and other
kooks

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4875 alt.folklore.urban:29356
From: linden@positive.Eng.Sun.COM (Trelford Pinkerton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon claims she Suffers Snuff Harassment
Date: 22 Nov 92 23:48:10 GMT
Organization: The Bishop Sandwich Band
NNTP-Posting-Host: positive

"Starbuck" claims
> Snuff films do exist indeed.  They exist in many video rental stores!
> They are hidden in the guise of documentaries.  The titles are "Faces
> of Death I, II, .."  On the cover jacket each tells that the video 
> contains scenes of actual murders, executions, ect.

You were wrong last time you made this absurd claim, and you are equally
wrong now.   The mere act of recording a death on film does not make
a "snuff" film.   Not that The Faces of Death series has any scenes of murders.
They comprise simple fictional entertainment of a not-particularly
sophisticated kind.

As far as the most strenuous efforts of the authorities have been able
to tell, snuff films are just an urban legend.
Paul Lanning, the FBI's chief researcher into child pornography was quoted 
by "The Times" of London:

      "In 20 years I have not seen any hard evidence that they have
       commercially produced sexually explicit films of murders for the
       gratification of other people.  Simulated snuff movies using
       special effects are so realistic there is no point in risking life
       in jail."

By the implicit definition of the authorities, a snuff film is one in which 
the film is the *purpose* of (rather than incidental to) the murder and with 
some intent of commercial distribution (i.e. if they ran out of film, the
murder would be postponed until someone could run down to the 7-11 & get more). 

Everyone accepts that snuff movies *could* exist, because people are evil
enough - this is not in dispute; the point is that, despite the most strenuous
searches, no examples have yet come to light.  Until someone shows
evidence of their existence, snuff films are in the same category as UFO's,
the Loch Ness monster, and Bruce Willis's hair -- i.e. "believed false."

And to "starbuck" in particular -- it only damages your credibility to
rehash your old discredited arguments.  Come back when you have some proof
of the existence of a snuff film, and you will be feted with a hero's
welcome (for finding something that no police force in the world has yet
been known to uncover).

     Trelford Pinkerton

--
   "Call me Ishmael"  Again and again I left a pleading message on the Captain's
   answering machine.  But he never did return my call, so I gave up whaling
   and became a computer programmer.   [Vol 1, "Moby Frob"]
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:11:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.192410.2352@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.091322.4300@fys.ruu.nl> johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston) writes:
>>In fact, I think it highly unlikely that the present Pope will ever
>>allow women anywhere near the priesthood; he's likely to go for married
>>(male) priests several aeons before he'll even think of women, no
>>matter what the priest shortage. 
>
>This is trivially true as there are already married male Catholic priests.
>Usually as a result of a priest from another denomination (e.g. Eastern
>Orthodox, Anglican, or one of the others the Catholic church accepts as
>legitimate) converting to Roman Catholicism.  They're not allowed to
>remarry if their wife dies, but that's another matter.
>
>The trivia one picks up reading murder mysteries ...

I believe that at least one branch of Catholicism got cut off by secular
politics and diverged in this matter, and when re-connected, insisted on
maintaining marriage for priests.
I *know* that regardless of *how* it happened, it is true that some branches of
Catholocism *can* marry, and are recognized as valid by Rome.

-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 04:46:01 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.211540.20526@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <BxrwoH.7I1@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:

.....[stuff deleted, not bad, but bandwidth's bandwidth]....
>>Really! I can't think of anything which more parrots the urban legend
>>about the existence of snuff-films than "researching" them!
>
>Why is investigating snuff-films parroting an urban legend?  It seems
>to me that people who claim snuff-films don't exist would welcome her
>investigation.  What better end to the urban legend than to have a
>very vocal anti-porn female feminist annouce that she spent months
>(perhaps years) trying to find one and never did?

Perhaps I was to cavalier in assuming this was obvious.  But here's
what I meant:  if I were to research the numbers of people with blue
aura's versus the number w/ red ones, I would be making a BIG
ontological supposition that people had auras at all... otherwise the
question just don't make no sense.  Same goes with this snuff-film
nonsense.  MacK isn't claiming to research the prevalent cultural
myths about snuff-film conspiracies, she's claiming to research
"snuff-films"... You can also make a pretty damn sure bet that she's
not going to report at the end of "years" of research that there was
no such thing as s-films... she's going to say that "although no
concrete cases were uncovered, this was because of the extreme secrecy
and conspiracy that underlies their production".. and perhaps that
MacK had to stop her research because of the extreme danger to her life.
>
>So if you're intelligent, you automatically assume that there is no
>such thing as a snuff-film?
>
No, if you've followed the whole antiporn hysteric effort to uncover
such films over the last thirty or more years with absolutely no
success THEN you assume there is no such thing.  The FBI, Dept.
Justice, Congressional Committees, Meese Commission, not to mention
various radfems have all tried to uncover such things in vain.  If
you're intelligent you assume that something doesn't exist if massive
decades long search fails to show ANY EVIDENCE that it does.

.......[irrelevant stuff about child abuse deleted]......



-- 
     _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: _/_/_/_/_/_/ 
   _/_/                              Postmodern Enterprises              _/_/ 
  _/_/  MAKERS OF CHAOS....                                             _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 15 Nov 92 20:06:29 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>>krw@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (keith.r.smith) writes:

>>>If you _know_ that you are doing the best
>>>that you can with what God gave you, then you have no reason to feel
>>>inadequate next to anybody.  In a word _attitude_.  
  
>>The thing is, though, most men are brought up to think this way, and 
>>women are not.  
 
>Odd, I was not brought up this way. 

From my observations on the net, however, women are much more likely to 
make statements like:

>>If anyone out there agrees with me...how about some email or something...

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4876 alt.folklore.urban:29361
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Date: 22 Nov 92 21:08:18 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>>                                  Given the passions aroused
>>by the subject of sex-repression-and-pornography (can't have
>>one without the other, so it's really one thing) 
 
>I see three things, do you mean you can't have ---
>
>sex without repression
>repression without pornography
>sex without pornography
>
>or the reverse?  (you can't have which-one without which-other?)

I see two things:  sex repression and pornography.

I think he means you can't have sex repression without pornography
and vice versa.

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4529 soc.women:19700 soc.men:19390 soc.culture.african.american:11156