HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dauer1@cc.swarthmore.edu (David Samuel Auer)
Subject: Bye everyone
Reply-To: dauer1@cc.swarthmore.edu (David Samuel Auer)
Organization: Swarthmore College
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:05:18 GMT

I do not have the time to keep up with this newsgroup.  It has been fun.
I regret leaving for those who have been amused with what I have posted.
-dave
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3733 rec.humor:33045
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item? (yet another ref!)
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:38:31 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov12191241@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Which means that your remarks about androgyny have little relevance
>>to the original claim (see the subject line).  I'm pointing this out
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>on the off-chance that you might have thought otherwise.
>
>Well, I *did* think otherwise, 

>Ahh, I understand your misunderstanding now.  I "thought otherwise"
>about my "remarks about androgyny having little relevance."

So you misspoke above when you said that they were relevant to
the original claim, i.e. regarding 'liberalism.'  Glad to clear that up.

BTW, here's another ref that specifically deals with correlations
between an individual's 'sex role rating' and mate preferences.
It supports a generally dyadic model, in which members of a typical
couple tend to be polarized to a significant degree in opposite
directions on a 'masculinity-femininity' scale.  

-S. Schultz
------

D'Agostino, Jerome V. ; Day, Susan K. 1991. Gender-role orientation 
and preference for an intimate partner. Psychological Record 41(3): 
321-328.
Abstract: Employed a methodological technique that addresses 
possible limitations of similarity and complementarity hypotheses by 
defining similarity and complementarity as relationship processes 
and by considering them as extremes of a unidimensional continuum. 
116 male and 119 female college students were classified by gender-
role orientation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory and were asked to 
report the attributes they would seek in and offer to a partner. 
Gender-typed (and undifferentiated) Ss were more likely to report 
preference for a complementary relationship than androgynous Ss. 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: ERA
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 20:28:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.195711.6318@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Oct28.201259.3853@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <23428@galaxy.ucr.edu> 
>>starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>>
>>>I support the ERA because it would have the effect of making null and void
>>>laws that are gender specific moving toward a gender nuteral volume of law.
>>
>>I support the ERA too, and I would love to see it pass.
>>
>>Is the anyone here who is against it?
>
>If the ERA were to pass, what difference would it actually make? I can
>think of two likely scenarios:
>
>1.) No real difference. Every law that anyone has yet thought of some
>    way to make "gender-inspecific" has already had this done.
>
>    In this case, it would make no difference. It would do no harm, but
>    no good, either.
>
>2.) It would inflame the fanatics to even greater excesses. They would
>    repeat the old canards, with even greater vehemence: "Oh, it's
>    been 5 years since the ERA has been passed, and women are still
>    making 59 cents on the dollar, getting raped, and having ALL the
>    babies, and besides Congress isn't 50% female yet!" So this would
>    give rise to tremendous pressure to "do something" to "implement"
>    the ERA. "Now that the ERA has been passed, we need to have a
>    Cabinet-level Department of Women, to enforce its provisions."
>    
>
>    In this scenario, the ERA might end up doing considerable harm.
>    In any case, I expect that it would represent a tremendous INCREASE
>    in power for federal, state, and local governments, with a
>    corresponding decrease in individual freedom; far more AA quotas,
>    etc.
>

3.) Robert Schaeffer starts a political movement to ban AA quotas and other
    sexist practices, utilizing the ERA as his primary weapon.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 05:32:25 GMT

In article <1d9mnpINN8bc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>>"in, out. repeat as necessary."
>
>Gee, I always heard it a "in. out. repeat *if* necessary"	:-)
>
>
>							--  Michal

<chuckle>  Potentially, this could explain a lot...


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Date: 10 Nov 1992 16:07:01 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>The point is that when a woman has a problem with something (anything
>at all it seems) she is perceived as having a valid complaint, regardless
>what, if anything has happened. But when a man has a problem with 
>anything regarding women, -he- becomes at fault, and a direct, unsupported
>attack upon his sexuality is accepted. This from the same group which
>just recently discussed gender expectations.

Hmm, seems to me a few women just said they have a problem with the media
presenting practically unattainable images of beauty and they were basically
told (by men) to "get a life, stop watching TV, it's your fault."  I believe 
you were one of them.  I believe most people on this group would agree with
me, but they don't have time to post a response like you will.

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Repression Resurfaces (Was: MacKinnon )
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:38:09 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>I suppose that when a group of children "play doctor" with each other,
>that's "sexual abuse" too, no doubt?

Let's not forget that if, when they "play doctor", they don't put the
penis in it's rightful symbolic place (front and center of all 
activities), that's man-bashing at it's very finest, carried about 
little radfem lesbians in training, no doubt. 

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:25:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>None of it has been funny. But I would like to point out another
>anti-symmetry in these feminist arguments. (did i invent a new word?)
>In another thread, it was pointed out that women who are self confident
>could care less what the models look like, while those who are insecure
>may well feel threatened. This was taken as an attack the victim post
>by at least one person, and I suspect more to follow. In another thread
>it was directly asserted that any male who feels threatened by feminism
>is obviously not getting enough sex, because it could only be the result
>of sexual frustration. None of the other feminists commented on this.

Could you repost the post which said that?  I find that you
misrepresent a lot of what people post, so I'm not sure at all that
anyone has posted any such thing.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization:  Funk the Dumb Stuff!
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:45:32 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>>I heard that both the American and European congress of Bishops are trying 
>>to come up with an acceptable proposal to:
>>
>>1) Let women deliver the Holy Sacraments (handle priests duties)
>>2) Let clergy of either sex marry.
>>3) Some other goodies I can't remember...
>
>I'd love to know where you've heard this.
>
>The latest I heard is that the Roman Catholic Church once more told
>the Church of England, which voted to ordain women as priests, that
>female priests are a serious obstacle to better Roman-Anglican
>relations.

This was on the November 12 evening news on either CNN, Channel 5 or 11.
(I was flipping channels between the 3)

>To which I, like many Anglicans, say, "BFD!"

Indeed.

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
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:24:16 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: abortion

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>I would support requiring that the 
>woman must notify the man within [some period of time] after becoming
>pregnant that she is pregnant. Within [some period of time] after
>both people know what's up, either an abortion will occur or 
>they will file a "parenting plan" with the state. The parenting
>plan will include ....

Are you saying that you want the govenrment will force the woman to 
undergo abortion if there's a failure to file paperwork?  God help us!
The IRS is bad enough!

						--  Michal
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise (was: the Male Gaze)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:11:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.173104.7296@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.210604.16395@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> (Rich:)
>>>For all I know, the feminists posting here are the only ones who have
>>>no extreme views. ( not that this is my expectation )
>>
>>(This is not specifically directed at Rich:)
>>
>>It has been suggested a number of times that the feminists who post
>>to the net appear to be a non-representative bunch (e.g. no one here 
>>has really supported Dworkin/McKinnon, no has argued that men
>>worship death, that intercourse implies rape, etc.). 
>>
>>So this makes me curious: any hypotheses out there as to what mechanism 
>>would link computer literacy and net access to a certain subset of
>>feminist views?  In other words:  are there a priori reasons why we 
>>should suspect that the views we hear expressed on the net are not 
>>representative of the feminist population in general?
>
>One *big* factor is that on the net, you GET criticism and, shall we say,
>"peer review" of a sort, whether you want it or not. Hence, in an
>unmoderated forum, it is impossible to maintain the unmaintainable, a

Certainly, the extremists are subject to critique.  Alas, the news media goes
for salability rather than actual content.
At any rate, there are plenty of "experts" out there who completely disagree
with Dworkin/McKinnon and they get air-time.


>situation different than, say, a "Womens Studies" class; I have read
>accounts of incidents where male students took too strong issue with
>what the feminist professor was saying, and were not merely booted out
>of class, but charged with Thought Crimes under P.C. statutes, and
>forced to perform Revolutionary Self-Criticism if they wanted to stay
>in school.

This has probably occurred somewhere or other, but I sincerely doubt that it's
representative.  Any idea where you read it, btw?


>Nobody on the net (except perhaps the moderators of prissy little
>newsgroups :) ) has that kind of tyrannical power. Hence, no one
>dares attempt to defend the extremists. 

Actually, I have defended some of the extremists to some extent some of the
time.


>And, unfortunately, many extremists masquerade as moderates UNTIL they
>gain such power.

Ah, guilty by association.  Those extremists dress up in sheep's clothing so
sheep are EVIL.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:25:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.231338.4275@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <T4MSBCVJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
DSA>I believe neither polygamy nor making demands from one's partner is
DSA>emotionally healthy.  I can't understand polygamy and as to making demands, I
RL>Do you have any specifics for why you think polygamy is emotionally unhealthy?
RL>I think an open marriage could be very emotionally healthy.

Outside of personal taste?

Why not try and explain.  Here goes:

One of the reasons one enters a relationship with someone is the desire to
be with someone in complete commitment -- that certainty and strength which
comes from entire devotion.

There is a saying: Two's company; three's a crowd.  This is because in threes
arguments often break down to two on one.  How can one acheive harmony and
balance between three?  What happens when there are conflicting demands and
needs?  Three is lopsided.  Four is worse.  More -- forget it.

How can you feel that you are special -- uniquely appreciated as an individual
if you have to share your partner?

I guess it boils down to commitment at a certain level.  How can you be wholly
devoted to someone if you are wholly devoted to someone else as well?

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Homophobia causes Sexism? (was Re: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:59:51 GMT

In article <3GZSB4QB@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.025521.8946@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>This has me confused. By "so-called hetero men" hating women, do you
>>mean that the men who hate women are not -really- hetero? I guess
>>that would make then gay or non-sexual.
>
>Or bi or questioning?
>
>In an earlier post I indicated that certain sexism arises from homophobia.
>
>Let me elaborate here.
>
>If a person does not wish to consider him/herself homosexual out of societal
>pressure a natural response is hypersexuality -- exaggerated interest in
>members of the opposite sex.  This distortion of desire can result in a
>painful tension between imagined and actual desire.  The victim may then
>turn this resentment upon the object of his/her imagined lust object(s)
>who/which do not fulfill the victim's unrealistic exaggerated desires.

A good point.

I was referring to my personal experience of seeing men who are
heterosexual and yet seem to hate everything about women except
fucking them.  They don't like women, they don't respect women, they
don't enjoy being with women (or a woman), they prefer to be with men
nearly all the time, and only want women for sex.  I wouldn't call
them homosexual, though.  I'm not sure what they are.  Maybe
heterosexual but homophilic (since their love and caring go to
members of the same sex)?  Or maybe just heterosexual and misogynist?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:05:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.154737.27500@ll.mit.edu>, x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick
Lafave) wrote:
> 
> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) asks:
> #beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
> #
> #>Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
> #>decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?
> #
> #Why should a man be any less able to do so than a woman?
> 
>   If you believe the leadership of NOW; women have an inborn ability to 
> nurture and care, that men just don't have.  They are upset that 10% of 
> contested custody disputes place the child(ren) with the father.  I presume 
> they would like to see the number at 0.000% .
>   As an aside; feminism and gender equality do not go hand in hand.  The 
> majority of (not all) feminists believe the current system of *female 
> requires choice; man made choice when unzipping fly* is equitable.  This is 
> useful because it frees women from traditional roles (motherhood) while 
> *keeping men in their place* and traditional role (provider of $$).  NOW 
> is in the business of promoting feminist issues, and that includes retaining 
> female advantages wherever they exist, while eliminating male advantages.
>   This is neither good nor bad.  Basically they are just another political 
> action committee under the guise of a moral crusade.  Just don't confuse 
> feminism with gender equality.

Whom in the leadership of NOW are you citing?

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Dear Starbuck
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:44:15 GMT

In article <misdeva-061192154713@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <ZEN.92Nov4165119@death.corp.sun.com>, zen@death.corp.sun.com
>(d) wrote:
>> 
>>   Aha!  He didn't deny that he likes you, rini!  I *knew* it.  There had
>> to be some reason for all the incessent babbling... he was just trying
>> to keep you talking by making rediculous claims that he knew you
>> couldn't let slide by.  No sentient being could actually *believe* what
>> he says.  As for the GIFS... I'll never let them go.  They're the prizes
>> of my collection (next to the ones of muffy, that is.)  Letting random
>> people have them somehow cheapens their value...
>> 
>>  -- d
>
>Maybe we could start an alt.rich.n.rini group?

[[[[[ROTGL]]]]]

We have enough volume for one......    :^]]]]]]
 
>       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
>      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Seventh Circuit Bound)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:18:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.010745.6423@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <misdeva-101192162448@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>>> >Catherine MacKinnon travels under a variety of aliases and must change
>>> >hotel rooms several times a night as a result of the death threats she has
>>> >received, especially during her recent research into snuff.  
>>> 
>>> and MUCH funnier still is the claim that the nasty Snuff-makers are
>>> constantly threatening and harassing the learned Prof. Mackinnon, that
>>> scourge of patriarchs everywhere. Wonderful humor here: the
>>> woman who invented "sex harassment" is now claiming "snuff harassment"!!!!!
>>
>>I don't find death threats funny, on any level, regardless of what I may
>>think about the target's ideology.  But I can say that I think belittling
>>such threats is disgusting, even morally repellent.
>
>The humor has nothing to do with anyone's ideology. Rather, it is the
>claim that one has received death threats from nonexistent parties.

I don't see MacKinnon claiming that it's snuff-film makers who are
threatening her.  I just see her claiming that she's being threatened
while she researches the subject.  I also see her claiming that she
was threatened before she researched the subject.  

I don't find this implausible -- nearly every celebrity in this screwed-
up society of ours receives death threats at one time or another.  
Whether the threats against MacKinnon are serious or not, I don't know,
but I don't see any reason to doubt they exist.

I believe MacKinnon's overstated the case regarding snuff, but at least
she's doing research, rather than parroting the urban legend.  When
she has mentioned snuff in the past, she was kind enough to footnote
that her "source" for the information was a speech by Arlen Specter on
the Senate floor complaining about snuff films, and a murder case in
California where two teens were accused of murdering a woman to make
a snuff film (though the alleged videotape was never found, and it
was clear that the teens were not part of a world-wide snuff film
pornography distribution ring).  Perhaps she's bright enough that
when she fails to unturn any evidence at all of snuff existing, she'll
cease to claim that the "pornography industry" is engaged in murder.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:44:01 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
  
>>I would expand on "request". I would support requiring that the 
>>woman must notify the man within [some period of time] after becoming
>>pregnant that she is pregnant. Within [some period of time] after
>>they will file a "parenting plan" with the state.
 
>What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?
 
>Should the man be forced to pay child support if he requested
>(but was clearly unable to force) an abortion?

No, because in the default situtation Jen outlined (when no "parenting
plan" is filed) the woman becomes the sole legal parent.

>Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
>decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?

Gosh, can anyone??  This can be asked of women just as well as of
men... right?  What's the point here?

>When birth control failures occur, is that a right 
>only to be reserved for women?

Which right?

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4277 soc.women:19441 soc.men:19177