HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:22:43 GMT

In <jay.36.727813864@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:

>>Damn right we're not so het up about false accusations; we want to be
>>listened to when we make TRUE accusations!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

>Funny how a WOMAN isn't too concerned about false accusations, which 
>means an innocent MAN is procecuted!  This seems like the wrong approach to 
>getting people to listen to true accusations.  (sounds like a witch hunt)

Look.  I don't want innocent men to be prosecuted for rape. I consider
that to be a given; perhaps I'm overly idealistic.  However, from my
personal experience, the laws, their enforcement, and the prevailing
attitudes of society towards women's testimony are all slanted the other
way, so as to let men guilty of rape be acquitted and go unpunished.  I
might add that some of those laws are stricter than you might think.  In
Massachusetts, for example, in order for it to be rape, the plaintiff
has to have made any gesture of resistance at all; saying "no" once or
struggling for one second is enough to qualify. Think about that.  How
many of you out there are guilty of rape in Massachusetts?

								Beth
-- 
". . . but if the will to walk is there, He is pleased with their
stumbles."    		--C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Date: 21 Jan 93 22:51:11
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1993Jan16.034838.25288@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<MUFFY.93Jan18231131@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan22.004859.18147@microsoft.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jenk@microsoft.com's message of 22 Jan 93 00:48:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.004859.18147@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>(Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>(ljf) writes:
>>>(Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>*grin*...umm...*my* kind of woman would not necessarily *have* a man.
>>>>However, I must admit that I enjoy making cat-like noises at my SOs.
>*purrr*purrr*purrrrr*

More like...*mrrrrooowwwwrrrrr*...*smile*...

>>>While I'm not a cat-fancier, I'll say that you can make cat-like
>>>noises at me anytime. *hint*hint*flirt*flirt*
>>
>>*GRIN*...I also bite.
>>I'm afraid, however, that I may have to give in now to Robert's
>>assertion about feminism being full of lesbians - I've gotten more women
>>flirting with me here than on soc.bi!

>*flirt*?  In alt.flaminism?? Women flirting?? hmm...didn't you say you 
>do windows programming???

Yeah, but I don't *enjoy* it...*smile*...I'm a LISP programmer at
heart...

>ever consider bringing that talent north a
>bit?  :>

I've been there...too cold and rainy for my tastes...of course, it's
like that here, these days...but I have a nice warm waterbed, with
plenty of nice people in it, to keep me warm...*smile*...

>[watch out --- in college, I once picked up a guy with my C code *grin*]

Me, I used Pascal in those days...I got a few guys that way, but it's
really hard to respect a man when you're doing his programming for him.

Muffy



--

Muffy Barkocy                      |~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            | but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   | light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.| somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Nice Guys ( was Men Male Bashers )
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 15:40:12 GMT

 pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke)writes:


In article <1993Jan17.014306.7372@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>OK.  Let's define what "nice, sensitive guy" means...
>
>I am a woman and I wanted a "nice, sensitive guy".  I've dated self-centered
>jerks and as I matured and came to care more about my own "quality of life"
>(yep - it's, arghhh, SELF-ESTEEM!), I quit seeing the self-centered jerks
>as better-than-me-and-therefore-desirable, and saw them as self-centered
>jerks not worth wasting my time on.

pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu ( Eric Pepke)writes:

Thanks for saying this.  It is consistent with my experience.

The reason I set the followups the way I did is that I want to talk about
the message that men get.  The message is this:

1) If you're a self-centered jerk, you'll get plenty of dates.
2) It you're a nice, sensitive guy, you may at some time acquire a long-term
   partner who may or may not stop dating self-centered jerks.  In the mean
   time, you might as well watch Popeye cartoons to see what your forearms
   are going to look like.

This is generally called the "nice guy syndrome."

sfjr@wam.umd.edu ( Steve Russell) writes:

	Every once in a while I do meet a woman who says she doesnt like
	nice guys etc etc.  These women are rarely emotionally health/mature
	by my standards and I rarely find them attractive beyond their bodies.

	I think the "anti-nice guy" sentiment is perpetuated by these women
	AND by some men confusing "nice" with "obsequius", "officious"
	"solictious" etc which no one wants.  Women want Men, not schmucks
	but not spineless panting dogs which is what some men confuse
	to mean as "nice" and when it doesnt work conclude that only
	being a jerk will get them a girlfriend.

Steve R
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Date: 24 Jan 1993 02:17:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy) writes:

>Don't you realize what a powerful weapon any woman has against any man
>if she is cruel enough? 

Don't you realize how costly it is for a woman (in terms of time, money,
and especially in terms of emotional stress) to make such a false 
accusation.  Rape trials are not much fun -- especially not with 
society's "blame the victim" mentality and the "oh she's just a slut"
defense!

-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Impressive amounts of material can be accreted in this manner.
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Date: 27 Jan 93 05:10:02 GMT
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA

In article <C185KJ.uA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>One concluding remark. In a previous posting, you claimed that women
>were less aggressive than men. I am not interested in arguing any
>further about brain testosterone, in this context. I would just like
>to suggest you read alt.flame (which I subscribed to for an afternoon,
>for fun). A good percentage of the posters are female, and they
>seem to be as accomplished at their art (unwarranted aggression) as any
>male!  

Bullshit is not agression, Lenore ;->


>
>Have fun!
>Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Organization: mydog in exile
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:03:53 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
| >There are different levels.  If I get a better job or apartment than I
| >deserve simply because I'm white, that benefits me.  Does it benefit
| >society?  No.  So, if you're saying that what benefits society
| >benefits whites, then racism affects whites negatively.  But if you
| >say that whites get undeserved jobs, housing, promotions, etc. simply
| >because they're white, that benefits whites (at the expense of
| >non-whites and the equality of society).

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| What I "deserve" is pretty much "what I pay for", no more and no less.
| And in our society, there is a continual transfer of income FROM
| taxpayers to recipients of the various welfare programs.
|
| Now, if one group pays all of its own housing expense, PLUS some or all of
| the housing expense of another, then IT is the victim. They get LESS
| from society than they pay in. The group that
| is on the receiving end of this largesse (getting MORE than it pays for)
| is not a victim, but a beneficiary. So who is exploted: the one who
| PAYS all the taxes, or the one who lives off the taxpayer?

In terms of money?  Actually, the transfers of _value_
go in both directions.  Most welfare programs pay people
with certain qualifications to be poor.  Those who arrange
for the payment -- the bourgeoisie, or ruling or admini-
strative class -- get to depict themselves to themselves
and others as especially humane.  Others, outside this set,
may derive a sadistic pleasure in contemplating their
superiority to the poor, both because they have more money
and personal power, and because they are more moral --
they work for a living, which is held to confer moral
advantage.  There are other values involved, but I just
want to show that the relation is more complex than a
simple transfer of funds.  (This also applies to the
transfer of funds from the middle classes to the rich.)

I take note, by the way, of the ritual conflation of
race and welfare.  This is an example of what I'm
talking about; Robert derives some value from making 
the connection (or he would not have done so) at the
expense of the repute, and quite possibly the self-
esteem or well-being, of the people who provide the
material for his illustration.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:41:01 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Cornell University

bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes: 
> 
> Look.  I don't want innocent men to be prosecuted for rape. I consider
> that to be a given; perhaps I'm overly idealistic.  However, from my
> personal experience, the laws, their enforcement, and the prevailing
> attitudes of society towards women's testimony are all slanted the other
> way, so as to let men guilty of rape be acquitted and go unpunished. 

Prosecuting innocent men is one thing, but I assume that you mean that you
don't want innocent men convicted either.  That necessitates that men
guilty of rape, or many other crimes, may go unpunished.  The rules
of the game seem fair.

On the other hand, if you believe that following the rules don't
lead to fairness, then you shouldn't be questioning the rules or details of
the legal system; rather you should be questioning why the whole
thing is a fraud!

I made another nifty post on legal issues of seduction:

look for   subject:  Seducing Drunk Women (and men)

Steve Seidman
seid@ee.cornell.edu
q2tj@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
From: un036337@wvnvms.wvnet.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Man haters
Date: 22 Jan 93 13:44:31 EST
Organization: West Virginia Network for Educational Telecomputing

I have one question that I'd like all of you to ask yourselves.  Am I an
extremist.  If the answer is yes, then at least you realise it.  If the answer
is no, think harder.  I know several feminists, and most of you are merely
man-haters, and not truly feminists at all.  Get bent!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: If ljf did not see it then it just does not exist
Date: 27 Jan 93 03:43:58 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <C1H7qu.7o0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>I thought someone recently won a Nobel Prize for proving this point.  (That
>discrimination does cost.)

I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  You have any more info?

Once again, I don't see where discrimination necessarily costs.  Take
Cracker Barrel, a restaurant chain in the Southeast.  It received
nation-wide media attention when it fired competent employees simply
because they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual.  It seemed to have no
problem in replacing the fired employees.  For every person who
refuses to eat there because of its anti-lesbigay policy, there appear
to be two people who are glad of it.

Where does the actual cost come in?  Are we talking about the cost to
society when competent employees lose jobs, the abuse of justice when
people are fired for bigoted reasons?  Or the actual cost to the
business that does the discrimination?

What is Cracker Barrel's loss?  If it loses no business (for every
person who boycotts it because of its policy, two more are happy with
the policy) and it can replace every fired lesbigay employee with an
equally competent non-lesbigay employee?  There's probably some loss
in time and performance in replacing the fired employees, but if
Cracker Barrel screens applicants from the start, then even that loss
can be avoided.  So, what is to prevent a business from doing exactly
what Cracker Barrel has done?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: roarf@stud.cs.uit.no (Just this guy)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: University of Tromsoe, Norway
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 17:00:52 GMT

In article <C1AAs0.12w@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
|> In <1jpdc8INNgrh@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
|> 
|> >I am concerned by how lightly women take the subject of false rape accusations,
|> >when they would obviously gain from there being fewer. So I wanted to see
|> >if you would clearly and unambiguously say that there is a real need to
|> >avoid false accusations. You have not done so. You have failed to break
|> >my stereotypical view of women as people who simply want the license to lock
|> >up men whenever it suits them.
|> 
|> Well, perhaps some of the women on this net have a view of
|> people, not just men, and by extension the legal system, as failing to take 
|> women seriously, not so much a stereotypical view as one based on their own
|> experience.  I must say, by making a fuss about false accusations, you're not
|> helping matters any.  
|> 
|> Think: imagine you were going to accuse a man you knew of raping you.  Imagine 
|> further that there is some disparity between the two of you, social position, 
|> previous criminal records, or any other blight upon you or credit to him 
|> that would make a judge and/or jury more likely to believe his version 
|> of events than yours. Would you take the man to court under those
|> circumstances for anything less than the truth? The unhappy fact is that
|> to most of the world, men are seen almost universally as more credible
|> than women by the world at large.  Damn right we're not so het up about
|> false accusations; we want to be listened to when we make TRUE
|> accusations!!!!!!!  Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!


Grrrrr!!! back to you, beth. In this I agree with Mr Graley. It's ok to
say that women feel they're not being taken seriously, but doesn't
being taken seriously include responsibilities? You don't take
kids seriously until they're old enough to understand and take 
resposibilities. In this case (without further comparison with children :-)
that means women should be at least _concerned_ about there being
made false accusations. Instead you try to hide this :

   "... by making a fuss about false accusations, you're not helping 
    matters any".

What kind of statement is that?

Don't you realize what a powerful weapon any woman has against any man
if she is cruel enough? I sure don't think most people are that cruel,
but we all seem to agree there exists cruel men around, so then why should
no cruel women exist?



|> 
|> 								Beth
|> -- 
|> ". . . but if the will to walk is there, He is pleased with their
|> stumbles."    		--C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_

-- 
Roar Foshaug                                      (roarf@stud.cs.uit.no)
Department of Computer Science
University of Tromsoe, IMR                        'oe' is '\o{}' in Tex
N-9037 TROMSOE, NORWAY                            'OE' is '\O{}' in Tex
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:57:48 EST
From: Brian J. Belkowski <BJB125@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Survey, was Re: Women DOCTORS
 <1993Jan11.005317.16991@wam.umd.edu> <oneil.726727956@cwis>
 <1993Jan11.195010.23943@netcom.com> <929P02zx31=B01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
 <C12F03.L46@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>

I would see a woman doctor, gender doesn't make a difference to me.
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminism vs. the Sexual Revolution (was: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:54:53 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1993Jan26.193844.4784@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.193103.9317@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan21.164850.29053@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>>>It is UNWANTED sexual advances that are considered harrassment.  
>>
>>How does one find out that they are unwanted but by asking?
>
>If they say no, then you know.  If you ask and they say they don't
>appreciate it, then you know.  If you make advances after that, you 
>are knowingly making unwanted advances.  I think most rules/laws 
>use this logic except in obvious cases (e.g.  "Suck my dick or you're
>fired!").

I think the issue is -repeated- unwanted sexual advances, otherwise it
is not obvious that they are unwanted. I am not arguing the general point,
just looking to clarify it a bit.
 
>>>                                                                I know it
>>>is hard for many men to understand why unwanted sexual advances might be
>>>bad, but imagine if your male boss patted your butt and greeted you with
>>>"aren't you handsome today" and kept saying that you looked like you had
>>>a delicious penis.  How would that make you feel?
>>
>>You are equating gay advances with a straight man with a heterosexual
>>man trying to have sex with a heterosexual woman. This is not a valid
>>comparison. 
>
>Many women do not like any sexual advances at work.  Some men like any
>sexual advances by women (or at least claim they do).  For these people 
>to understand what it is like to be the recipient of an unwanted advance,
>it is easiest to choose one that would like be unwanted by them.  
>
>If you don't like that comparison, think of the one woman you would 
>least like to grab your butt and imagine that.

It looks like you are trying to squirm out of this. I still claim that the
comparison, and it's variations, are not only invalid, but have nothing
to do with the larger issue.
 
>Besides, what if the woman is a lesbian?  Since most homosexuals are in 
>the closet (especially at work), you probably wouldn't even know if you
>asked her.

You specified a homosexual advance to a heterosexual male, now as a 
correction, you specify a heterosexual advance to a homosexual female.
Same difference. And it is just as irrelevant to the general issue.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7605 soc.women:23029
From: shorrow@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Paul Shorrow)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Date: 25 Jan 93 13:56:39 GMT
Reply-To: shorrow@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Paul Shorrow)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Distribution: na
Organization: Carderock Division, NSWC, Bethesda, MD

In soc.women, michael@neuron6.jpl.nasa.gov (Michael Rivero) writes:



> That's how we vanish the elephant, start wars, and sell
>50 billion dolars worth of hair color and facial mud every year in
>this country. That's how certain vested political interests have sold
>the idea that men are jerks.... even to some men.

 Well said, I am amazed at how the ads on TV suggest that we must use
 this  or that product to have the sexiest mouth...whitest clothes...
 and everthing in between.....maybe that is why most of my TV time is
 spent with PBS.

 Paul Shorrow
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 18:31:04 GMT

>>I am concerned by how lightly women take the subject of false rape
>>accusations, when they would obviously gain from there being fewer. So I
>>wanted to see if you would clearly and unambiguously say that there is a
>>real need to avoid false accusations. You have not done so. You have
>>failed to break my stereotypical view of women as people who simply want
>>the license to lock up men whenever it suits them.
>
>Damn right we're not so het up about false accusations; we want to be
>listened to when we make TRUE accusations!!!!!!! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!

Funny how a WOMAN isn't too concerned about false accusations, which 
means an innocent MAN is procecuted!  This seems like the wrong approach to 
getting people to listen to true accusations.  (sounds like a witch hunt)
From: bgarfink@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (beth diane garfinkel)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 20:41:56 GMT

In <jay.37.727815640@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU> jay@UUSERV.CC.UTAH.EDU (Jay Deuel) writes:

>I remember an episode of Norther Exposure, where the doctor is invited by 
>Maggi to have sex (she wasn't drunk, but without sleep for 36 hours).  She 
>was asleep by time he enters the bedroom, and does the "gentleman" thing by 
>leaving her untouched.  Later on she becomes pissed off after finding out he 
>didn't do anything, because she doesn't feel sexy.  THIS IS ONLY A MOVIE, 
>but it expresses a male's feeling of "damned if I do & damned if I don't"!

You're leaving out the part that was really mean: that Maggie made it
clear, after the non-existent event, that it was to be a one-time
occurrence that noone was to know about, so he went ahead and let her
think she had slept with him in revenge for the implied insult.

Robin Warshaw gives a relevant piece of advice for this type of
situation.  Assume that "yes" means "yes," and "no" means "no."  If you
are getting mixed signals or are otherwise in doubt of the best way to
behave, hang back, because if she doesn't know what she wants, you don't 
want to be with someone that neurotic in any case.  Besides, having sex
with a woman who is asleep is also legally considered rape. 

By the way, if you ever find out that you have annoyed or offended a
woman by keeping your hands off her at such a time, the correct response
is "Well, how about it?" or whatever variant thereof you feel to be
appropriate.  Even if she's not willing to commit herself right 
then and there, that should at least reassure her that you still find her
desirable :) 

								Beth
-- 
". . . but if the will to walk is there, He is pleased with their
stumbles."    		--C.S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_
Newsgroups: alt.feminism