HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller)
Subject: Re: Retardation and Rape (was: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 07:50:13 GMT

lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>In <C02ssH.C6A@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>>lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney) writes:

>>>But if the Glen Ridge defendants were convicted SOLELY on the basis
>>>that the victim was retarded, they would only be guilty of statutory
>>>rape, and would (I suspect) face a significantly lighter sentence.
>>>You'd have to show actual lack of consent for a regular rape charge to
>>>stick.

>>Incorrect.  PL 130.05(3)(b) makes mental incapacity the legal
>>equivalent of actual lack of consent.  From that point on, the
>>charge of rape is treated identically with any other.  (As it should
>>be, IMHO).

>The Glen Ridge case is being tried under NJ law, so PL 130 (NY Law) is
>irrelevant.  I don't have the NJ law in front of me, but the Model
>Penal Code appears to distinguish between "rape" and "gross sexual
>imposition" which is a lesser offense and which includes having sex
>with a person incapable of giving consent.

So the MPC is also irrelevant.  I know that Glen Ridge is in New
Jersey.  I referred to the NY law in order to explain a point of
law, not to predict the outcome of the case.  Also, all charges of
rape are statutory in both New York and New Jersey; neither state
has common law crimes.
-- 
Stevens R. Miller J.D.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 23:17:27 GMT
X-Posted-From: d0gslb.fnal.gov
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <MUFFY.92Dec21154021@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> No, the issue is that every time someone talks about the violence that
> is practiced against women, some people here start shouting about the
> violence that happens to men.  Not only do they not seem to want us to
> work on the problem *we* are concerned about, but they further want us
> to work on *their* problems.  

Who is "we", Muffy?  Violence against women is *my* problem, not because I
share biological structures with a portion of perps, but it touches the lives
of a great many women whose well-being is important to me.  Violence against
men is *my* problem because I am a target of it and because it touches the
lives of a great many men whose well-being is important to me.  Thus, I work on
both.  Thus I have cause to discuss both.  If violence against men isn't *your*
problem for the same reason that violence against men is *my* problem, why
isn't it?

Why is it that every time someone brings up violence against men, here or
elsewhere, some feminists start shouting about violence against women, and how
dare we focus on men's problems?

Personally, I think I have enough time to deal with both.  If you can only deal
with one, don't be surprised if a bunch of people decide that they only have
time for their problem and to hell with you and yours.  This does not seem an
effective tactic.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu (Scott C DeLancey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Critique of Gimbutas' "Idyllic Goddess" Claims
Date: 2 Jan 93 21:26:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: pith.1i519vINNl95
Organization: University of Oregon Network Services
NNTP-Posting-Host: darkwing.uoregon.edu

I have no problem with Shaeffer's conclusions, or with most of his cited
material on Gimbutas, but he goes overboard in tossing in criticism of
Gimbutas' Kurgan hypothesis.  True, this is somewhat controversial, like
any other theory about prehistory, but it is by no means the same kind
of silliness as the "Idyllic Goddess" culture story.  In fact, some version
of it is widely accepted in scholarly circles, and it has both more 
empirical support and more adherents than any competing story.

Remember that every claim ever made in archeology is controversial.  It
is unfair--and detracts considerably from the argument--to equate the
inevitable controversy about what is nevertheless an eminently respectable
theory, with the very different situation of unanimous rejection of
a clearly untenable theory, even when the two theories are the work of
the same individual.  The "Idyllic Goddess" story does depend on the
idea of Indo-European migrations into Europe, but the converse doesn't
hold--the theory of Indo-European invasions in no way depends on any
theory about what the pre-Indo-European culture was like.

Scott DeLancey				delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 11:31:11 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.184824.10383@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> dgross@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (Dave Gross) writes:


)	Don't try to get my sympathy by telling me how women live in a state
)of siege.  Sister, you don't know how easy you've got it.

I must admit that this does come across as not being very sympathetic
and empathic:-(

I really do agree with a lot of your points about how violence against men
is not well-recognized, but I feel I can understand the 'zingers' that 
this thread has generated a bit better now.  [I'm surprised nobody quoted
this one particular sentence, though.]
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6645 talk.abortion:53633
From: holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Date: 30 Dec 92 18:59:02 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: d0gslb.fnal.gov

In article <MUFFY.92Dec30144823@remarque.berkeley.edu>, 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> Sounds pretty counter-productive; they can hardly "mend their ways" and
> look after their children if they're locked up, eh?  Unless, of course,
> they've already been "convicted"...looks like they have, in the minds of
> the public.  What a country...news driven.

They've not been convicted, they've been charged.  As with most people charged
with felonies, this means that they are held in jail until their trial, unless
they can post bond as surety that they won't skip town.

The children were placed in foster care when they were found alone in the
house.  Whether the parents get to look after their children again is up to a
court to decide.

-- 
Daniel B. Holzman                    | Eight Words the Witch's Rede Fufill:
HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET                  | An It Harm None, Do What You Will
HOLZMAN@FNALC.FNAL.GOV.INTERNET      |
                                     | All Acts of Love and Pleasure are
Love doesn't subtract,               | Her Rituals
   it multiplies    - Heinlein       |
                                     | Speak the Word.
Disclaimer:  Fermilab's far too large to have an opinion, let alone mine.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: sex-role stereotypes (was Re: Challenge to Robert Sheaffer)
Date: 29 Dec 92 01:04:21 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Dec26.232833.8874@panix.com> jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:
| ... 
| (2) An increase in the supply of labor means (other things being equal)
| a decline in wages.  So the movement of women into the paid labor
| market makes it more difficult for a sole breadwinner to support his
| family at a particular standard. ...

Just a brief note on the economics, as I see them, of course.
It is true that a sudden influx of labor will depress the 
price of labor (for the type of labor which fluxed in) but
only temporarily.  At least in classical theory, the lower
cost of labor will make it easier and more desirable to 
accumulate wealth and deploy it as capital.  Capital is what
creates jobs.  Hence, an influx of labor eventually reduces
unemployment -- or at least makes it possible to do so.  
This is especially the case when (as is the case with women)
the influx comes from a class or caste which understands the
values and disciplines required for skilled labor. 

An influx of labor would reduce the cost of labor only where
the job market was inelastic.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Date: 22 Dec 1992 07:37:49 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

DPIROT@vm.ucs.UAlberta.CA writes:

>what seems to be happening is that the feminists are prepared to
>sacrifice the lives of young American men in order to protect the
>virtue of women.

Hey, bub, there's women in the Marines too.  
-- 

                                                --  Michal
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course there's no reason!  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: Diane
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 10:26:55 CST

In article <1992Dec23.014026.23136@cbnewsk.cb.att.com>
noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
 
    <examples of male violence against men>
 
>Who raised these men?
 
 
Oh for godsakes; how long are we going to blame mommy? When do we
get to grow up and take responsibility for our selves? I don't teach
my son to be any more violent than my daughter. You can argue from
a biological standpoint, from a social one- what ever pulls your
chain, but please! let us not forget that everyone one of us has some
measure of self-determination. It is people- not society; not their
mommies, who murder and rape and steal. Yes, it just so happens that
a majority of these murderers and rapists and thieves are men. Aren't
they 'big' enough to accept responsibility for their own actions? I'm
sorry if I'm just not co-dependent enough to make (or accept) lame
excuses like "mommy made me do it".
 
 
>>If you're not part of the cure, you're part of the problem. [ ]
>
>Uh-huh.
>
 
Maybe you would prefer "if you're part of the problem, blame mommy"?
 
>Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
>TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 18:54:24 GMT

In article <1992Dec26.174805.28940@wam.umd.edu> rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>In article <Bzs72C.B2y@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>>rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari) writes:
>>>	Someone extremely obese might need (at least) a new
>>>	chair, but also a new desk (to go with the chair).  This
>>>	isn't guesswork--I had to set up an office for my parents,
>>>	both of whom are over 350.
>>
>>The policies are implemented against people who are *not* extremely
>>obese, just heavier than the weight tables; people who would not
>>in any way need a special work area. 
>
>
>	That passes that criterion, then.
>
>
>>>>I think you are not cynical enough. These companies are not
>>>>discriminating against Andre the Giant type people, but against
>>>>Lech Walesa and Roseanne Barr type people.
>>
>>>	Also, it takes a lot to convince me of discrimination.
>>
>>In many cases, these policies are a matter of public record. For
>>example, in the case of the systems analyst, she was explicitly
>>told by her contact at the employment agency that Sun would not
>>hire her.
>
>
>	And number two.

Just for the record, it is my understanding that Sun is not hiring
-any- temporaries, at all, and this has been the policy for the last
several years. This is unqualified, regardless of sex, height, or
planet of origin, they will not hire any temps as permanant.

Even reading your text, I cannot see any implication of discrimination.
 

>       "If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
>
>     Equality is a delusion, suffering is a fairy tale and God is a fantasy.
>       Blaming society for inequality is like blaming the sky for rain.



Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: twain@milton.u.washington.edu (Barbara Hlavin)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why I am Not An Egalitarian
Date: 4 Jan 1993 00:47:43 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: milton.u.washington.edu

>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>And your use of the word "intuition" makes me nervous. It's a female,
>>non-objective thing.


Intuition is not "a female thing." 

Intuition is a human experience, and our culture's most famous 
incidents are documented in biographies of mathematicians and 
scientists. 

Intuition is perhaps the most badly misunderstood of all the 
human mental processes (and yes, it is a mental process).  What 
it is *not* is some kind of "vague feeling" but rather a sudden 
illumination when bits of knowledge that have been sitting in our 
unconscious are catalyzed by a brand-new bit of information that 
gives us insight particular to the problem we've been mulling 
over and allows us to form a conclusion. 

--Barbara 



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: The White Feather Campaign
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 07:37:53 GMT

In article <Bzp7zu.GM1@nic.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi) writes:
>
>Hmmm... my assumption was always that NBC Nightly News is precisely a
>work of fiction.  Their sole purpose seems to be making up interesting
>stories which, if true, would serve the interests of the working
                                                          ^^^^^^^
>class.  For those of you wondering why these stories of "rape camps"
>and all are being *FABRICATED* by the news media, I have but two
>words:  "Grosse Deutchland." 

Don't you mean the "ruling class"?

Otherwise THEY wouldn't allow it to be broadcast!   :)
-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,talk.abortion
From: mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko)
Subject: Re: Parallel situations
Organization: Northeastern University, Boston, MA. 02115, USA
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 02:49:52 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Dec30144823@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.160012.1@d0gslb.fnal.gov> holzman@d0gslb.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec30.190954.17494@ncar.ucar.edu>, marcia@rap.ucar.edu (Marcia 
>>Politovich) writes:
>>>>P.S. How about the Chicago couple that left their kids "home alone"?
>>> 
>>> Personally I think they ought to be horsewhipped (I'm serious, too).
>>> Apparantly a lot of people do this and it's a sad comment on our times.
>
>>At present, they are trying to raise $50,000 in bail to avoid a second night in
>>jail, where they are presently being held pending felony charges of child
>>abandonment.
>
>Sounds pretty counter-productive; they can hardly "mend their ways" and
>look after their children if they're locked up, eh?  Unless, of course,
>they've already been "convicted"...looks like they have, in the minds of
>the public.  What a country...news driven.
                               ^^^^^^^^^^^^
However , it's strange to see you complaining about it - wasn't this property
of this society widely used by feminist movement ?  

>
>Muffy


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6580 soc.men:21834 soc.women:21929
From: starbuck@galaxy.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Living in a State of Siege
Date: 27 Dec 92 20:43:33 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <MUFFY.92Dec22131202@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Nope.  Men who say "shut up about (for example) violence against women,
>because the *real* problem is violence against men" are being
>insensitive and belittling.  Men who discuss men's issues in a group
>which is supposedly about feminism (which you yourself say is about
>women's issues) are also being insensitive, since the implication is
>that people who are concerned about women's issues *should* be spending
>their time on men's issues.  Why not keep it in soc.men and stop all
>this ridiculous cross-posting?

The cross-posting is not ridiculous as you may feel.  From you posting
over the years one can see you say most anything that suits you at the
moment.  Consider a little net.history.  

Sometime ago a discussion of soc.feminism and the moderators developed
on soc.men.  It was in these discussion that many of us thought that
a new unmoderated group be created for open dicussion of feminism
to counter the almost religious beliefs that you as a gatekeeper 
(moderator) try to enforce on soc.feminism.  Your critics were legion.

The "supposedly about feminism" that you seem to feel is threated on
alt.feminism is bullshit.  I don't recall you posting to alt.config
when this group was proposed although I had posted several articles
along with others who felt that this group should be created as a
forum for discussion of both the pro and con of feminism.  As well
as a way to get the feminists and their anti-men theory of soc.men. Those
who wish more myth and dogma should feel free to post to soc.feminism.
I am sure you would approve the posts.

Let's give credit where credit is due.  alt.feminism was newgrouped by
T.J. Wood @pitt.  T.J. wrote the charter which provide that the group
was to be a forum for both critics and devotees of feminism.  I know
you don't like the fact you cannot control this group like you do
soc.feminism.  Too bad.

As far as men discussing men's issues on alt.feminsm that is perfectly
ok.  Feminist's discuss men all the time.  That being the case makes
feminism a men's issue. 

starbuck
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:6584 misc.legal:21754
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Retardation and Rape (was: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 27 Dec 92 23:53:37 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
| ...
| A young mentally retarded woman was persuaded to engage in sexual activity
| by some high school youths, neighbors of her and football players, who
| told her that they would take her on a date if she performed these
| activities. She performed oral sex on them, and they stuck inappropriate
| objects in her vagina; then they left. The young woman stuck around the
| basement where this all happened for hours. She was convinced the young
| men would come back and take her on a date!
| 
| When court-appointed personnel examined her, she seemed to have no
| idea that the young men were not her friends; she merely wondered why
| they didn't come back! And she did not appear to have any sexual
| feelings or desire for sexual release of her own.
| 
| Once again, I am not saying that sexual intercourse with a retarded
| person is *necessarily* rape. But I think it clearly was in this case!

There's the important question of consent.  The retarded woman 
apparently gave consent for the acts, and while some of them are
unusual, they are well within the range of known behavior of
adults of both sexes with full mental capacity.  Now, most of us
would say that the youths should have known better than to have
sex with her, but it may be they were dumb and incapable of
making the necessary distinctions.  Actually, I have some trouble
with them myself, because the woman, according to the media, 
possesses the intelligence of an eight-year-old, but an ordinary
eight-year-old would almost certainly refuse intercourse with a
fungo bat.  I do not envy the jurors who have to sit in judgement
on this one.

I note that a good deal of the talk about this has focused 
on the _unaesthetic_ quality of having sex with a retarded 
person.  It is not relevant.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lkk@panix.com (Larry Kolodney)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Retardation and Rape (was: Re: Mysogynist Bullshit)
Date: 29 Dec 92 02:18:54 GMT
Organization: The Devil's Advocate

In <Bzy3Gv.7vH@world.std.com> srm@world.std.com (Stevens R Miller) writes:

>But the law would not excuse the defendant even if the eight-year-old
>had consented, since anyone under the age of 17 (in NY) is legally
>incapable of consent.  Similarly, a person who is mentally defective
>(defined: "...suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders
>him incapable of appraising the nature of his conduct" PL 130) also
>cannot legally give consent.  If I were the prosecutor, I would argue
>that a person of eight-year-old mentality could no more give legal
>consent than a person of eight-year-old actuality.
>-- 
>Stevens R. Miller J.D.

But if the Glen Ridge defendants were convicted SOLELY on the basis
that the victim was retarded, they would only be guilty of statutory
rape, and would (I suspect) face a significantly lighter sentence.
You'd have to show actual lack of consent for a regular rape charge to
stick.

-- 
larry kolodney:(lkk@panix.com) 
_(*#&)#*&%)@(*^%_!*&%^!)*&#+!*&$+!?&%+!*&^_)*&#%)*&^%#+&
The past is not dead, it's not even past.   - Wm. Faulkner
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 03:21:41 GMT

In article <168CBECFB.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> Diane writes:
>In article <1992Dec28.190731.12467@netcom.com>
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>     (re: Morgan, Ireland et al)
> 
>>And this gaggle of lesbians is presuming to instruct heterosexual,
>>family-oriented women on how to deal with men!
> 
>*That's* what they're trying to do!? Ohmigod! Thank heavens that there are
>still big strong manly men like you to save our precious childbearers
>from the lesbian scourge! What would we little dust-fer-brains *ever* do
>without you? (hint: I don't know, but I'd be willing to find out...)

Actually Diane, I think it is a valid point. What basis do lesbians have
for giving heterosexual women advice about men? I could see going to a
lesbian friend for emotional support. But advice about how to work -with-
a husband would not seem to be the expected advice.

A Jewish Rabbi(?) was recently denied the priveledge of giving advice about
sex and certain parts of marrige, as he was still a virgin. This makes sense
to me. How can one advise about something one knows little about, or perhaps
something which one finds distastefull or perhaps even hates? 

>Diane
  

Rich

payner@netcom.com




Newsgroups: alt.feminism