HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 02:42:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan20.012450.17072@intacc.uucp> zerobeat@intacc.uucp (Ferenc Szabo) writes:
>Janice, I wish every woman would think as you do.  Unfortunately, in the 
>sphere of people I happen to run across, the stereotype of the woman with
>the self centered abusive/mysoginst asshole is prevalent enough make me
>depressed sometimes.  I even know of woman who stick with their *physically*
>abusive partners through thick and thin.  These men typically have something
>about them (i dunno....nice car? money? idunno) that I suppose makes them
>desirable (good bodies? good cooking? idunno).  Virtually all of these men
>that I might talk to in private refer to women as 'them bitches' or other
>derogatory terms.  THey *know* that they have this 'charm' or whatever it is
>to "get the babes".  
>
>About 4 years ago I think I almost became brainwashed into thinking that
>YES, perhaps if I was a jerk like these other guys then women would pay 
>attention to me.  But then instructional wisdom reasoned out that I might
>not want to be close to a woman who would be attracted to an abusive SOB
>anyway.
>
>What I am trying to say is that it is not totally unfounded for many men
>to perceive that women DON'T like 'nice guys'.
>
>363 months on this planet and still optimistic that there are many more
>women like Janice out there.............

Oh, come on!

And women don't see men out with women who are pretty and nothing
else?  I bet I can find a "nice girl" woman for every "nice guy" man.
I know plenty of great women who are looking for men only to be told
they're too fat, or too old, or too educated, or not pretty enough to
be considered dating material.

I also know men who seem to choose women who will screw them over.  I
had a male friend who was crazy about a woman.  On their third date,
she said that she wasn't enjoying the date and would prefer to have
stayed home alone.  Then to add insult to injury, she said that she
really was interested in dating this other man.  He took her home.
Did he stop calling her?  Did he say, "What a bitch!  That's the last
time I'll call her!"?  No way.  He kept asking her out and, if she
didn't have anything better to do, she kept going out with him.  After
hearing this lament from him for a couple of months, I finally asked
him why he kept asking her out.  Because she was so pretty and how
impressed his friends were with her (and him).  

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Feminism vs. the Sexual Revolution (was: Are special programs sexist/racist? (long)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:31:03 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.164850.29053@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.202055.14608@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>Interesting, indeed! This is a consequence of the so-called "sexual revolution,"
>>the relaxation of long-standing sexual taboos. The mainstream of contemporary
>>feminism stands four-square AGAINST the sexual revolution; Robin Morgan
>>has stated this quite explicitly, as have others. You see, now that the
>>old sexual taboos are gone, women are now receiving (gasp!) SEXUAL ADVANCES
>>from men, which is more or less criminal. There is not the slightest doubt
>>that contemporary feminists are mostly working to make sex (actually,
>>just hetero sex) pretty much taboo once again, although not in the same way
>>as before. (Old taboo: "It's sinful! Licentious! Shameful!" New taboo:
>>"It's sexual harrassment and objectification!") Paglia covers the war 
>>between feminism and the sexual revolution in her new book "Sex, Art, and
>>American Culture."
>
>It is UNWANTED sexual advances that are considered harrassment.  

How does one find out that they are unwanted but by asking?

>                                                                I know it
>is hard for many men to understand why unwanted sexual advances might be
>bad, but imagine if your male boss patted your butt and greeted you with
>"aren't you handsome today" and kept saying that you looked like you had
>a delicious penis.  How would that make you feel?

You are equating gay advances with a straight man with a heterosexual
man trying to have sex with a heterosexual woman. This is not a valid
comparison. 
 
>Some gay men might like that sort of attention, but most heterosexual men
>would be very upset.

But you are comparing apples to the constellation of Orion. 
 
>Imagine that you were very lucky to get the job, and you need it desparately
>to support your family, and you think that you might get fired if you
>object to strongly to the advances.

Wait, I thouht the issue was equal pay for equal work, not need.

>----
>Join the Greg Alt boycott! Put /galt/h :j in your killfile today!
>----

Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: What do you want?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 18:49:23 GMT

In article <C17vGI.IFq@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hpzg0650@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Hale P Zengingonul) writes:
>grisha@athena.mit.edu (Grigory Golberg) writes:
>
>>I've read a large number of articles in this newsgroup and
>>I was compelled to ask this question to all feminists out there:
>
>>Just what do you want? If you could, please explain it in calm
>>and logical manner. I'm just curious.
>
>  I just want equal treatment that's all. Why is this so hard
>to accept?

It's not quite that simple. Did you catch the thread about bathroom
facilities? It seems that equal -usage- requires that the womens room
have more facilities. Maternity leave, men and women have quite
different requirements here, for reasons of basic biology. There are
so many exceptions (legal and otherwise) that "equal treatment" is
a misnomer.

And as an aside, we seem to have a male (presumably a feminist) speaking
for all feminists. Can I see some authentication that you do indeed
speak for "all feminists out there"? 
 					
>pinar
>pinar@aero.ece.uiuc.edu
>
>>****************************************************
>>| Women...can't live with them...pass the beer nuts|
>>|                                 (Norm Peterson)  |
>>| I love the women's movement...especially when I  |
>>|am walking behind it. (Rush Limbaugh)             |
>>====================================================
>>| Grigory Golberg, PI        grisha@athena.mit.edu |
>>****************************************************


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:04:38 GMT

In article <C17qEo.Fn7@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>
>>#Please distinguish between government and nonprofit institutions;
>>#the government is much much stronger, and this power attracts the 
>>#people who abuse power.
>
>>#Anyway, a broken watch *can* show twice per day the right time,
>>#but usually it is pretty much useless.
>
>>In article <C0poz1.IxH@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>>>I've seen quite a few government/nonprofit institutions that *do*
>>>work reasonably well. The best seem to be better than any
>>>private institutions I've been involved with. 
>
>>1) Please distinguish between government and nonprofit institutions.
>
>>2) Please give some examples of government institutions who have work
>>   reasonably well for a long time.
>
>The San Jose State University Math/CS Department.
>The University of Illinois Mathematics Department.

Technically speaking, these are not institutions. The institution in
question here sould seem to be SJU. So the question remains, do you
see SJU as being 'efficient'?
 
>I have been happier with *these* institutions (although they're
>not perfect) than any profit institutions I was ever involved with.
>


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 03:35:18 GMT

In article <3205@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan21.094417.15750@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>|> Women don't even need toys to fuck men.  They can use their fingers
>|> and/or hands.  Or the legal system.  (Figured I'd throw that in for
>|> the anti-feminists in the newsgroup.)
>
>Indeed.
>
>I maintain, however, that the cultural connotation to the active verb 
>"to fuck" is masculine.

I'm not sure it is cultural.  Although for once, you and Dworkin agree
on something, since she seems to think it is too.

I hear hetero men and women both talk about fucking and getting fucked
(sexually).

If a man is lying on his back, with his arms and legs tied, and is
engaged in vaginal intercourse with a female partner, is he fucking or
being fucked?  Or both?  Or neither?

>Isn't that why women lawyers also wear suits (& ties). Active fucking
>is a masculine trait, just like the courtroom uniform.

I thought it was the assumption that, if women want to be taken
seriously in male-dominated professions, they need to resemble men as
much as possible.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas)
Subject: Re: Feminist=Equality? Errrr.... Nope.
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:55:30 GMT

In article <C1822K.B1G@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.181634.19947@llyene.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>>In article <C131zH.52q@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.com (Karl Denninger) writes:
>>>
>>>And I've done some stupid things while drunk.
>>>
>>>However, I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MY ACTIONS WHILE DRUNK.
>>>
>>>In fact, society holds me responsible for my actions while drunk, including
>>>what I consent to.  Why is it different for women in bed?
>>
>>Suppose you were passed out drunk and someone stole your wallet.  
>>Wouldn't you like to prosecute the person who stole it?  I think
>>society, while acknowledgeing that being that drunk is a 
>>stupid thing to do, would find the thief guilty of robbery.
>
>If I'm passed out I cannot give consent to sex or giving away my wallet.
>Straw man argument deleted.

It's not a strawman.  While I'm sure you don't feel this way, I
have known men and women who feel that a passed-out woman is fair
game and deserves what she gets.  These same people would raise
a loud cry if their wallet was stolen while they were passed out.

>
>>People, male or female, are going to find loopholes in laws
>>and take advantage of them.  However, the fact that some women 
>>say they were raped when they weren't does not mean that *no* 
>>woman is ever raped in similar circumstances.  
>
>Didn't say it does.  However, I do say that if you get willfully drunk, but
>are <conscious>, and give consent then you have.  Period.

I say it depends on circumstances.  Two drunks mutually consenting
to sex is not rape of anybody, regardless of how they feel the
next day.  However, a sober person seducing a drunk person (and
knowing the drunk person wouldn't consent while sober) is taking
advantage of that person.  While this sober person is not as criminal
as the person who jumps out a bush and assaults another person, I
feel they are definitely wrong and some sort of punishment is required.  
(If it's a YoungAndStupid(tm) person, then they are in need of
serious maturity and should get off with a lighter sentence than
an OlderAndWiser(tm) person who should know better.)  A stiff 
talking to is also required for the drunk person.

Julie
DISCLAIMER:  All opinions here belong to my cat and no one else

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: na 
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 07:44:46 GMT



In article <1993Jan20.045753.27442@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <C12qAv.26v@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>White people don't suffer from racism, hence they obvoiusly benefit from
>>it?  I think that the definition everyone else is using is whether white
>>people are better off than they would be in the absence of racism.

>There are different levels.  If I get a better job or apartment than I
>deserve simply because I'm white, that benefits me.  Does it benefit
>society?  No.  So, if you're saying that what benefits society
>benefits whites, then racism affects whites negatively.  But if you
>say that whites get undeserved jobs, housing, promotions, etc. simply
>because they're white, that benefits whites (at the expense of
>non-whites and the equality of society).

But have you received these undeserved benefits?  I have difficulty thinking
of areas of my life which would be different in the absence of racism.  I
think a case could be made for sexism, because of the numbers of people
involved and the different character of the differentiation.

Ken
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert)
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 20:35:27 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories -- Database Research Group

In article <93018.090052RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>
>From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
>Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
>-
>-I do think whites as a class benefit from racism in this country.
>-
>   Farthing is confusing benefits and a lack of loss....

True, but the correct argument to demonstrate that whites as a class benefit
(in some ways) from racism is that by oppressing certain other groups, members
of those groups are offered less access to economic resources, which in turn
maintains a larger majority of the economic pie available to be divided up
among whites as a class. 

I put in the note (in some ways) above because I believe that in the long
run, we all lose from racism, if we believe in the capitalist tenet that
given the opportunity, people will flourish and create a whole that is
bigger for everyone.

Joseph Albert
albert@hplabs.hp.com
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Date: 25 Jan 93 19:40:50 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1993Jan23.033518.23262@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
|> In article <3205@tymix.Tymnet.COM> baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
|> >I maintain, however, that the cultural connotation to the active verb 
|> >"to fuck" is masculine.
|> 
|> I'm not sure it is cultural.  Although for once, you and Dworkin agree
|> on something, since she seems to think it is too.

I am curious as to why you say this. I don't believe I've ever mentioned
Dworkin or her ideas on the net.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7704 soc.men:23403
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: If ljf did not see it then it just does not exist
Date: 26 Jan 93 23:18:14 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1993Jan18.072911.15112@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
#I agree with some of what you've said, that racism deprives our
#culture and society of diversity and equality.  And perhaps, by not
#hiring the best person, it damages our economy.  (I've never been very
#convinced about this, though, since many businesses that discriminate
#on the basis of sex, color, ethnic background, or sexual orientation
#seem to do quite well and aren't in any fear of going bankrupt.)  

In article <C1H7qu.7o0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>I thought someone recently won a Nobel Prize for proving this point.  (That
>discrimination does cost.)

\begin{sarcasm}
The "proof" is meaningless because the Noble Prize is given by sexist/
racist criteria.  There is just no other way to explain why so many 
white males received it.  (Maybe it's time to have some affirmative 
action quotas there.)
\end{sarcasm}
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 17:14:23 GMT

In article <C19vv5.B6y@hplntx.hpl.hp.com> albert@hpl.hp.com (Joseph Albert) writes:
>In article <93018.090052RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>>
>>From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
>>Subject: Re: Men doing Male Bashing
>>-
>>-I do think whites as a class benefit from racism in this country.
>>-
>>   Farthing is confusing benefits and a lack of loss....
>
>True, but the correct argument to demonstrate that whites as a class benefit
>(in some ways) from racism is that by oppressing certain other groups, members
>of those groups are offered less access to economic resources, which in turn
>maintains a larger majority of the economic pie available to be divided up
>among whites as a class. 

There are limits to free spending money, but you can always invent another
"ecomonic pie". The Japanese did it with VCRs. The problem with arguments
of this sort is that they must necessarily ignore any successful minority
groups, because they claim anti-<non-minority> bias. Most asians are doing
just fine. The Chinese were brought over as indentured servants to build
the railroads. Why are they not in the same boat as the blacks?

I suspect that problem is culture. Not ours, but the native African
culture many hold on to. A friend spent several years in Swaziland with the
Peace Corps. When he got back, I was amazed at how slow he spoke and acted.
These cultures are alien to life in America. And from what I have seen
in TV specials, and from exposure to teachers, in many black schools, 
you will get beat up at school for acting like whitey and getting an
education. It is actively discouraged in many school's, massive peer
pressure is exerted to not learn. Is it any wonder that these children
cannot compete in the job market years later?

What about busing? Has that improved the education situation? It seems
not. In fact, it seems that at great cost, we have degraded education
overall. 

Social problems in minority groups will not be fixed by blaming another
group. 
 
>I put in the note (in some ways) above because I believe that in the long
>run, we all lose from racism, if we believe in the capitalist tenet that
>given the opportunity, people will flourish and create a whole that is
>bigger for everyone.
>
>Joseph Albert
>albert@hplabs.hp.com


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Male Men Bashers
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 06:11:18 GMT

In article <11832@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@dirac.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <1993Jan22.095536.1821@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>Well, for one thing, the _Humanist_Manifesto_ doesn't say much about 
>>gender/sex roles or gender equality.
>
>The modern one (Paul Kurtz et. al.) has some statements about gender equality.
>Not much, though.
>
>> [in other words, last I checked, the term is taken]
>
>Some people have been using the term "equalist," but it's kind of an ugly 
>word IMO.


	Much less ugly and more clear to most people than "egalatarian"--
	which, despite it's definition, carries a pretty strong elitist
	or intelluctual tone, while "equalist" does not.


 


-- 
Attempts to lessen the burden of proof in rape | Why not put me in your kill
trials are violent assaults on civil rights.   | file?  add: "/: rsrodger/h :j"
  =====boycott=is=coercion=is=censorship=is=closed minded=is=cowardice=====
Pyramid schemes are illegal unless you're the US government.| Evolution works.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Boycotts (was Re: Why are many low-income women fat?)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:54:38 GMT

In article <C185KJ.uA@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

[institution stuff ommitted]
 
>One concluding remark. In a previous posting, you claimed that women
>were less aggressive than men. 

No I did not. You have me confused with some other poster. You had mentioned
a woman you know who was very aggressive <or something similar>, and I
suggested that she might have more testosterone than is usual for women.
You can generalize if you wish, but please do not attribute your 
generalizations to me. I would say that even if I agreed with the 
generalizations, but that is not the issue that I am addressing.

>                                       I am not interested in arguing any
>further about brain testosterone, in this context. 

I found the followup poste quite interesting, and note that you not only did
not respond, but it looks like <my observation> you will ignore and forget
the info posted. Why?

>                                                     I would just like
>to suggest you read alt.flame (which I subscribed to for an afternoon,
>for fun). A good percentage of the posters are female, and they
>seem to be as accomplished at their art (unwarranted aggression) as any
>male!  

You know, people do the damndest things while posting. Mild mannered wimps
act like Conan and post threats. Posting behavior would make a nice thesis
for someone, but if you think that this in any way mirrors their real
behavior, you might be surprised. This is more true for freshmen and 
newbies from public domain unix systems than long-time posters, although
some never ourgrow it. A PHD in physics recently posted threatening a
lawsuit because of a disagreement (Jack Sarfetti, somewhat of a fringe
physisist, but a PHD nonetheless).

 
>Have fun!
>Lenore Levine


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: Does Rini know?  (Re: If ljf did not see it then it just )
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 17:44:05 GMT

In <1993Jan27.034358.7332@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>In article <C1H7qu.7o0@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>I thought someone recently won a Nobel Prize for proving this point.  (That
>>discrimination does cost.)

>I'd be interested in hearing more about this.  You have any more info?

I had read this in several of Rini's posts.  Perhaps she can give us more
information if she is still around.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7507 soc.women:22959