HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!"
Date: 29 Sep 92 04:56:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep28.204845.1043@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

> In article <6414@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> 
> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>>The important question that one must ask one's self when reading *any*
>>moderated newsgroup (or newspaper) is "What signal is being sent?".  It may
>>not be "censored" but it is clearly edited and with editing can come bias.

> Are there unmoderated newspapers?  I thought they all had editors....

Sorry if I wasn't being clear.  The modifier "moderated" only applies to
newsgroups.  I wasn't trying to imply that there are unmoderated newspapers.

I was trying to say that anytime you read a newspaper (or watch the TV news
for that matter), you should ask yourself "What's the slant here?".

Which brings me to an example ("OH, NO, NOT AGAIN!", they all moan!):

I was shocked the other day by a report on the TV news.  It was the story
about the boy who was "divorcing" his parents, so that he could be adopted
by his foster parents.

The TV news showed a young woman crying her eyes out while testifying on
the stand.  The newscaster (really just an announcer) read from his script
that the boy's mother spent the day testifying on the stand.  The only
problem with this picture was that the woman crying her eyes out was NOT
this kid's mother.  It was his Aunt who was testifying how she had witnessed
the kid being abused -- slapped around -- by his mother.  That's why SHE
was crying her eyes out.  I new this because I'd watched another station's
TV news and had seen the kid's mother on ABC's 20/20.

So I began to wonder, "Is this a really bad slant to this story or just
simple stupidity on the stations part?".  I'm still not sure which!

> I like unmoderated newsgroups too.

Yea, me too.  I use KILL FILES to do my editing, err, censoring, err
moderating!  ;-)

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: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Childcare
Date: 3 Oct 92 19:12:49 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct2.211632.6853@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

> Actually, no. The "Traditional Family Values" as I understand things
> have the man working outside the home, and the woman working inside
> the home, no daycare needed. And when needed, it is provided by 
> Grandparents and relatives, or occasionally a babysitter.

I see!  When is George blah blah Bush going to increase my spouse's salary
to make all of this possible? ;-)

> This is not my view of a utopian society, just what I understand to
> be "Traditional Family Values". 

I become ill whenever I hear Dan Quayle say "Traditional Family Values".
I keep wondering how traditional of a family HE had -- growing up with
butlers, nannies, and maids! ;-)


>>"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
>>"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry

> Have you seen the commercials? Looks like they have made "Highlander" the
> series.

Now *that* really makes me ill! ;-)  Don't waste your money on renting
Highlander II.  The movie is a turkey.  Nothing like having the sequel
contradict the original movie.  Sean Connery is probably ashamed to be
seen in it.  Or he's laughing all the way to the bank!

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: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography Victims' Compensation Act
Date: 29 Sep 1992 18:12:36 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

mec6@midway.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>I don't know if everyone knows about this bill or not, but on June 25th
>the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee approved by 7-6 a bill that would
>permit suits for economic damages against the producers, distributors,
>and exhibitors of obscene material if a plaintiff can show that the
>sexually explicit material was "a substantial cause" of a sexual offense.

Although I'm unhappy to hear this bill passed committee I
am not surprised.  The U.S. has been pretty aggressive about
suppressing pornography in recent years -- including using the
seizure laws to grab the assets of distributors, conducting "stings"
wherein the feds mail you illegal pornography, then arrest you 
for it, and so forth.

My take is the intent of the bill is to censor and suppress;
the link to sex crimes is just a convenient tactic.  Note that since 
this would become part of the civil (not criminal) code, the 
standards of proof for the plaintiff are relatively weak; so a 
bill like this will probably have real impact.

The ultimate result of this anti-pornography trend is to drive more
of the industry underground.  This is not good news.  It's
my opinion (others may disagree) that as the sex industry continues 
to lose its legal status, those women who work in it will become more 
at risk of being unfairly treated.  

I am happy to see references like Rini's quote from "Feminists 
for Free Expression".  While there are feminists who are 
pro-censorship, I'd like to think they're in the minority.

Steve
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 6 Oct 92 03:01:51 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Oct5.234214.13990@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>#_Playboy_ as a standard means that to use a woman sexually
>>#does not violate her nature because it expresses her nature; it is what
>>#she is *for*.  [MacKinnon]
>>
>>Some women (and men) view their sexuality as part of themselves.
>
>[minor flame on]
>MacKinnon complains that Playboy reduces women to JUST their sexuality.
>She says this is bad.
>You say that people view their sexuality as part of themselves.
>I don't see a disagreement here.

	I do. I think we would all agree that no one wants to be seen
_only_ as a sex object, nor even forced into the role when they're not
in the mood. But does Playboy do that? At the risk of reiterating the
obvious, the models are volunteers, and well-paid.

	I guess the crux is the rather subtle point of whether
portraying women as sex objects implies that women are only sex objects,
and nothing but. It certainly doesn't imply that to me. I am in constant
contact with women fulfilling all sorts of roles throughout the course
of the day. I find it hard to imagine any man having men's magazines as
his primary source of information about women, and if a man in fact
views women as purely sex objects, I could only conclude that this is an
impression he has formed himself, out of the peculiarities of his own
psyche, rather than something foisted upon him by girly mags.

	Speaking for myself, I like being seen as a sex object at times.
By excising the photos in men's magazines out of the context of life as
a whole, and saying, "look - pure sex objects!", MacKinnon really argues
against women being allowed to _ever_ appear in that role, at least
publically.

	Playboy merchandises sex the same way other magazines
merchandise sports or clothes or cooking or fitness. Of _course_ that's
the role the pictures portray, though in fairness it should be
remembered that the rest of the magazine portrays women in other roles.
To object to this is to object to the merchandising of sex, no more and
no less; the rest is obfuscation.

-  From the Crow's Nest  -                Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:    			barry@netcom.com
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:11:27 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1akpfdINNc1e@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:

>An interesting aside:

>In ancient Hebrew the word for vagina is "kos"
>and the same word also means a cup.

1) It is pronounced "kus" and not "kos."

2) The word is not in "ancient Hebrew," but from the spoken
   Hebrew of the 20'th century.

3) The source is probably Arabic.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: Halls of Residence, Monash University 
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 13:47:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.181517.28281@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
>Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
>Date: 4 Oct 92 18:15:17 GMT

>In the referenced article, mec6@midway.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

>>You are right in that the power structure often does make a special
>>effort to "protect women", but I think that that has as much to do with
>>the chivalrous idea that women *need* special protection as it does to
>>do with any feminist causes...

>I fail to see much distinction between chivalrous 'special
>treatment' and modern feminism, with the single exception
>of abortion rights.

>>In my experience, you'll find a mighty condemnation of wife abuse and
>>a light dismissal of husband abuse among both feminists and old boys,
>>democrats and republicans, old and young.  It's endemic in our society.
>>It's a problem.  But the feminists did not *make* it so.

>>I think your finger pointing is a wee bit unfair. 

>Recently in the UK there was a bit of media discussion
>about how "unfair" it is that many women who murder their
>husbands go to prison.  Feminists have been at the forefront
>of this argument.  It was the usual argument (wifebeating).
>Whether men ever get beaten, or whether some of those
>murderers deserved prison was not discussed.  The feminists
>did not consider the opposite case.  It was explicitly special
>treatment for women.  Noone thought it fit to mention that
>women already get lighter sentences for murder than men.
>I did not hear *any* feminist interviewed object to this idea,
>let alone argue for increased sentences for women.

With the greatest of respect, you are talking claptrap!!! In the UK, the 
*mandatory* sentence for murder (by both men and women) is life imprisonment.
Furthermore, studies have shown that, taken on an "offence basis" (i.e. 
looking at e.g. assault causing grievous bodily harm) and taking into 
account the previous convictions, women are given harsher sentences than 
men. (BTW these findings caused a great deal of surprise in the justice 
system, as there is a prevelent view that women are treated more 
leniently. The reality is that women, on average, commit less violent
offences, and on average, have fewer previous convictions.)  

>Good luck.

>>rini

>Toby
>-- 
>Toby Kelsey
>School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
>University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Property, Patriarchy, and all that (was: women in engineering)
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<1992Sep19.135254.24639@panix.com> <016nxhr.sheaffer@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 09:01:27 GMT


In article <016nxhr.sheaffer@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> Yes. This IS the basic feminist position on the family, i.e. "family =
> slavery." I wish that they'd just stop being hypocrites about it, and
> state this openly and in public. In particular, I wish that Hilary Rodham
> (who recently started calling herself "Clinton") would come out and reaffirm
> this for all to hear. 

> Then all the women who believe in such regressive
> things as marriage and children could see that feminism, as it exists today,
> is working very hard to undermine the things that they value.

There is only a certain point this attitude will work. Since men
unlike women need family also by emotional reasons and not only for
sex or money, there will be some way to undergo this problem. At least 
here are some companies that import wifes from underdeveloped countries,
I know at least Philippines is one source. That of course costs the man
about 10 000 $, he also is expected to send money back to his wifes relatives.
So, everybody wins, the man gots his family, the woman gets better living
standard that could be possible back home, her family gets money for living.

There are still some problems, it isn't controlled very well which
kind of men or women are participating in this and that will cause
some unsatisfactory couples to emerge. It is also possible that this
anti-family movement spreads to everywhere, but as long as there is
this big economical difference between western and former socialistic 
countries, this will work. And if we are ever capable of evenly distributing
welfare on this planet, we then will propably of artifical reproduction, 
which finally will free men from having to find a woman.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 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. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1981 soc.men:17287
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:32:20 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

walkerr@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:

>>But how can you ever be *absolutely* sure "where your partner has been"?
>>
>	You don't know were they have been.  But if they won't tell you or
>you don't trust them why would you want to have sex with them.  IF they've
>"been around the block"  then if they said "hey I've had a few" pardon the 
>crude terms,  then at least you know they aren't lying and then you can 
>use a condom.  I was just saying that if they aren't honest to you, then
>you shouldn't havve sex with them,  not that everyone shoudl know what
>their partner has for disease, because they can't but if your partner says
>that there is a risk then defianately use a condom.  

But my point is that there is *always* a risk.  Your partner may
tell you that you are their very first partner, but how can you
be absolutely sure that is true?  How do you detect "honesty" or 
"dishonesty"?  You can say that it all comes down to "trust", but
what does that mean, anyway?  "Trust" is poor disease prevention!

Your partner may tell you that
they've had "only one" (or "only two", or "only ###") and that it was
"safe" because that was a faithful relationship.  But how can you 
be sure?  And maybe they have had "only ###", but one of that person's
partner(s) may have been infected.

"Nice" people can have STDs too.  It doesn't make them any less "nice",
but it does mean that you *need* to protect yourself.  Otherwise you
have no-one but yourself to blame.

						--  Michal
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1647 soc.men:16953
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:27:27 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >>      ... as a
| >> proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
| >> Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
| >> intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
| >> magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
| >> but the idea isn't absurd.

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
| >That probably explains why every time I pick up a copy of Playboy, my
| >dog salavates and I hear bells ringing.  Oh, wait!  That's just the
| >telephone!  As Emily Litella would say, "NEVER MIND!".

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| This is interesting, but very badly (and pointlessly) slanted. Lets
| try a (supposedly) more normal example. When a man and a woman have
| normal sex, and the man has an orgasm, will not the same result occur?
| 
| Guess sex needs to be outlawed. 

You bring up a good point.  What's the difference between
sex with a human being and sex involving a magazine?  In
the former case, there's a real person to associate
intense pleasure with, to become attached to, to love.
In the latter, there's nothing but a piece of paper.

This is pure speculation, but my theory is that the reason
human beings have very large sexual organs with respect to
body size compared to most mammals, are in heat most of 
the time, and have a sex drive far beyond the need to 
reproduce in spite of the most dire environmental 
conditions, is that the emotional result of sex is 
important in keeping humans from killing one another.  

If you've ever dealt with animals much, including wild ones, 
you'll probably agree with me that there is no fiercer, 
more aggressive, or more dangerous animal than a human 
being.  Sex could be the counterbalance to that aggression.
 
If my theory is accurate, then diverting the sex drive into 
violence or commerce could have very bad results.  As I say, 
it's speculative.  But there are plenty of bad results 
around to support the theory.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:03:03 GMT
 <6764@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> <1992Oct4.143119.23156@panix.com>
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct4.143119.23156@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
> Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
> intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
> magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
> but the idea isn't absurd.

That probably explains why every time I pick up a copy of Playboy, my
dog salavates and I hear bells ringing.  Oh, wait!  That's just the
telephone!  As Emily Litella would say, "NEVER MIND!".

Seriously, I have never met anyone who admitted to masturbating with a copy
of Playboy.  I hear this "argument" from self-proclaimed feminists all the
time, but I find it hard to believe.  But far be it from me to be disputing
the experience of a few good men! ;-)  If you say that's what you use the
magazine for, I'll believe you.  (That's the "plural" you).

Fortunately, for the blind, the edition of Playboy that the library of
Congress re-publishes contains no pictures to get the whole "chain" started.
So I guess the Blind who protested the discontinuation of the publication
of the edtion for the blind truly believed in the first amendment to the
constitution.  No need for masturbation-fueled beliefs that Catherine
believes causes people to defend the first amendment.  These people *really*
believe it on their own.

Of course, if what Gordon and McKinnon propose is proven to be effective,
perhaps interest in subjects such as Mathematics, History, English, etc.
could be increased simply by putting nudes into textbooks and getting
students to masturbate with the text book.  We'd probably go through 
more textbooks that we do now, but that's a small price to pay for increased
interest in these subjects.

> By the way, don't reply to this article telling me 
> people have reason and free will, because it's off the
> subject.  You can figure out why if you try.

> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
> | Seriously enough to enact her proposed legislation.  Like Ross Perot, she
> | looks fine till you examine her writings. ;-)

> Actually, the process for most of the people I read 
> around here doesn't seem to involve her writings to any
> extent.  All I see is the usual: determine which side
> of the barricades she's on; if on the other side, look
> for knock-off points, or, more likely, repeat the
> knock-off points somebody else managed to collect through
> superior reading skills.  


Well, let's hope I've given you something new and original to think about! :-)

> The little discussion above will serve as my example. 

Probably not! 

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: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:05:35 GMT
	<CINDY.92Sep20171742@meshugge.media.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of 29 Sep 92 00:53:52 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> I'm not saying that the woman has COMPLETE and TOTAL responsibiity
> for some whacked out fool who wants to force his sexuality on others...
> but I won't absolve her of any responsibility either. 

Okay, so, this would seem to say that if you (Dave) are walking down the
street and someone rapes you, it is partially your fault.  How much is
it your fault?  What do you, personally, feel that you are responsible
for doing to avoid this?  If you were wearing a tight pair of jeans, for
example, should the rapist get a reduced sentence or be set free because
you were "provoking" the rape?

Similarly, if it is your mother walking down the street, what is she
responsible for doing to avoid this?  What might reduce the
responsibility of the rapist?

Do you think that a rapist should be let go if the victim is
sufficiently "irresponsible" or "provoking" in their manner or dress?
How much is enough?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism