HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:29:45 GMT

In article <carol.718844010@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
>today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
>of males! It is NOT about reducing the fundamental human rights of
>men and it is NOT about making women the "dominant" sex. It IS about
>reducing those so-called "rights" of men that have infringed on
>the human rights of women (the "right" to rape your wife, the "right"
>to be promoted ahead of child bearers....) - but a desire to make 
>things fair is not, I think, to be equated with *hatred*!

It's been said 10,000 times as well that not all parts of the feminist
<movement? whatever> are equally acceptable. Some of us, including myself
have problems with feminists like Dworkin and MacKinnon, and these
objections are quite specific and clear. Many, including yourself, seem
to take dissatisfaction with any part of the feminist movement as
hatred and fear of feminism in it's entirety. This simply is not an
accurate way to look at things. In fact, you are doing to us what you
claim we are doing to the feminist movement.

Then again, Dworkin and MacKinnon are writing -laws-. Extremist
feminists (as per feminist posters here) are drafting laws, which
have been adopted, and are usually struck down as unconstitutional,
but -not- always. 
 
>In every political movement there are those that may be termed more
>"extreme" - but noone thinks all gay men are transvestites, and noone
>thinks that all blacks are crack dealers... so why should all feminists
>be portrayed as man haters because of an extreme few?
 
They are not, what makes you think that they are? Please give an example.
 
>I feel the need to be a feminist - not through any hatred of the male
>sex, but through a desire to see my own sex treated fairly. 

Then that is the goal to work for. Do you think that AA and quotas
(not -yet- a reality) will result in your sex being treated fairly?

>                                                           And if in
>doing this I take a job that once a man would have had, or even just
>tell a man to go to hell for harrassing me, is this a sign of hatred?
>Or is it just me sticking up for my personal rights as anyone should be
>encouraged to do?
 
Not so, whan men stick up for their rights, they get labeled as 
anti-feminists or berated by posts such as yours.
 
>	Carol

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:03:57 GMT


Kenn Barry:
Gordon equates them, and you seemed to think you were agreeing
with him. Don't ask me to read your mind.

Muffy Barkicy:
Funny how everyone here keeps telling me what I think.  What I *think*

TJ Wood:
Perhaps it appears that "everyone" does this because you are mistaken.
He didn't say that YOU THOUGHT this, he said "you SEEM to think".  This
means that HE believes that you think this.  It is an invitation for you
to clarify the situation.

Rich Payne:
Wait a minute, in a previous (err) discussion, -someone- already expressed
doubt that the word "seemed" is much of a qualification.

Rich Lynch:
It was me.  The CONTEXT was that it "seemed" a number of people had posted this
and the same people had posted that.  I claimed that "seemed" in that sentence
wasn't much of a disclaimer when it's a finite countable set of people.
In this case, it's somebody who says that X "seemed" to be thinking Y based on
what X had posted.
I presume you can see a difference.

[editor's note follows, ignore at will.]
I've stayed out of this and other arguments lately for two reasons.
One is that articles have been missing here for some reason.
The other is personal.

In this case, I stuck my nose in for obvious reasons.  I'm not getting into it
any more than this, though, intentionally.

Apologies to people who awaited a response and got it from someone else, or
(worse) not at all.
Thanks to the people who correctly explained for me when I was unable due to
missing articles.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:12:35 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
|    |                                        ... Sorry, I remain amused by
|    | the image of Playboy using nekkid women to sell guys on the virtues of
|    | a free press. Or was it using libertarian ideals to sell guys on the
|    | virtues of pictures of nekkid women? I get so confused.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
|    Well, you're amused by what's supposed to be one of the
|    fundamental principles of modern psychology; you must find
|    the more substantial texts hilarious.  We await your
|    further critiques of the science with bated breath.

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
| This is a pretty weak critique of Kenn's argument.  Is something to be
| held sacred just because psychologists say it's so?  Many feminists
| are angry at the (now defunct (I hope)) practice of using mental
| hospitals as a means of controlling women.  It was reputable
| pyschologists who got them locked up.  Some of us, myself included,
| are not convinced that psychology is close to being a science.  In
| fact- much like the other social sciences- it tends to resemble a
| religion (or a groups of religions).

Depends what kind of psychology you're talking about.
Much of it has been speculative, but that's not the part
I'm talking about.  Conditioned response and association
have been very firmly established by the most rigorous 
scientific means.  And advertisers, who are in business
most seriously, use them: for example, sexual images
linked to cars, beer, and cigarettes, products whose
quality is generally so low in this country that they
almost certainly could not be sold without the effect
of the advertising.  

As I said previously, the kind of association
MacKinnon seems to propose seems doubtful, but far
from impossible.  Thus, I don't think it's quite as
amusing as Kenn seems to find it.  But it's my
loss.  Just think, Kenn can drag out one of those
big black books of psych stats and laugh himself
silly; I have to read the Net to get the same
effect.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:07:31 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
> 
> I never said anything when I found them, since most people already know
> this anyway, but please do not judge me for this serious mistake.
> Since then, one of my dearest friends was murdered up in the Bronx
> by a gunshot wound to the back. It dawns on me that Fernando could have
> provided the gun, the bullets, or both. This kind of destroys Fer's
> rationilization that guns help "weed out the scum of society."
> 
> With extra care to insure we are not committing any act of blackmail,
> this highly illegal situation can be used to rid this guy from the
> campus. Hut it really has nothing to do with WHY we want him out. We
> want to protect the women. Stains on the chair indicate unprotected sex.
> 
> Ousting Fer is just ten percent of the battle. Fer is not the problem,
> it is the behavior he displays and its tolerance by men, women and
> administrators that really bites. What can be done to drive this issue
> home into the mids of our students? Why are women so fucking submissive?!?
> 
        My suggestion: if the guy's dealing in weapons, chances arehe's 
breaking the law. Turn him in. 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
Servo: "Dianetics, by L. Ron Hubbard."
Joel:  "Why is my life messed up? Page 74."
Servo: "When will this movie end? Page 155."
Crow:  "How much money can we get out of Tom Cruise? Page 85."

                                       "Mystery Science Theater 3000,"
                                       during a volcano scene in
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Arlen VS Lynn -- The Pennsylvania Senate Race
Date: 12 Oct 92 05:59:57 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct10.220735.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu>, tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu
(TJ Wood), That's ME! writes:

> The "scab"* newspaper, here in Pittsburgh, is reporting that Arlen Specter
> and Lynn Yeakle are once again neck-&-neck in their race for a US Senate
> seat here in Pennsylvania.  The difference in their "approval ratings" are
> once again within the margin of error of the survey.

I guess you get what you pay for!  I read on Clarinet (UPI) that Arlen once
again has a "comfortable lead".  Who can tell?

Terry
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Who speaks for feminism?
Summary: I don't.  You probably don't.  We all certainly don't!
Keywords: Post while you can, Monkey-being
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:24:07 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

Muffy writes (in soc.feminism):

>So, this "general perception" of feminism is actually, in my opinion, a
>creation and tool of the anti-feminists.

More than once, I've seen a "general perception" of feminism fan the flames
of a discussion.  On soc.women, a number of years ago, a discussion raged
over what was feminism and what what not (or perhaps, who *was* a feminist
and *who* was not).

Since there is no feminist-central, it becomes hard to decide these things.
When the "Men against Rape and Pornography" call themselves feminists and
denounce certain things, they link the issues they raise with feminism even
though other feminists may actually oppose their views.

In the same vein, who and or what is an "anti-feminist"?  Pat Roberson and
the people who publish National Review come to my mind, but they might not
see themselves as anti-feminist.

This "general perception" reminds me of the pro-life/pro-choice groups.
Nobody wants to be seen as anti-life and anti-choice.

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: 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 17:47:56 GMT

solnorda@dmpe.csiro.au (Chris Solnordal) writes:
>(Bet you didn't think anyone would stick up for you, did you Dave ? :-) )

Frankly, no. Most of my viewpoints are hard for most people to understand.

>However, this sort of reasoning becomes a little irrational sometimes.  I
>mean, part of accepting responsibility for rape is maybe to not walk down
>a dark alley at 3 am.  However, it doesn't mean `s/he was asking for it' if 
>they do it and then get raped.  You could argue that it was not a very wise 
>move.

My point almost exactly. I wouldn't say thet someone was "asking for it"
if they did that, I would say that they share some of the responsibility
for the acto of rape. There's a difference. 

>Therefore, while I believe everyone is reponsible for everything that happens
>to them, it does not mean that everyone has *complete control* over evrything
>that happens to them.  

I will assert that they *do* have complete control over the response to 
what happens to them.

>And it certainly DOES NOT mean that a rape victim has to put up with 
>*anyone* telling them that `its your own fault - you should
>not have been wearing that <insert favourite provocative clothing item here>',
>or similarly rediculous statement.

Let's try another tack...what do you think of this argument?

----
Given that 

1) there exists a class of people who cry "rape" after consenting to sex

2) the prevailing wisdom says that anyone who continues after saying no
is a rapist

then from 1, one cannot always determine when someone is really saying "no"
since the "no" can be retroactive. Therefore no one should have sex for fear
of raping someone.
----

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

        Envy devours good deeds, as a fire devours fuel.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Playboy
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 00:10:11 GMT

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.

rini
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:09:30 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Oct7.115200.24816@panix.com>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>This is the third time:  I think the word "censorship" is
>nearly meaningless without a context for both the subject
>and the object(s).  That's why I called it a "shibboleth."  

Either give a definition of what *you* mean, or give several examples 
(with "the subject and the object(s)") of what you see as censorship.
Adding degrees (X is worse than Y because...) would be nice too.

If you don't want to do that then your call for definitions of
the terms first is quite meaningless.

| If feminists who have the guts to fight against censorship (e.g
| Pat Califia or Joanna Russ) were the majority in the feminist
| movement then I'd like it much more.  Since they are a small 
| minority, I don't think that too many feminists are going (on the 
| net and off the net) to say anything against MacKinnon in public.

>Please tell us how you know that feminists who are
>opposed to "censorship" are a small minority.  Did you
>take a census or an opinion poll?  You have the names and
>the addresses of all those feminists?  

I see who talks more, sales more copies of their books, and tries
(and sometimes succeeds) to pass its legislation.  (I never quote
Dworkin because nobody buys her books, but Brownmiller is popular.)

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Indeed, one of the earliest forms of male bonding must have
been the gang rape of one woman by a band of marauding men."
                                 -- ("Against Our Will", Susan Brownmiller)
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:48:43 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.165528.29184@netcom.com> ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth) writes ...
>>Perhaps I am the challenger here, but there must be others that feel the same
>>way I do.   I cannot accept that I am the only person who belives that the
>>unborn have a right to live.
>
>Oh you aren't, by any means.  You can't even assume that a person
>disagrees with you on that poin (only they may on others).
>
>Now then, what does an unborn right to life entail?  What do you mean
>when you say the unborn have a right to live?
>
>--
>Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
>ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche

There have been discussions about the possiblility that a fetus does show
brainwave activity.  This would make a fetus a living child, and thus make
abortion the killing of that child.

Simon
_______________________________________________________________________________
The end of the world on USENET--There will be flame-wars and rumors of flame
wars....
From: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Polls, impacts on the masses
Keywords: Las Vegas counts more
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:50:03 GMT
Reply-To: checksix@flyboy.EBay.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: flyboy.ebay.sun.com


It seems that almost everyday, we are being exposed to a new poll that has the
latest numbers on Bush/Clinton/Perrot.
The savy people understand that polls can be developed to show you what they
want you to see.
What is sad, is that many people take these polls as the gospel truth. 

The sincerety of these polls can be easily questioned when one finds out 
who generated them.
Well, there is one barometer that is being totally overlooked by the media.
This "poll" so to speak has a tremendous "track record", in these issues
of who is leading who.
When you consider the financial impacts to many "businesses" the election
will touch, and since in this country as well as all the others, "cash is
king", the line / poll currently at Las Vegas is well in favor of Bush.
This is where the big money, the pulse of many things comes and goes.

Now I am not a betting person, I have never been but, if you really want to
check the air about who is doing what in the election, check the only "legit"
poll currently available.
You will not see any comment from the media about this because it does not 
align itself well with the material they have been shoving at us.
There are no politics in large capital betting environments, it is clean in
that respect.
This should be a very good barometer to track during the course of these next
few weeks.


Al Conte
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:12:15 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias

In article <6551@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil>, jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John
Locke) says:

>More excuses. Hill is not ashamed to defend herself, most likely because she
>was telling the truth. C'mon. We've all been in trouble before. When you're
>innocent, you can't wait to tell everyone who will listen of the injustice
>perpetrated against you; but when you're guilty, you keep your mouth shut

When you're publicly humiliated, you want to just put it behind you and wish
people would shut the hell up about it.  My guess is Clarence isn't so in-
secure as to feel the need to go around the country trying to convince people
he's a good person.

>and hope the thing will go away quickly. It amazes me how people let their
>politics get in the way of grokking these fundamental aspects of human
>nature. Thomas has made no defense of himself since that weekend and the
>public's approval of him has fallen as a result.

Actually, that's a good point.  Anita's frequent appearances have helped her
to drum up pity.  Also, it's well known that the more often people hear some-
thing (especially on the news), no matter how absurd it is, after a while
some will start to believe it.

The fact is, Anita had virtually no evidence, and she contradicted herself.
Thomas could tour the country, whining about that, but he's risen above it.
Anita hasn't.

>John

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:7352 alt.politics.bush:9071 alt.politics.clinton:10300 alt.politics.elections:16664 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6826 talk.politics.misc:51609
From: kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Thank you for answering my question! Maybe
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:00:54 GMT
Organization: Calif State Univ/Electronic Information Services

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
> In <BvzwA8.3sL@eis.calstate.edu> kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> 
> >No dispute whatsoever. In fact, Darman is hinting that he'd be the new
> >Treasury secretary in a second Bush term, as if we needed any other
> >reasons not to vote for Bush! And Bush himself doesn't see that Darman and
> >Brady are responsible for much of the trouble he's in. 
> 
> I saw in this morning's paper that Bush says that Brady and Darman will
> not be on his staff if he is re-elected.  If true, this is the best news
> that I have heard in weeks.

"If  true", indeed. Reports that I'VE read indicate he's saying that there
will be a "new economic team" in a second Bush term, but I have yet to
hear from a reliable source that this means no Darman. Apparently Brady
doesn't even WANT to stay around. 

Ken mitchell
kmitche@eis.calstate.edu
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: "Proof" of liberal media bias
Keywords: Rush Liberal Media Anita Hill Clarence Thomas
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:26:51 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <6542@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil> jxxl@huxley.cs.nps.navy.mil (John Locke) writes:
>palane@iastate.edu (Paul A. Lane) writes:
>
>> I really wish I had the ability to note a fact and instantly deduce the
>> evidence without a shred of proof. Could it be that the attacks on Anita
>> Hill faded while her testimony did not? Could it be all the politicians
>> who were on the committee running for cover? Perhaps there has been a shift
>> in bias from for conservatives to against conservatives due to shifts in
>> the economy?
>
>Question for the conservorrhoids: Why has Clarence Thomas hidden from the
>public since his confirmation? Could it be that he finds it painful to
>keep telling the same lie? Could it be for the same reason he could not
>bring himself to call Hill a liar, even though he was prompted in that
>direction by the Senators many times?

First of all, guilty or innocent, he would feel uncomfortable just because
of the nature of the accusation.  The eyes are on him from both supporters
and from antagonists and the smear job has been effective so why are you
confused by his behavior in this regard?

Secondly, there was no evidence to support Hill, just her claim.  When two
people have such radically different viewpoints of an event without 
corroborating evidence then we must rely on their past behavior.  Anita
Hill's past behavior does not jibe with her claims, she maintained a 
friendly relationship with the alleged sexual harrasser.

Thirdly, the only witness to name Thomas as the harrasser just plain lied.
Judge Hoerchner claimed (under oath) that she and Anita discussed this
event when _both_ she and Anita lived in Washington.  During a deposition
the Judge was asked when she moved away from Washington and the date she
stated was _before_ Anita went to work for Clarence Thomas.  When this
contradiction was pointed out her response was "Oh, I see what you're saying".

Yes, Judge, we are saying that you are lying or that you are an unreliable
source of information for so serious a charge!

In the interest of brevity I will forgo the additional arguments and simply
point out that you, John, are supporting a dangerous concept in the name
of political correctness.  That is that we should believe those who make
unsubstantiated charges and that proof has no bearing when the interests
of political correctness are at stake.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.activism.d,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion