HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:14:28 GMT
	<ZEN.92Sep29160051@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Oct1.191956.7786@gdr.bath.ac.uk>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk's message of 1 Oct 92 19:19:56 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.191956.7786@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
> In the referenced article, zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.
> Do you think men, as a class, *are* victims of the female power structure?

  No, because I don't think there *is* much of a female power structure.
I'm fairly certain if women had a (virtual) monopoly on power like men
do, then men would suffer similarily.

> >what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
> >action from another(s).
> By that definition, almost everyone is a victim of almost everyone else.

  Not at all.  I can't think of ever being harmed by anyone on
alt.feminism, for instance.  There are very few people who have ever
harmed me.

> I think it is a poor definition.

   Well, then, feel free to put out another one, instead of griping
about how terrible it is.

> To talk about somebody 'as a class' often sounds stereotyped.

  That's what stereotypes are all about, eh?

> It is much
> better to consider people as individuals, rather than giving 'victimhood'
> to a class which doesn't deserve it.

  Why is it "better", pray tell?  You don't think that it's useful to
talk about women and black people in this country as a class?  You don't
think it's useful to discuss that they are opressed, as a class?  You
can (almost) always come up with examples of people in the class of
victims/oppressed/whatever that have never had a problem, or at least
will say so.  So, we have a black man and a white woman in the supreme
court now.  Does this mean that there aren't problems and
discrimination, just because some token representation exists?

 -- d
From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:40:28 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>Playboy is
>one of the most requested publications by the blind.

Interesting to know how many of them could see before they
started reading Playboy :-)
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
From: wood@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:12:35 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct5.220750.15640@fid.morgan.com>, sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>Nixon stopped the draft

> No, Nixon first sent Americans to Vietnam for four years (probably
> more than Johnson; I don't remember the exact numbers).  Then the
> draft expired, and was not renewed.  I don't recall Nixon attempting
> to end the draft; he could have stopped it by Executive Order, but he
> didn't.

Nixon campaigned on "Anybody who had 4 years to stop the war and did not,
surely did not deserve another 4 years"  (or something close to that effect).

This came back to bite him in the tush.  But George McGovern was quite
weak and got buried in a land slide.

Nixon may have ended the war, but he did his "fair share" in escalating
it first.  He wasn't in a hurry to end it, by any means.  Think about
the "War Powers Act" and how it managed to get passed.  "Tricky Dicky"
was right in the middle of that one!

Terry
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:11:05 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Oct6.153545.5845@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| If you want to see the sorry state of logic surrounding contemporary
| feminist issues, just look at some of Gordon's statements above.
| 
| If I *ever* posted anything about how 'women must not be allowed to
| hold jobs as managers' ....

So what is it you want to change, Robert?  "Preferential"
hiring gave this little fragment of this big corporation
a 6:2 proportion of men to women in management.  This is 
now okay, or it's not.  Are you saying that "preferential" 
hiring was a good thing in the past?

And could we skip over the part about "qualified"?  You
know, and I know you know, that one's qualifications are
a small part of the decision as to who gets hired and 
promoted and who doesn't, unless you're talking about
civil service examinations where qualification is defined
as a score on a test.  Business doesn't work that way.
Not on Earth.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:08:23 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Sep26.172400.29654@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>(Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>> (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>>
>>> >> Boy, are you... (holding my toungue).  "Real feminists"?  Where on earth
>>> >> was that defined for you?  I challenge you to find one radical, extremist,
>>
>>Even reading this newsgroup a while will show some examples.
>
>Oh please, share with me one statement that says that men should have no 
>rights, since you persist on insisting it is so rampant.
>

I'm not sure since y'all trimmed so much of the arguments out, and <deity>
knows you can't trust Subject: lines in this group, but I think the legalities
of a woman's right to bear/abort a fetus without consultation with the father
is such a statement.
Note that this is merely one example in a complex issue, but let's not be
extreme and say that men have NO rights OR that men have ALL the rights, ok?

PS  I've already posted my views on this one so won't bore you with 'em now.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 2 Oct 92 16:59:17 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct1.200919.24015@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
> In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>>I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
>>"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  

> I never had a problem with the pictures, but the text is often
> irritating, IMO.  Especially the centerfolds' self-descriptions...
> Blech....  "I'm a space cadet and I like wine and candlelight..."
> Whoever finds *that* exciting... I dunno.  I always find it a little
> depressing.... :(

The written word that I was referring to were articles such as this month's
"Cry Incest".  I don't believe that the centerfold's "article" is included
in the edition for the blind.

Of course, you have to remember who is featured in the centerfold's "article".
It's someone who is 18 to 22.  I find that the older someone is the more
interesting it is to read about them.  I'm sure my life at 18 to 22 would
make for boring reading.  Of course, it wouldn't be much better NOW! ;-)

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:39:03 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <717917196@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>> In article <1992Sep28.200059.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>> %If you want examples of men's groups being seen as threatening to women's
>> %groups, get a subscription to Playboy.  (Check out the copies for the blind
>> %at the local library if the pictures offend you).
>
>> Terry, what offends *good* feminists like MacKinnon is not only the
>> pictures, but also the articles.  
>
>I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
>"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  A few years ago, congress voted*
>to remove Playboy from the group of magazines that were available to the
>blind.  The blind edition contains no pictures -- just the articles.  So
>what is so terrible about Playboy?  Obviously the articles!  Playboy is
>one of the most requested publications by the blind.
>
>Terry
>
>* Congress didn't *really* vote to remove Playboy of course.  They voted to
>remove exactly the amount of dollars that are used to produce the edition
>for the blind.  The Supreme Court made them put the dollars back.

On what are you basing the conclusion that the articles are the EVIL?
Because Congress made some wacky vote?
I think I would conclude that Congress was wierd, but hey, that's me.
It could be that this was part of some complex deal cut by Congress-members.

It is interesting that Playboy is so popular among the blind.

I have an interesting speculation about that, but it's connection to feminism
is tenuous at best, so the purist can hit 'n' now.

I speculate that since the blind are presumably very much deprived in terms of
information about the opposite sex (assuming there isn't some blind network
that let's them go around feeling people to know what they "look" like) it's
not too surprising that Playboy which (at least the way small sample I saw as a
teen) contains graphic descriptions of people's bodies would be interesting.
What other works are in the top 10, or whatever?
Are there others that describe physical appearances of the human form?

Disclaimer:  This is ultimate speculation here.  I haven't seen a Playboy in
years; never saw a whole lot of them; and don't know a lot about blindness.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2135 alt.sex:32080
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:41:10 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct6.185651.20138@dragon.acadiau.ca> 
890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (Darren MacKenzie) writes:
>I've seen a jot of garbage on this group, but I've never seen such a crock
>of shit as the preceeding paragraphs.  Pornography is NOT the exploitation
>of women.  I've seen many the "porno" movie, and the male is depicted at
>the same (if not worse) state than the female.  It is NOT only women...it

According to Dworkin and MacKinnon even all men gay porno is an
exploitation of women.  (And Gordon, if you'll ask then I'll 
quote the appropriate paragraph, so be careful.)  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:49:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.112907.12044@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>Mr. Mike Passaretti (mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com) wrote:
>: 
>: NB: The rates are usually quoted for barier[sic] methods when
>: used _as recommended_, which includes spermicides in many
>: cases.
>
>When used _as recommended_ is the catch.  Even the rhythm
>method is 100% effective, when used _as recommended_.  It's
>just bloody difficult to get it perfect, which is why it's
>such an awfully good way to get pregnant.

 Huh? How do you come up with this? There are just to many random factors
 for the rythm method to *ever* be this effective. Some women dont ovulate
 regularly. As I recall also some women ovulate more than once a month.
 While there are good estimates on how long most sperm will survive in the
 uterus, sometimes some may live little longer. I dont see how you can say this
 unless _as recommended_ means *dont use it* which I could see doctors saying.
 
>The only methods I'd recommend are the pill, or condoms.
>Everything else available at the moment is too messy, too
>risky or too permanent.

 Diaphram+spermicidal jell? Sponge? Not too permanent, risky or messy and
 takes only a minute once you get the hang of it.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims) 
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 19:02:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.153545.5845@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) wrote:
> [...]
> If you want to see the sorry state of logic surrounding contemporary
> feminist issues, just look at some of Gordon's statements above.
> [...]
> But Gordon thinks that Robert said that women shouldn't hold such jobs.
> Where did he find that? In his own imagination, nowhere else. Gordon
> is no doubt among those who have been brainwashed into seeing the
> opponents of feminism as little cardboard reactionaries, hopelessly
> glued to an outmoded chauvinism. That they might actually be classical
> liberals apparently never occurs to him.
> [...]

The thought does occur to many of them, but adherence to the cause requires
frequent witch burning. And if you're not an obvious witch, there are
plenty of people who'll happily make you one. (I imagine net news readers
all over the planet sticking pins into little Robert dolls).  
I have no problem with women adopting this position, since it's fun and
demonstrably in their self-interest, but I have to wonder at the motivation
of a man.

> There are,
> however, some women who DO wish to spend at least part of their adult
> life "in the kitchen," and IMHO it's time to stop the feminist war
> against them. As Paglia notes, under feminism the virago (a useful word,
> look it up) becomes the SOLE legitimate role model for a woman. 

This is where some of us differ from Robert.  In my view, the face of
modern feminism has matured to the point where anything associated with
femaleness is sufficient justification for preferential treatment
(workplace AA, "deadbeat dads", and Violence Against Women for example). 
OK, so there are feminists (at least a couple of whom post to this group)
who do not seek preference for females, but as I see it, they are in a
small minority.
  
I've asked this before without result, but what is feminism ?  
To me, feminism is like a political party - a collection of disparate
individuals, seeking political influence, in this case bound together by
the fact that they were born with the same kind of genitals (sorry feminist
men, the definition excludes you - you can share the beliefs, but not the
spoils, which makes you hangers-on (or groupies if you like) at best). 
Like traditional political parties, "feminists" cover a wide range of views
on any issue, fight internally (ask a few Hispanic women about the joys of
feminist politics), but try to present a united front to the world.  The
problem is that the front, just like those of the traditional parties, is a
sham, largely because the group is too diverse to be united by anything
other than emotional manipulation and external scapegoating.  

Personally, I don't see that the term "feminist" has any more meaning than
"Republican" or "Democrat", that is, almost none.  

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:53:08 GMT

Boy, I had NO idea paranoia was so rampant among the anti-feminists!:

In article <!t!pn-g.sheaffer@netcom.com> 
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>
>>*LAUGH*.  Well, this certainly is a surprise to me.  What I said, as
>>quoted right here on this fine newsgroup was that I did *not* recommend
>>anyone doing that, but that I would find it more *believable* as an
>>effort to help women than I do the censoring of alt.sex.bondage.  After
>>all, *this* is where all the hatred of women comes out, not a.s.b.
>
>Yes, "I'm not favoring *censoring* this slimy newsgroup, but if
>SOMEONE ELSE were to do that, I'd stand by the sidelines and cheer!"

Standing by the sidelines and cheering sounds like the same as favoring...
She has said a number of times now that she did not recommend
censoring this newsgroup or any other.  What's your beef here?

>How many people recall my own prediction of a few weeks ago (soundly
>derided at the time), that the P.C. crowd would soon be telling people
>NOT to post on "alt.feminism"?

I recall.  What's the big deal?  

>Still, my prediction was not quite accurate. I thought they'd go for
>the "boycott" first. Instead, it was talk of "censorship."

Please, do tell me where this happened.  An exact quote.  I must
have missed it.

If you have real debate with feminism, fine.  But making up ones that
are patently false makes you look an irrational knee-jerker.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<SK73171.92Sep20191342@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
	<1992Sep23.021508.16091@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:21:41 GMT


In article <1992Sep23.021508.16091@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> Ah, so you're saying here that now, men are the leaders and women are
> oppressed?

Some are some not. And most women seems to like things this way. There are
certain benefits to 'em in this system. And no-one is forced to go with
the masses.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:52:02 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep28105514@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>> That's not what she said.  You're straining, Robert.

>>Yea, right!  Which pot is calling which kettle "black"?

>>Censorship leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  Even when it's only a suggested
>>as being more "*believable* as an effort".  One doesn't have to be a genius
>>to read between the lines.

> Perhaps, though, one has to be a genuis to read *correctly* between the
> lines.  If you had read the entire article (see news.admin), you would
> have seen that the entire thing was an argument *against* censorship.

But I did read the article.  Bronis was kind enough to point me at it.
I did not get the impression that you were anti-censorship, except for
newsgroups such as soc.women.  I have to concur with Robert -- I got the
same feeling as he did upon reading your article.  But I am now quite
sure you'd *never* support the censorship of soc.men or alt.feminism just
to help women!


> In addition, perhaps a genius might consider that *I* know what I am
> saying better than Robert Sheaffer, and note that everywhere, on the
> net, I have *always* opposed censorship.  (By the way, I do not believe
> that moderating a newsgroup is censorship, which is why I do not oppose
> it.)

You sound like a "spin doctor" in a political campaign.  I'm truly happy to
hear you say that you oppose censorship.  I'm sure you will have no problem
with the fact that anyone can now post their own opinions on feminism in this
newsgroup.  That's very reassuring for all to hear.  I'm sure that people
like Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, and Danny Quayle also oppose
censorship.  You are in good company!

But always remember:

                Actions speak louder than words.


As far as moderation goes, I'll just make one comment.  I've seen it pointed
out that moderation raises the "signal" and lowers the "noise" in any
newsgroup where it has been tried.  This is a fact.

What is usually not noted, however, is that the "signal" is now controlled.
One could just as easily argue that if only radio Moscow were have been
allowed on the air during the communists reign, there would have been more
"signal" and less "noise".

The important question that one must ask one's self when reading *any*
moderated newsgroup (or newspaper) is "What signal is being sent?".  It may
not be "censored" but it is clearly edited and with editing can come bias.

The price one pays for an unmoderated forum is "noise".  But I'd rather have
the "noise" and be allowed to make my own decision on what to read and what
to throw away.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism