HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 17:55:59 GMT

In article <13157@hans> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>Only those businesses whose highest priority is to earn a *profit*.
>>They'll hire whichever qualified candidate is willing to do the
>>work for the lowst pay. And if, as Warren Farrell points out, women
>>*really were* (as in the fairy tale) paid 59 cents on the dollar
>>for doing the same work as men, then corporations EVERYWHERE would be
>>dumping overpaid men on the streets, and hiring women in their place.
>
>This arguement assumes that men and women who are equally qualified are
>PERCEIVED as equally qualified. This is the arguement for AA, that
>companies given a woman and a man who have equal qualifications will
>hire the man because they PERCEIVE him to be better qualified. You
>still hear some of the 'logic' as to why the man is better: "He won't
>get pregnant and leave me hanging", "she won't be able to work as hard
>as he because she has kids to take care of", etc. (All bogus but still
>being argued).

This argument -assumes- that women are perceived as being less qualified
when they are not. Would you care to show that this is in fact the case?
BTW, 60's data will not do, and I think that there is a problem with using
the arguments from the 60's as well, things are not the same.
 
>And AA doesn't HAVE to be evil if it is implemented properly. 

It is the same evil that is claimed to be wrong, how can it be right?

>                                                               What if
>it is implemented as "Company A must hire at least (x-y)% of women for
>jobs in profession B", where x is the %of women in profession B as a
>whole and y is some adjustment factor to account for variation in the
>amount available at this time. And I say "Company A" because I believe
>that AA should only be imposed as a last resort on those companies who
>have been shown to discriminate in their hiring.

So you believe that discrimination should be required by PC criteria?
Either it is wrong, or it is not. You seem to have no problem with the
idea and practice of discrimination, why do you even see AA as needed?
I mean, there was discrimination then.

The basic AA argument seems to be childish, its wrong when you do it
to me, but it is right if I do it to you. Children normally grow out
of this, or learn better. But sadly, some never do it would seem.
 
>-- 
>Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
>and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
>report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Womens'" magazines
Date: 16 Oct 92 23:35:10 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <719253748@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

> 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? 

Because women can handle that type of "reading material" and men have to
be protected from it. ;-)

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
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2488 alt.censorship:8057
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.censorship
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:42:46 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct12.195941.11752@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>So are you saying that child porn is uncensored?  

No; child porn is censored.  (I don't say if it should be censored or
not, I just say that child porn is censored.)

>produced and distributed.  So how do the laws that are meant to censor 
>child porn differ from the laws which are meant to censor libellous attacks?

1) In libellous attacks you have to prove damages in a way which is quite
   difficult; hopes to collect large sums of money are usually baseless.

2) The penalties on child porn are much stiffer; e.g. mail ordering the 
   material is enough to throw someone to jail, while buying a copy of 
   a libellous carries no punishment.

>(I'm geniusly curious here.  I *want* to be able to deflect attacks like
>Gordon Fitch's.)

Gordon probably realizes that the laws against child porn which was produced
without breaking any laws (e.g. produced in a country were it is legal) are
censorship, but he does not have the guts to say anything which is not
Politically Correct.  The Canadian ban on sex stories with rape/kids/etc.
is much worse because the excuse of stopping "profit from exploitation of 
kids" (which has some logic) is not relevant to written stories.

(Pictures of starving kids are legal; pictures of burned to death kids are
legal; pictures of dead kids are legal; pictures of nude kids are not legal.
What will all the good censors do if they will discover that some sick
person enjoys pictures of starving and/or dead black kids from Africa...?)

>Do you have a problem with the dictionary definition of censor (verb):
>"to alter, delete, or ban completely AFTER EXAMINATION" (emphasis
>mine)?  That *seems* to be to similar to the idea of the laws against
>libel.  We examine it, we see if it is libellous, then we can stop
>the offending party from continuing to disseminate said statements, right?

We can't throw the offending party to jail, and the government is usually
not in the business of deciding what to ban.  It also takes a long time
till there is a decision, and so the ban usually has no influence on the
political process.  (E.g. Bush's ads in 1988 were perfectly legal.)

>rini

Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

"I don't need the Canadian government's approval, any more than I
need an NEA grant to fund my posting."  --  STella@xanadu.com	
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: movin
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 22:09:12 GMT

In article <1b7ikcINN277@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
>>DB> The "excessively restrictive" portion of Pennsylvania's law was struck down:
>>DB> the husband "notification" requirement that was, in essence, "permission."
>
>>Are you sure of this, Don?  Since you are from Pa., would it be possible for
>>you to take a jaunt to the office of your nearest legislator, and pick up a
>>copy of the original law, especially the notification provision.
>
>>My understanding was that it was notification-only - *not* permission or even
>>"permission in disguise".  Could you please clarify this for me?
>
>I'd like to know about this too.  In particular, I'd like to know
>whether the law applied only to husbands(as opposed to unmarried 
>parthers).  If so, did it depend on whether they were married at
>the time or conception, or at the time of the abortion?  Thanks from
>me too.

As it's still Saturday, I only have references from the Supreme Court
decision, which refers _only_ to spousal notification.  I don't believe
that 3209 discusses father notification.  

You have an interesting question about the timing of the marriage 
-- I'm no lawyer, but I'd bet it wouldn't matter as long as it 
preceded the abortion.  Could be kind of sticky if she made an 
appointment and signed a "notification document" saying she had 
no husband, and then got married before the appointment.  Hmm....

(I liked your typo, which was equidistant from "partners" and "panthers"
-- both of which might be applicable...  :-)

With luck, I'll get a copy of the law next week.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:51:20 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>... Men make jokes about what women *are*
>(eg, being premenstrual).  Women make jokes about what men *do*
>(eg, behaving in an insensitive fashion).

Just couldn't let this one pass. My ex suffers from PMS; suffice it to
say that she becomes obnoxious, aggressive, and intolerant
during this time. Actually, this is an inaccurate characterization: she
does relatively little suffering, those close to her do most of it.

It makes little difference whether one describes her as being premenstrual
or behaving like a bitch. For that matter, it makes little difference
whether women make jokes about men behaving insensitively, or being bastards,
it comes to the same thing.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:08:12 GMT

In article <1b2as1INN366@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[Cindy Blank-Edelman]
>>>I also want to say that there definitely are anti-male jokes that get
>>>a big laugh from a lot of women -- including feminists like me.  There
>>>are jokes that stereotype men as being insensitive, unintuitive,
>>>overly involved in things like sports, etc.

[Don Beaver]
>> "I also want to say that there definitely are anti-female jokes that get
>> a big laugh from a lot of men -- including men like me.  There
>> are jokes that stereotype women as being premenstrual, idiotic,
>> overly involved in things like hair care, etc."

[Michal Peri]
>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).
      ^^^^^^^^

Allow me to repeat Cindy Blank-Edelman's words from above:

>>>are jokes that stereotype men as being insensitive, unintuitive,
                                    ^^^^^
Let me also point out that the flasher joke was told by a woman
(in a position of power) about what a man (the flasher) *is*
(his male physical characteristics; a man's stereotypical opinions
about genital size; etc.).

IMO, your generalizations about jokes that men and women tell
are inaccurate.  Both men and women make jokes about men and women
and about ways that men and women *are* and about things that
men and women *do*.


It's interesting to see the defense of jokes as the expense of men:
one line is to say the butt of the joke was a flasher, not all men;
another is to say that women tell the jokes in a different way.

No feminist seems ready even just to say that the Women's Studies 
professor showed a lack of judgement and of sensitivity in telling 
offensive jokes about men from a position of power.

That kind of solidarity is, at the least, pretty impressive.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Three party posts, was ( Re: At the Barricades )
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:27:05 GMT

>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne), addressing Muffy, writes:

>You have not demonstrated that Playboy -causes- anything. 

Here you go again.  Yes, she never demonstrated that Playboy causes
anything.  That's because she never tried.  Does that make sense yet?

>No, I asked for examples, quotes, text from the offending magazine, not
>nebulous, possibly meaningless abstractions about what these things mean.

Shall I drudge up the old post?  I believe it was Gordon who wrote
something to the effect "Playboy exists in a CONTEXT with x and y
characteristics and that context should be considered as well."  
To this you replied, something to the effect of, "What context?
Show me what this context is!"  

Then Muffy came along and talked both about Playboy and about sexuality
in our society in general.  Yes, context is often a "nebulous, possibly
meaningless abstraction".  (Feel free to disagree with her as to whether
this is a "good" interpretation of the world.)

Now you return, "Playboy didn't cause this!!!"

Does this make sense to you?  Do you see how the whole conversation
has become sidetracked?  If you can show me where Muffy (or anyone else
on this thread) said that Playboy had a causal role with negative
repurcutions in our society, it might help me see where you are coming 
from...

I disagree with your tactics, because you seem to misconstrue what people
have written and then proceed to argue against points they never made.
I think it is intellectually dishonest, and I dislike it a great deal. 

rini
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Date: 11 Oct 92 01:53:38 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article <1b347tINN9g9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ah897@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Lai) writes:
-
-
-I am taking a feminist theatre class, and there was a mention of
-a phenoMENon called the "male gaze".  Is this necessarily
-when a male looks at a woman?  Is this "male gaze" the reason
-for breast implants, cosmetic sales, plastic surgery?

The reason for breast implants, cosmetic sales and plastic surgery is vanity.
Feel free to make up any reason you may feel suits you politics better.
As a consulation prize I might mention that some men have been geting
the male form of breast implants, I way to get a look with out working
out.  I would say that the reason is vanity, but it could be female gaze.

starbuck

starbuck
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2293 soc.men:17525
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:30:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct9.073219.1026@netcom.com>, boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:
 
> Men are unfaithful.
> Men are big kids with their toys.
> Men are afraid of committment.
> Men are horny lying bastards.

All TRUE, but yunz is supposed to make a joke about it!

> 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.

But when womYn do it, it's a joke.  When myn do it, it's harrasment!

Whatssamaddawhityou?  Can't you take a JOKE?!?!  LIGHTEN UP!!!!

Terry ":-P for those who need it" Wood
-- 
        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: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:46:03 GMT
 <1992Oct6.121633.15767@panix.com> <718385606@lear.cs.duke.edu>  
 <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> Besides, I think the whole censorship thing is sort of
> fictitious anyway.  Censorship is about detectives in
> fedoras busting sleazy skin magazine parlors back in 1951.
> The proliferation of media, both in quality and quantity, is
> going to make suppression a dead issue, if it isn't already.

You might be right, particularly with regard to computer generated
images, but there is a flip side to this coin.  The proliferation of
technology, and the removal of a few legal protections, is making
privacy a dead issue, if it isn't already.  So far, I'd have to say the
net effect has been to make "fedoras busting" more of a possibility,
rather than less.

Perhaps the reason you feel suppression is waning is that we have less
restrictive standards of what is "bustable" material today than we did
in the past (pardon the pun).  However, I think it is easier to catch
illegal material than it was in the past.
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon,
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<718762312@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1992Oct12.221249.20646@panix.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:07:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.221249.20646@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

     (stuff deleted)

   So far, I've very slowly elicited something besides ritual
   denunciation, so I'm encouraged.  Not that it matters very 
   much.  I've made my point (that MacKinnon is not the real
   issue) and you've made yours (feminism is bad, bad, bad.)
   The fact is, I've blown up your MacKinnon game like I blew
   up your draft game.

Well, that's HIGHLY debatable.  Whenever someone says MacKinnon has
tried to pass a law to do x,y, or z, you reply by saying that the
poster hates all feminists.  Hardly convincing.

          (more stuff deleted)
  
   If you were really interested in freedom of expression, you
   would use feminism to attack MacKinnon.  Instead, you use
   MacKinnon to attack feminism, which shows where your 
   priorities lie.
   -- 
 
Excuse me.  I have been doing just that since day one.  However, after
responding to my first post (I had no problems with your reply BTW), you
haven't bothered to reply to anything I wrote.  The time lag between New
Mexico and New York isn't that long.  

I am someone who agrees with 85-90% of the feminist "platform", but I
actively dislike MacKinnon.  But since you can't portray me as an evil
anti-feminist out to exploit all women, you don't even try to answer
my counter-arguments.

I would have to say that the winner of this debate seems to be rini.
She seems to have the fewest axes to grind and is able to make the
most sense.  (See, SOMEONE respects you...)
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 09:03:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.125313.28937@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>What????  Show me where freshman distinguishes by sex (and not because you say
>it does).

You're right, we're never going to show you to your satisfaction that
many women feel slighted by a "generic" word such as freshmen.  That
the very idea of a "generic" terminology that only refers to one
gender (the minority gender now in the US) is sexist.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:45:49 GMT

>bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:

(on diaphrams:)
 
> You have to leave it in *after* sex for about 6 hours. Once it is inserted
> you can begin intercourse right away. In fact its kind of nice since you dont
> have to worry about disposing of the condom and getting another one if you
> want to have seconds. 

Let's see -- last I used a diaphram, I'm pretty sure that the instructions
involved inserting more spermicide with each act of intercourse.  Am I
wrong here?

>  No less romantic than putting on a condom in my opinion.

The part I hate is the continual 'oozing' the next day, as all that
spermicide makes its way out....  Icky. :^P

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 08:35:54 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.001126.26959@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>Well, it's not a concept most people entertain. I feel that you are 
>responsible for everything that happens in your life, period. Awareness 
>of that responsibility is (again) another matter.

So, six million Jews were responsible for the Holocaust?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:39:49 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Oct7173418@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct7.225000.19594@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>   Only those businesses whose highest priority is to earn a *profit*.
>>   They'll hire whichever qualified candidate is willing to do the
>>   work for the lowst pay. And if, as Warren Farrell points out, women
>>   *really were* (as in the fairy tale) paid 59 cents on the dollar
>>   for doing the same work as men, then corporations EVERYWHERE would be
>>   dumping overpaid men on the streets, and hiring women in their place.
>
>  Unfortunately, no.  If that happened, then all the women would take
>over in more ways than just the jobs -- they would start by giving
>themselves all raises to equal their male (ex)counterparts.  Then if you
>were a man you'd be worse off than where you started; you'd be out of
>work, and the women would be in power.  What'd be the point?  It works
>fine now -- you just keep the women in line by economic as well as
>social force.  Give them all the jobs and power and you'd lose both.

So then you propose a conspiracy theory as well? I anxiously await
the revelation of the secret role of Elvis etc...  :^{
 
> -- d

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism