HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:23:39
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
	<BvyLvt.7oJ@cs.psu.edu> <1992Oct12.142443.1493@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: peippo.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:24:43 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.142443.1493@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> See what progress we have made in the popular culture (Loren Petrich,
> please don't read this, else it will be "First the National Enquirer
> and Sistah Souljah, now it's Humphrey Bogart!!!!")::

>    50 years ago: "Woman needs man, and man must have his mate, that
>                   no one can deny .... the world will always welcome
>                   lovers, as time goes by." (From "Casablanca")

>    Today:         Woman needs man like a fish needs a bicycle.
>                   All (hetero) sex is rape. (etc. etc.)

> HOW in the world did we come to this? How did we let the most hate-filled

Because we naively believed that women also have some use for
companionship and emotional attraction ( love ) or being able to care
about something else than themselves, instead of understanding that
they are extreme shelfish and everything they want is money and power.
Earlier when the only way to achieve those goals was to marry
a wealthy man, they used to simulate human emotions to attract men. 

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 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. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine M, Playboy and FP
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:32:09 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1687ABDAB.SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu> SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.220711.15134@netcom.com>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>I think it is not a stable or realizable position. So what? An equally valid
>>issue (and one which at least one feminist has taken a position) is that
>>men have penisis (or larynxes for that matter), and women do not. That's
>>
>What!!!! I *don't* have a larynx??? That's it; that's the LAST straw!
>You can keep your penis (I have no use for it) but I want my larynx back
>N.O.W.

Sorry, I rather like it. :^)  Let me correct that, what I had meant to say,
but did not was what is known as the 'adams apple', which is something visually
obvious, but not a primary sexual characteristic. The point being that there
are differences beyond those taught in sex ed.

Some people get so touchy....   :^}
  
>Diane (anatomically correct but politically non-compliant)

Rich	(neither anatomically or politically correct)

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:55:16 GMT

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>>I don't know what I'm trying to say, but it seems to be that there are
>>*elements* of a true feminist porn not in the muted soft-core stuff (and 
>>god, not in romance novels) but in the *hard-core* stuff...  I don't know.
>
>Whoah!  Talk about your revelations.  You know, I think there is
>definitely something in this.  Here's the difference that struck me when
>reading your article:
>
>The "soft-core" stuff is more *telling* people what they should like:
>"here are pictures of beautiful women.  You now know what's beautiful
>because they all look very similar."  (That's oversimplified, of course,
>especially as the desirable characteristics start out by being
>societally defined and are then refined by the magazines, but I'm just
>trying to find the distinction here, not discuss all the fine points.)

Just one more thing -- 

I have yet to see (or hear about) a woman orgasm in anything less than 
hard-core. (Though I'm no expert on this...)

Certainly stuff to think about.

rini 

I guess one exception would be the Betty Dodson vibratorama 
instructional video on masturbation for women.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 07:32:19 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>There's a difference.  Men make jokes about what women *are*
>(eg, being premenstrual).  Women make jokes about what men *do*
>(eg, behaving in an insensitive fashion).
>
>							--  Michal

Men are unfaithful.
Men are big kids with their toys.
Men are afraid of committment.
Men are horny lying bastards.

Cross gender bashing, via jokes, or other words, respects no such
boundaries, Michal.  In the end, its all a power game, and one
that most mature people avoid at all costs.  There are no victors.

.....jeff

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Playboy
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 08:43:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.171430.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>> Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
>> be done in secret - my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
>> public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  
>
>Who tells you this?  I kiss all the time in public and have never been told
>that I shouldn't be doing it?  Maybe that's a difference between CA and PA?

And maybe it's the difference between having a s.o. of the same sex
vs. one of the opposite sex?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:38:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.045854.23938@netcom.com> 
barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>>Would you, Kenn, settle for the statement, "the women in Playboy are
>>women in Playboy are not representative of the variety of beautiful, 
>>sexy women in our culture/society/world."
>
>	Still with you.
>
>>Of course all the women in Playboy do not look exactly alike.  (Then it
>>would just be *one* women, no?)  But they do seem to conform to a
>>fairly generic, vanilla standard of beauty.  At least, IMO.
>
>	OK. And since you seem like a reasonable person, answer one for
>me: so what? _I'm_ not upset that Playboy isn't custom-edited to my
>libido; that would be a bit much to expect. 

I think Muffy's point was that all the Bunnies look similar and this is
consistent with the general opinion in our society that women have to
look like a Bunny to feel good about their sexuality.  

That's not the best message, IMO.  

(It's okay to critique a book because you think it has a stupid message,
right?  I also dislike Heart of Darkness...)

>Is that all that's bugging
>Gordon? (I'd ask him myself, but I expect the answer would be hard to
>relate to the question :-)

I don't even remember *what* Gordon said -- seemed like a long time ago.
I don't really know what bugs him.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:40:26 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>I'll remember that next time it rains.  (I guess accepting responsibility
>for the rain is the first step in making it stop, right?)

Part of accepting responsibility for the rain is using an umbrella...
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

  Counterfeiters exist because there is such a thing as real money.
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MS magazine
Date: 16 Oct 1992 15:54:41 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct13.231600.28239@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

>I was very unimpressed with the magazine, and I believe it is reasonably
>accurate to say that NOW and _MS_ magazine are 'pushing' the violence against
>women issue for all its worth politically. I think there rhetoric on the
>topic is very misleading - the statistics I've seen show that most violent
>crime victims are men.
>
>Perhpas there is more diversity on other issues - I suppose this could simply
>be one of the current 'hot spots' for the current editor.  However, I didn't
>see much evidence of 'diversity' wrt this specific issue.

Well I haven't seen the Ms. issue that responds to the Canadian porn
decision, but the part of it that calls the decision a 'stunning victory' 
was briefly quoted in the local press at the time (I assume it's the 
same article that Rini has).  I was willing to give Gordon the benefit 
of the doubt, since he was speaking so (shall we say) authoritatively 
on the subject.

The only Ms. article that I know of that is even remotely pro-porn 
was printed some time in 1985, and had a title like 'Pornography: 
One Woman's Sex is Another Woman's Obscenity.'  Other than that, it 
seems pretty uniformly condemning and sympathetic to the idea of 
censorship.

-S. Schultz
---
'Let's spend some time together....'   -- Mick Jagger on Ed Sullivan
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 17:37:56 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>Dave -- you and I -- we share absolutely *no* responsilibity for the
>rain.  Snow either.  Not even tornados.  It's true.  Really.

Not the occurence thereof, of course. But standing out in it, that's
what we have responsibility for doing or not doing.

>If you choose to believe/argue otherwise, you have no place in rational
>debate.

By whose standard do you say that? 

-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Womens'" magazines
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:42:29 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <CINDY.92Oct16104846@meshugge.media.mit.edu> 
cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:

>I agree that most "women's magazines" are just as offensive as
>"pornographic" magazines, just in a slightly different way.

>All this being said, I do not think that one can defend pornography by
>merely saying that women's magazines are bad too!  I don't like the
>idea of censorship, but if everyone were suddenly to decide that they
>didn't want to buy pornographic magazines and the industry went away,
>I would not be unhappy.  Not that this seems likely!

Why feminists fight so hard against "men's" magazines, but give 
almost no fight against "women's" magazines?

Why such a priority to the fight against what *I* read, but almost no
fight against what you read, and so many other women still read? 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Johnson and Nixon (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and ...)
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:59:35 GMT

In article <718348441@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>#I think that a liberal like Johnson sent 500,000 drafted men to Vietnam,
>
>In article <1992Oct5.220750.15640@fid.morgan.com> 
>sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>
>>Johnson only sent soldiers over for the first few years of the war.
>
>Johnson became a president in 1963 with almost no soldiers in Vietnam.
>He left the job in 1969 while 500,000 soldiers were in Vietnam.

The number of soldiers increased slowly, until near the end.  The
average soldier spent 1 year in Vietnam.

>#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).  
>
>So check them and get a surprise.
>
>Nixon did what Johnson did, just in reverse.  He became a president
>when when 500,000 soldiers were in Vietnam, and five years later
>almost none were left.

But for the first 4 years, the number didn't change.  I suspect that
the total number of soldiers each of them _sent_ to Vietname was similar.

>I don't say that Nixon was a saint, I say that compared 
>to Johnson Nixon was almost a saint...

By prolonging the war?

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:30:50 GMT

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
[Hillel displays open-mindedness by relating how bought S&M porn for friend.]
>I probably *miss* something which is obvious to Richard when he claims:
>
>lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>I think Playboy *does* portray women just as sex objects (interview responses
>>notwithstanding), and I'm sure it is offensive, 
>
>Please spell out for me why _Playboy_ is offensive.

Forgive me for not specifying at that particular point "offensive TO SOME
PEOPLE INCLUDING MACKINNON".  I belive there is context you trimmed out that
actually indicated this, but so it goes.  Sorry I wasn't more obvious for you.
Let me know when you wanna get back to the issue.


>>[Aside:  I'd sure go for a no-parole and/or death-penalty for rapists, tho.
>>         There's way too high a % of repeat offenders.  I forgot the #, sorry.]
>
>Have you ever heard about "The Scottsboro Boys"?
>(This is not a rhetorical question.)

Heard of them, yes.  Remember who the hell thay were, no.
[My memory doesn't click very well on titles, acronyms, and the like.]
For the future, if you wanna tell me something about something, just go ahead.
[e-mail if you want.]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:57:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.001011.21284@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.171430.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>> Finally, just look at how sex is viewed in general.  It's something to
>>> be done in secret - my SO and I get negative comments if we kiss in
>>> public, because that's not something that "should be" displayed.  

>>Who tells you this?  I kiss all the time in public and have never been told
>>that I shouldn't be doing it?  Maybe that's a difference between CA and PA?

> Trying actually screwing in public.  That'll get a reaction in CA *and* PA.
> Maybe you'll even get arrested.

Or try committing murder, theft or playing your boombox at full volume at
3 AM.  But none of these things, or "screwing", has anything to do with
what I asked.

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
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 13:34:58 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.052423.15492@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>I must point out that you still haven't answered my
>question about the two women who are the result of past
>"preferential" hiring.  The previous form of preference
>gave just about 100% of the managerial and engineering
>jobs to men -- the company alleged that women "didn't
>want them."  Then when a bunch of women who didn't want
>the jobs sued the company to get them, and the govern-
>ment also told the compnay it might lose some contracts
>if it didn't change its ways, it discovered a whole lot
>of women who _did_ want the jobs.  Then it discovered
>that they could _do_ the jobs.  Revolution!  But 
>according to you, it's wrong.  Now, do you want to
>undo this past wrong, or what?  I mean, wrong is wrong,
>isn't it?
>
It's one thing to "want" high-paying jobs, it's quite another to become
a single-minded fanatic in pursuit of them (and this *is* what it takes).
Sure, I would "want" a higher-paying job if I could get one by merely
filing some lawsuit. But if I have to work endless overtime for many
years, and metaphorically lick the boss' butt over and over, have no
life outside work, etc., then maybe I don't "want" it that badly. 

On the other hand, maybe I can drum up some legal pretext so that they
have to just *give* me one?????

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 04:54:56 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.183931.11579@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.172931.3859@netcom.com> 
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>Furthermore, sociology is not a science, they have no causal understanding
>>of social interaction, they have never predicted a social event, and what
>>social workers seem to do is control people by controlling the funding.
>>It works, but there is nothing 'social' about it.
>
>Just to clarify: Social workers are not sociologists.  Sociologists are
>not social workers.

I stand corrected, thanx for pointing this out.
 
>(Okay, I do know some people who have been both sociologists and social
>workers, but they had to get two degrees....)
>
>Also, there can be *a lot* 'social' about handing out money:
>"Hi!  How are you?  Here's your check.  How are the kids?"   :)

This is all window dressing, they are there to assess the situation,
and take appropriate action in case adequate progress (by federal
guidelines) in case it has not. Unless I am very greatly mistaken.

And the question about the kids will not be rhetorical.
 
>rini

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:09:37 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
 
>>              Look, payner, Muffy did *not* say Muffy caused or
>>enforced this behavior.  You asked for CONTEXT, she gave it.
>
>That should be "Muffy did *not* say Playboy caused or enforced this
>behavior."  

Yes.  Thanks.  Mea culpa.  It was late.

rini
From: baba@samadhi.Tymnet.COM (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:48:36 GMT
Organization: BT North America (Tymnet)

In article <1992Oct7.093136.4738@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>So, what the hell is going on?  If rape is happening at these rates,
>something is terribly wrong with our society.  How do we stop this
>violence?

Neither you nor society at large cabn stop the violence. Without a 
preemptive active (some say proactive, yuck) police force one cannot be
safe from violence. But it seems that society promulgates the idea
that another law or more police or more restrictions, say a curfew,
will fix things right up and our sons and daughters will be safe.
This is a very dangerous idea.

It is dangerous because it has the effect of reliev ing us as individuals
for appropriate reactions to violence. If the cops take care of the violent
criminal, then I don't have to, kind of attitude. In fact, the cops
and the law are rarely present when violence raises its ugly little
head and pounces. At this moment and at this moment only, between
the time a threat is noticed and the violence lands is the only time
one can deal with violence.

We have given up our ability to defend ourselves to a mechanism(cops&law)
that cannot prevent the act from occuring but only react in an untimely
manner. To stop violence is IMHO impossible but we can ameliorate the
damage done and at the same time empower ourselves by learning violence.
Understand what an armed attack is and what one can do to avoid and
terminate it. 

As I see it, it's either do it yourself when needed, which will reduce the
damage done, or get ourselves a KGB style police force (active, paranoid).

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Women Against Porn (WAP!)
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 01:25:07 GMT

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>In article <1992Oct11.193122.6353@daimi.aau.dk>, pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes:

>> Yes. It seems to me, that women generally have very little interest
>> in pornography; 

>You just don't know the right women.  Or perhaps what you call "pornography"
>they call "erotica" and are two different things.

Ok, one more time:  If it turns men on, it's Pornography.  If it turns women
on, it's Erotica.  If it turns men AND women on, it's the answer to Life,
the Universe, and Everthing.
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:10:20 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1bfa2pINNqsk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>>Q: What is the technical term for the useless piece of flesh around the
>>penis. ?
>
>A:  a sex partner
>
>(how's that for a non-gender-specific retort?!)

	I'd call it good evidence that politically correct humor is an
oxymoron.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism