HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Madonna a closet Lesbian?
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:49:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.000643.22167@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:

  [stuff gone]

>	And if you want some details, here are some from Madonna's
>most recent album, _Erotica_ (the song called "Where Life Begins"):
>

  [lyrics gone]

>	One final thing: this song, at least from a phallocentric
>perspective, might be interpreted as proof that Madonna is a closet
>lesbian. Is that fair?

Not really.  Sounds like she's just encouraging cunnilingus as a sex act.
Don't see anything about the gender of the other party.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 15:41:44 GMT

In article <1dudmvINNhkj@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>Even when healthy, reversible birth control for men is at best 5-15%
>>prone to failure.
>
>I've never heard of cunnilingus resulting in a pregnancy.
>Maybe you ought to try it sometime.


Finally, the perfect feminist solution for equality of reproductive freedom:

   "Men should abstain or perform cunnilingus."


Otherwise, men should not have the right that women have: to decide
freely and responsibly, as a private matter, not to assume the
serious and lifelong responsibilities of parenthood -- even when
a condom leaks or breaks.


By the way, Michal, I consider it offensive of you to make explicit
suggestions about what I do, don't do, should do, or shouldn't do 
in my sex life.  You went seriously out of bounds.  Apparently intentionally.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:36:35 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <Bx7yG0.4ME@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <ZEN.92Nov3224602@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>
>>In article <Bx6D0A.MtJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>>As long as I have to compete with women who are candidates for, and
>>>recipients of, women only awards, the 'nobel' goals of feminists are suspect.
>
>>  What?  There's a new nobel prize for women/feminists only?  Kind of
>>like the peace prize or something?  I nominate muffy and rini!
>
>There are many women only awards and scholarships given out.  NSERC being the
>predominant bee in my bonnet.  I also know that in a recent search for a
>new faculty member for our department, NSERC would kick in a significant 
>portion of the salary for a female in a tenure track position.
>	The NRC also has a bad reputation for this type of favoritism.  In
>Ellen Spertus's report 'Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?',
>she describes some of the advantages women gain from these opportunities.

The question I have now is:  Have the feminists managed to get rid of enough
male-only awards that there are now actually more female-only awards than male-
only awards?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:13:47 GMT

In article <misdeva-111192175853@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <BxJ8rF.J63@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
>wrote:
>> 
>> In article <misdeva-091192070158@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>> >In article <1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal
>> >Leah Peri) wrote:
>> >> 
>> >> The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
>> >> to be the parents (how many single parents can afford to raise children
>> >> without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.
>> 
>> >Too true.  I had a lot of trouble with the DeMoss Foundation commercials
...
>> Are you willing to enact a law that says when a woman has a baby
>> "without the father's help," that we'll flip a coin to select who
>> will be the custodial parent?  ...
>
>Is this a serious question?  I think custody needs to be decided on a
>case-by-case basis.  Formulas fail.  ...

Yes, it's serious.  When both parents are equally fit and both
equally want to raise the child, what is your default?


>> I'll ask before jumping to conclusions: do you have any trouble
>> extending "protections"'s iron fist into custody decisions (ie.
>> providing custody to women who don't want "the father's help")?
>
>Define "the father's help".  If you mean, do I think women who don't want
>child support should be able to have custody, then yes.  

This statement is a bit vague.

Do you mean that women who don't want child support should
be able to decide unilaterally to keep custody?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker)
Subject: Re: the demonization of Muffy (was Re: Clinton Gore position on women)
Organization:  MOOOOOOOOOON RIIIIIIIIIIVER!
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:43:27 GMT

auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>>If I put some of you in my kill file (I don't have
>>>one), would you be as outraged? No, women should sit and listen to your abuse
>>>because the thought of it turns you on. Damnable misogynists.
>>
>>This would be riotously funny if it wasn't so darn *sad*...
>
>If I can laugh, why can't you?  (I put up a lot of stupid stuff, didn't I?)

Oh trust me...I *was* laughing...giggling even. As for the intelligence of 
the aforementioned post, I'm not going to touch that...:)

>-dave

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
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Homophobia causes Sexism? (was Re: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:59:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.115951.13372@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>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.  

And yet you constantly talk about all hetero man as if they were this
way. That is, you hardly ever qualify things, usually you talk about
hetero man, not some subset.

>                                                           Maybe
>heterosexual but homophilic (since their love and caring go to
>members of the same sex)?  Or maybe just heterosexual and misogynist?

I'm releived that you have an unbiased attitude.

Imagine the hell it would raise if a -male- posted exactly the same
thing about women. I suspect woman hater would be one of the nicer
things they would be called.

Not that I expect a reply. I am in ljf's kill file. It seems that ljf
is tired of being called heterophobic, and even suggesting it is
enough for inclusion into ljf's KILL file. I was informed via email
rather than being publically denounced as some feminists do.


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 5 Nov 92 09:30:33 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov2.181558.19617@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1LLSBRZY@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>Mr. Gazit has proven only that men too suffer, not that they suffer worse than
>>women.  
>
>Where did this come from? How is it relevant?
>
>>       The mechanism by which women suffer is institutionalized in a way that
>>men are not discriminated against.  Men, of course, suffer as well.  There are
>>numerous prejudices against men as well.  These are bad things.
>>
>>Most sexism marginalizes and disempowers women more than it does so to men.
>
>By definition it would seem, and mostly defined by feminists.
>
>>Men suffer too from sexism, but seldom materially.  
>
>I'm sure that this is a consolation to the homeless men on the streets. 

Did he get there via sexism?

>>                                                 Sexism, prejudice against
>>either gender, damages the soul of the chauvinist whatever the material
>>consequences.  Still, women tend in our society as in most to suffer the brunt
>>of the material losses acrued from sexism.
>
>So far most of the materials I have seen posted tend to show that women are
>getting paid about the same for equivalant education and experience. And
>almost all of the aid society provides is for women and children. What
>exactly do you mean by the above?
>
>>-dave
>
>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com

Let me see if I can pull my brain together.

Women suffer from sexual harrassment and assault.  Women are not at the highest
positions in our society as much as men are.  Women often have to subordinate
their carreers to raising children.  

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu (Cheryl Stewart)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Fifty-nine cents
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:23:17 GMT
Reply-To: stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu
Organization: Dept. of Earth & Planetary Sciences, Harvard University

In the January 1992 issue of GEOTIMES, Marilyn Suiter gives figures for
women graduating with bachelor's degrees in geosciences.  Women with 
exactly the same qualifications as men in the geosciences have starting
salaries which are, on average, 68 percent of that of their male counter
parts.  

Cheryl
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Essentialism (was: Re: Child Support)
Summary: just a note
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:27:53 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

x73rl@ll.mit.edu ( Rick Lafave) writes:
|   If you believe the leadership of NOW; women have an inborn ability to 
| nurture and care, that men just don't have. ...

This is called "essentialism" and most feminists don't
agree with it, as far as I know.  The most recent prominent
exponent of essentialism was Marilyn Quayle at the
Republican convention.  I'd be interested to know which
leaders of NOW you're referring to, because I think they
should be challenged on the issue.

Any citations or references you have would also be
helpful.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: liberal men are a hot item
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 00:27:54 GMT

Article 2609 of alt.feminism:
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:56:21 GMT


In article <MUFFY.92Nov10105034@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>However, I find them
>extremely hot...particularly the androgynous seriously-feminist types.

S Shultz writes:

According to the literature, you're in a small minority.  

	I think you are correct, but what is the point?

The 
most attractive profile is closer to the traditionally 'masculine' than 
'androgynous,' both physically and psychologically.


	What is "traditionally masculine"?  I dont consider myself
	a liberal, feminist, or androgynous.  Im a large white male
	who likes women who are at least as intelligent, assertive
	and independant as I am.  However, I dont drink beer, watch
	football, or spit on the floor.  Im also more comphortable
	being aggressive in my daily affairs.  Does this make
	me a crossbread?  *chuckle*  Im not mocking you:)
	Im just playing devil's advocate with unspoken stereotypes.


Note that 'androgynous' is not synonymous with 'liberal' in the sense 
used here; i.e., a generally egalitarian approach to division of labor.  
But it's worth pointing out that women could have a significant 
preference for liberal men, all other things being equal, 

	Makes sense, even without getting highbrowed about it.
	Women are people.  People get offended when they arent
	taken seriousley as capable people.  People dont like
	who offend them.  "Liberal" men are more likely not
	to commit this offense.  Hence, everything else being
	equal why wouldnt a woman choose a man who takes her/her life
	as an adult seriousley over a patrionizing jerk?



Steve R




Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 02:53:14 GMT

In article <1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

>>> In the UK the government passed a law that makes father's liable to
>>> support their children, regardless of wedlock....
>>> consequence is that a man can now end up paying for a child that *he*
>>> would rather have seen aborted.  The man has no say in a process that
>>> he can end up paying for.

[...]

>The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
>to be the parents (how many single parents can affort to raise children
>without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.

