HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Forward to the Past: Quote Choice for Men Unquote
Date: 13 Sep 92 04:36:46 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Sep12.231559.4486@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

hg:
| 1) Then they demand that men will have no choice so they 
|    will not have to pay for women like Mary.

>That's not just the women.  Take your plan before the
>average taxpaying male and you'll get the same response,

You explained us that this response comes because the cultural stereotype
of man is the strong man who always protects the poor weak women.
These stereotypes can be attacked, and I think that I've done it quite
successfully; actually it is damn hard to defend them.  I believe
that people prejudices can be change via an *open* debate.

(BTW "choice for women" is a political/legal question, but you reduce
"choice for men" to a cultural question.  Somehow you believe that
the oppression of women is politics, but the oppression of men is
culture; y'all have certainly come a long way from the 60's...)

| 2) Welfare, as practiced today, is a way for the government to 
|    take money from the entire population to finance people like 
|    Mary.  I don't like that at all.

>so in the general political groups.  Queen Mary is not the
>only welfare case; in fact, she's rather atypical.  

Irresponsible people are quite typical welfare cases.

>For
>instance, most welfare mommas have one or two children, not 
>a whole raft, and most of them get off welfare before very
>long.  Facts fade, and myths endure.

Let's see what influence the NJ welfare reform will have, 
and then we will recheck your "statistics."

>We're going to have to make some assumptions about welfare
>when we contemplate "choice for men," though, so I'm going
>to assume you're against it, basing my assumption on the
>many negative remarks you have made about it.  "Choice for
>men" is to be implemented in a welfare-free society -- other-
>wise we're sneaking into Plan #2.  If my assumption is 
>incorrect, please correct it.

I think that the culture that Carole described in her
300 line article will be better than what we have today.

hg:
| Is there any experience, or a serious of experiences, that can 
| convince you the communism can't work? ....

>See above.

I'm still interested in your answer.  (Feel free to take it to
any newsgroup you like and notify it to me by e-mail.)

>I want to make it clear that we're discussing your plan, not
>my preferences.  

So discuss the plan.

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

Hillel                                         gazit@cs.duke.edu

"What the country needs is commitment to a big-spending program."
                         -- Alexander Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Use of pronouns
Originator: mackenzi@aragorn.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 92 15:18:53 GMT


An economics professor at the University of Waterloo had an interesting
solution to the use of gender oriented pronouns.  Like many people, he
refused to say 'he/she' all the time (it IS rather irritating).  So,
what he would do is try to put as many lessons as possible into the 
context of an example, where he could arbitrarily set the sex of the
example economist/entrepreneur/etc.  Things like

"The manager of company XYZ calls in a consultant, and she asks her to..."
"So our guy who has just estimated the cost function calls in his boss
 and tells her that they need to do so and so..."

He used examples like this whenever possible, and by the end of the term,
most people didn't even notice the gender pronoun he used.  We would
remember a manager in the example, but not whether he said "he" or "she".

I thought this was a very interesting way to do things without resorting
to the "he/she" merde.

Paul
From: diana@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Diana Bental)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:58:27 GMT
Reply-To: diana@aiai.UUCP (Diana Bental)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In <716059244@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) says:

> I suggest that people will read the legislation that Dworkin pushes
> before they make their decision.

I have, at least in one of its incarnations. I don't blame her for
trying because her intentions are laudable (the improvement of sexual
relationships especially between men and women) and I don't think
she's doing much real damage by her efforts.  Other people may judge
that she *is* doing real damage, and if so then I'm (mildly)
interested in their reasons.

Besides which, Andrea Dworkin talks about so many *other* things that
I find much more interesting than censorship.

> The important point is that she
> tries to limit my freedom of speech and, regardless of her reasons
>for doing so, that is enough for defining her as an enemy.

Then what more is there to say? Andrea Dworkin *is* trying to limit
your freedom of speech in some ways, and you say that no matter how
good her reasons for doing this you will consider her to be an enemy.
Case closed.

> Just a small question: why is she against all-male gay porno?
> (The anti-porno legislation she pushes would out-law that.)
> The answer will not change my opinion about Dworkin, but
> I'm sure that it will provide some bizarre feminist "logic."

As your last sentence implies, this is not a small question at all but
a knotty one which relies on several complex and contentious premises.
There is a section dealing with gay men's porn in "Pornography" which
you can read. Taken with the rest of the book, it should make her
reasoning fairly clear.

Your opinion of Dworkin should not affect your ability to assess the
logical consistency of the arguments in her book. As far as I recall
that section in "Pornography" is generally consistent with the rest of
her arguments in the book and with the ordinance. If you find some
major inconsistencies then sure, tell us about them.

Diana
=====================================================================
Diana Bental,                      JANET: diana@uk.ac.ed.aisb
Dept of Artificial Intelligence,   ARPA:  diana@aisb.ed.ac.uk
University of Edinburgh.           UUCP:  ...!ukc!aisb.ed.ac.uk!diana
From: smeyer@panix.com (Seth Meyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:46:45 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC

From the Village Voice:

In the article from 9/8/92 entitled "Freedom of Speech Under President
Clinton" (p25):

"These pro-life women on the Left believe in a consistent ethic of
life.  ... As for abortion, Feminists for Life say that 'truly
liberated women reject abortion because they reject the male world
view that accepts violence as a legitimate solution to conflict.'"

Any opinions or comments?
- Seth
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.arts.startrek.misc
From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: STNG episode about homosexuality
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep12.032956.10243@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Sep12.214422.25397@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 19:29:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep12.214422.25397@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

- The original Star Trek had the first [prime time network TV]
- inter-racial kiss.  LA Law(?) has already had the first [...] same-sex
- passionate kiss, so TNG has missed it's opportunity there.  But I
- believe the first [...] man-to-man passionate kiss is still up for
- grabs.  I keep hoping Wesley will come back from the academy, and that
- he and Riker will discover their true feelings for one another.

Ryker?  EWWWWWWWW!

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
Transmitting from Planet Yip--where everyone you meet 
			      is already dead.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 8 Sep 92 12:46:08 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

#In a case of pregnancy the woman would (if she wants) notify the man
#about it.  Then he will have a week to decide if he wants rights
#and responsibilities (as one package) toward the future child.  
#If he answers yes, then the situation is similar to the situation 
#today; if he answer no then he would have no rights or 
#responsibilities toward the future child.

In article <MUFFY.92Sep7225413@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>the man should *always* be told and make this choice).  The interesting
>thing about this is that I have never seen this proposal before, 

I posted it in soc.men, soc.women, soc.singles and even soc.feminism
before the moderators decided that it had nothing to do with feminism...

>Anyway, I think it's a little simplistic and probably would require a
>lot of adjustments to really work.  A lot of education on birth control
>would be quite important, as an auxiliary to this.  

I'm for education, but I'm against forced education.  E.g. I don't
like the idea of women using abortion as a birth control method, but 
I'm against any restriction on abortion rights, even if she has never 
used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.

>As I said in what Hillel quoted earlier, 
>I think that *both* parties have to act responsibly, 

Are you for any restriction on abortion rights?  (I assume not.)
Will you use the state's power to force education on women?
Will you use the state's power to force education on men?

#So please fuck off to your favorite newsgroup, and stay there.

>Heck, maybe this *is* d's favorite newsgroup?  

d told us that soc.feminism is much better than alt.feminism.
I *assume* that he meant what he said.

>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us

Hillel                                          gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Or do you think that children should just starve, rather than 
impinging on the man's right to have a good time?" -- Muffy Barkocy 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women,soc.college
From: grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller)
Subject: Re: FORGERY ALERT
Keywords: forgery
Reply-To: grey@bnr.ca (Bryan Miller)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:25:54 GMT


Here's the complete message with path.
I can't email it, so could someone please forward
it to ataylor@nmsu.edu (I find the distribution of
my posts is pretty sketchy at best)

Sorry to subject everyone to this again

--------------------------------------------------------
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Alan Taylor)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 8 Sep 92 20:12:23 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8151044@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu
(Muffy Barkocy) moans and groans and whines and cries:

>WI'm just curious about this; I have noticed you calling Gordon Fitch
>"Fitch" several times now while attacking.  On the other hand, you call
>me (Muffy Barkocy) "Muffy" when flaming.  Is this just random
>inconsistency or is there a reason?

>attack/insult/flame people?  Is it somehow more/less insulting to men
>to just be called by their last names (particularly with no title)?

>Muffy

I call you "Muffy" because "Muffy" really sounds stupid.  It's the kind of
a name you give to a rag doll or a French Poodle.  "Fetch Muffy, Fetch!"
"Here Muffy, here's a bone for you to chew upon".  "I'll be out of the
bathroom as soon as I wipe the shit off my Muffy".

A REAL WOMYN -- A REAL FEMINIST wouldn't be caught dead with a name like
"Muffy".

I call Fitch, "FITCH", because it's the kind of name that generates respect
and it's the very least a worthy advisary such as Gordon deserves.

You, on the other hand, are just a jerk.

I hope this helps you to understand my reasoning.  It's really not all that
inconsistent.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:20:08 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

# I'm for education, but I'm against forced education.  E.g. I don't
# like the idea of women using abortion as a birth control method, but 
# I'm against any restriction on abortion rights, even if she has never 
# used birth control and she had 15 abortions before.

In article <SK73171.92Sep9233105@korppi.cs.tut.fi> 
sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>This situation can be easily avoided. If all persons are automatically
>sterilized when they are having their 10'th abort. 

I'm against that.

The government should have no right to sterilize people 
against their will, and it is not the damn business of 
the government to keep records of who has had an abortion.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1116 soc.men:16387 soc.women:16558
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Some examples (Was Re: Winning by Violation (was: new group?))
Date: 6 Sep 92 02:51:05 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >character.  Of the two examples you give, one is essentially
| >a one-liner and pretty much ad-hominem -- it doesn't allow of
| >any reasonable answer -- 

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Let's take a look in this example:
| 
| #############################################################################
| 
|  > In article <49810@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
|  > >The "custody for women" thing is new, and IMO will be short-lived.  
|  > 
|  > What makes you think so?
|  > 
|  > Will you be willing to bet 25% of *your* income on that?
|  > 
| 
| #############################################################################
| 
| I pointed out that Jan's claim has no base in reality.  (Tell me
| Gordon, do *you* think that "The `custody for women' thing will be 
| short-lived"?  The easy way to point it out was to ask if she is 
| willing to put her money where her mouth is.

Let's stick to the point.  "Will you be willing to bet..."
and so on, is personal; it has nothing to do with the validity
of jan's ideas, or yours.  After a remark like that, anyone
can say anything except something intelligent.

| A reasonable answer was "yes, if it will not happen till year
| XXXX I'll donate X% of my income to organization Y."

Don't be silly.  Do you post things like that?  Where 
are they?

| [ _Ms_ magazine thing ]
| Leslie gave some claims about that main-stream feminism, as presented
| in Ms. magazine, is not as hostile to men as I claim and hinted that
| I just did not read the magazine and my claim had no base.  I gave
| her a good example of what's really written there.

No, you didn't.  You picked one thing out that you've been
reciting on the net for a couple of years now.

| It put her claim in a bad light, and you and the moderators 
| see that as a personal attack.

The only way to put her claim in a bad light would be to
show that a lot of the articles, a predominance, were hostile
to men.  Maybe they are; but flogging that quote over and
over again as if it were the Credo and you were the High
Priest will not lead us to see this.

| Tell me Gordon, is there any way, for *me*, to tell you "what you
| said is not true" without you shouting "it is a personal attack"?
| (This is not a rhetoric question.)

Yes, just go ahead and do it.  "I disagree with what you said"
is a lot different from "You're a liar."  And now that we're
in a rough'n'tough alt group, you can post all the personal
attacks you like anyway.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminists (Was: Feminism & Women's Studies)
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<ATAYLOR.92Sep4171409@gauss.nmsu.edu> <1992Sep5.041313.12234@panix.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 21:00:29 GMT

<In article <1992Sep5.041313.12234@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
<   ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
<   |  .... 
<   | 	Shrug. Some kinds of "feminists" have been
<   | 	in my face over the years, sometimes literally,
<   | 	more than others.

<   Your problem is where you're putting your face.
 
	Fitch displays patronization yet again.

	I have as much right to walk across a college campus
	as anyone else, Fitch.
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Date: 11 Sep 92 03:17:26 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <716177770@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
#You need the government's power because you want to prevent men
#from having any way out in a case of birth control failure.

Since I don't want that, your strawman fails.

#But you don't feel any need to give a raw deal to a woman 
#But you feel that the father should get a raw deal, 

If you think that I am advocating differences between how men and
women should be treated, you know *NOTHING* about my position.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: 10 Sep 92 11:41:02
Organization: savage hackers
	<716059244@lear.cs.duke.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu's message of 9 Sep 92 17:20:45 GMT


In article <716059244@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
> In article <7489@skye.ed.ac.uk> diana@aiai.UUCP (Diana Bental) writes:
> >[...]
> >I'd say they don't have a cat's chance -- but I don't blame
> >them for trying. 
> You don't blame them for trying to limit *my* freedom of speech.
> How very nice of you...
> [...]
> I suggest that people will read the legislation that Dworkin pushes
> before they make their decision.  The important point is that she
> tries to limit my freedom of speech and, regardless of her reasons
> for doing so, that is enough for defining her as an enemy.

  That's fine advice... but we are limited in lots o' ways already, WRT
freedom of expression and speech.  Especially when it's related to sex,
drugs, and government (no, not rock 'n' roll, not yet, at least.)  There
are lots of age restrictions, limits on where/when/how you can say
(especially WRT advertising and mass media) things, etc.  Are you for
*total* freedom of speech?  I mean *absolute* freedom.  And, if not, why
not, and why do you fight this particular one?

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:04:33 +1200
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Keywords: rebuttal defending feminism strawman

This seems to be a classic case of picking on a radical feminist, 
taking selected quotes out of context, and then holding them up
as some kind of disproof of a whole ideology.

NOTE: `the womans room' is a work of fiction. Holding Marilyn French
responsible for every sentence in it, and expecting her to support
the ideas expressed is lidicrous. Why not do this with (eg) the guy who
wrote James Bond? If the quote is not from that book, why use that book
as an example?? Why not list the actual source if so??

Also, do you really expect the rebuttal to token radicals to get the
same coverage as the token radical? In ANY area? (this is also done to
most other pressure groups, esp. in the USA - far out looney ideas make
much better news stories)

Also, the original quote I see
(Aldrich) 	"<qualifiers> sweeping generalisations about men
		 usually are more or less true"

why were the words "by feminists" introduced, and how come they are the
focus of the debate?? This, to me, looks like a pretty reasonable defence
of generalisations as a tool for understanding anything.

as a rule, expecting to demolish an entire philosophy by showing that
some few of it's most outspoken advocates sometimes make ill-thought
statements is not practical. Otherwise we wouldn't have Dan Quayle
in any public position? And whole political parties would vanish
rapidly due to the statements of politicians like Bush or Raygun.


*love* & *hugs*
  ____MOZ___   (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
 /\  _______\
 \ \ \____  /     That it has taken this long for people to be
  \ \ \/ / /      Bisexual and proud of it has to do, I think, with
   \ \/ / /       this idea that either you're with men or you're
    \  / /        against men.             -- Judith Levine
     \/_/
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (C.W. Moseley)
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:15:17 +1200
 <1992Aug31.131028.24524@coli.uni-sb.de> <Bturnu.7z4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <BtuwFH.FIq@encore.com>
Distribution: world
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

and some of us have to work in areas when that sort of thing
is obligatory (grad student, works in a flour mill, gets
funny looks when he doesn't agree vehemently with anti-women
statements, coz he's the uni student and has to get pushed into
the real world).

also, when you are hanging on tooth and nail to the only job you
can find, greasing to the employer in one of the main tactics.

apologist-in-cheif
MOZ
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 05:25:49 GMT
Organization:  I said WHAT!?!

In article <SK73171.92Sep5151639@kaarne.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>
>In article <08ln5w+.tyger@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>
>(...)
>> Draize eye-irritancy test decreased by 78% in the 80's; the number of animals
>> used in all other tests fell 73%. What's made th reduction possible: the 
>> development of alternative tests that don't require live animals. Some major 
>
>How much this is caused by animal free testing requests by customers and
>how much by the facts that (some) new tests are cheaper and more
>accurete than the pereviously used ?

I'm not sure, but I would imagine that it was a little bit of both. Also, while
I have people's attention (*snort*), I goofed...the usage of the Draize test
has been reduced 87%, not 78%...sorry!

>Sami Kiiskil{  

   Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.feminism