If a woman is presumed able to make a responsible, considered decision
regarding abortion, then she should be presumed able to consider
economic factors in her decision.

If she knows she will become a single parent without taxpayer support,
she should take this into account before a child is created.  Don't
forget the "pro-choice" convention that there is no child before birth.

It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:05:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.190036.24660@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov1.194126.5651@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>But
>>>I have had it claimed that a) women have the same sex drive as men,
>>>and b) men more often want sex. 
>>
>>I don't have a problem with that both claims existing side by side.
>>I don't know if either is true.  They could both be true if the sex 
>>men more often wanted was strictly vagina/penis intercourse, (most
>>women do not orgasm from this) 
>
>I am wondering how applicable this oft-repeated statement is to women
>who have not been TOLD it.  Many women who have somehow missed out
>on being so informed go on blisfully having Incorrect orgasms (the action
>of the penis does, of course, result in motion of the clitoris),
>so long as the man continues long enough.
>
>Other women who dutifully recite this Correctitude to their lovers
>will come oh-so-ever-so-close to orgasm in the Incorrect way, yet somehow
>never quite finish the matter. Knowing how strongly the mind can, of
>course, enhance or inhibit sexual pleasure, one wonders whether these
>women would be unable to reach orgasm thusly had they not been told
>that they would be unable. ("Now, don't try to learn how to play the piano,
>because you're never going to be any good at it!")

You were doing just fine up to here.

>Notice that the acceptance of "vaginal intercourse as undesirable"
>implies that a man should attempt to pleasure a woman in the same
>way that a lesbian does. Notice that it also implies that, in
>lovemaking, the penis has very little value, and is in fact something 
>of a nusiance. Now, coming as it does from the feminist movement,
>whose leadership leans heavily toward lesbianism, it is difficult 
>NOT to see in this teaching a 'hidden agenda'. Clearly, this belief
>constitutes a powerful weapon in the feminist war against the phallus.
>Given the great malleability of human sexual response, the claim 
>that "most women cannot orgasm from penis/vagina intercourse" (a claim
>which, from what I understand, is far less believed among Europeans)
>may be rather less a description of a situation than an attempt to create
>one.

But then you come up with a RadFemLesbo Conspiracy Theory!
This oft-repeated statement PREDATES the women's movement, you ninny!
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 09:23:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.055712.26556@netcom.com> 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...
>
>Apparently His Holiness, the Pope, who has heretofore been against women
>priests because of the Biblical precedent of Jesus selecting all male
>apostles to spread His word, has indicated that he would be receptive to 
>a well-reasoned plan to begin introducing women to the priesthood, and letting
>current clergy marry or not as is their choice. 

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.

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

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Is it possible to be a male feminist?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 05:46:28 GMT

In article <X1NSB1PV@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <garry-311092125420@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
>>In article <fraserdt.720476274@unixg.ubc.ca>, fraserdt@unixg.ubc.ca (David
>>T.S. Fraser) wrote:
>DTS> [omitted] 
>DTS>The thoughts of _feminists_ on this subject would be appreciated.
>
>GCK>Good to see you have such an open mind, boy.  You'll go far.
>GCK>You may wish to consider forming a coffee klatch with David Auer.
>
>Was this meant to be derogatory?  This board is supposed to be alt.feminism,
>not alt.sexism.  Get a clue.
>
>I know, feminism = sexism.  Give it up.

Watch it, Auer.  If you really get on King's bad side, he'll call you
a cunt.  Ohhhhhh....

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:29:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov9.210011.7298@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov8.153054.14666@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>[text axe murdered]
>
>>>In any case, no matter how much feminists desired
>>>to be screwed like lightbulb sockets, there is
>>>humor in the analogy only for those who have a good
>>>deal of tension about the sexuality of feminists, 
>>>or possibly their own sexuality.  One can easily
>>>demonstrate this to oneself by substituting 
>>>different subjects into the joke.
>>
>>It's WOMEN, and its not funny!
>>
>
>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.

Some things are obviously stupid.
Others are obviously stupid, but have been repeated enough that people believe
them.
People are more likely to complain when the latter are heard, while presuming
that the former needs no attention.

[...more of the same gone...]
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bye everyone
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:08:21 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <AXVSBYQ3@cc.swarthmore.edu> I wrote:
>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.

A closing thought.  I do not wish to leave anyone with the impression I was on
this board just to amuse.  I have strong opinions on these issues, which I have
scrutinized carefully.  If I have entertained you, though, then I have served
my purpose.  That is why people pay for alt.net news service anyway, isn't it?
-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism