HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:45:28 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>And some people who call themselves "survivors" of alleged child abuse
>also claim to have suffered ritual abuse at the hands of a vast,
>underground network of Satanic cults. Does *this* seem believable to
>you as well?

Well, I haven't seen any evidence of a "vast, underground network", but
there is some evidence that such groups exist on a local level.  In
fact there was a case in Western Canada just recently where members of
the local police force and several prominent citizens from several
small communities were investigated and eventually charged for what
amounted to the ritual abuse of some students at a day care centre.
This is at least enough evidence that I do not dismiss out of hand the
possibility of national and international organizations of these
people. There are, after all, national and international organizations
set up for the purpose of distributing illegal pornography (like S&M,
Bestiality, Snuff films (thats a joke son!)). The process would be the
same, word of mouth and common contacts.

I should point out that you seem to be under the impression that
skepticism works only one way. One should be skeptical about the
non-existence of these organizations/films/etc as well. Although in the
case of snuff films, the lack of evidence does point toward (although
not prove) their non-existence. I will be interested to see what
McKinnon can find. I will of course treat whatever evidence she
presents with the grain of sodium reduced salt substitute that any
information from someone who sets out to answer a question with the
answer already in mind.
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: cooper@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (Ralph 'Hairy' Moonen)
Subject: Re: Pornograpphy laws et al.
Followup-To: s
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 09:23:08 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.180609.14490@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> >But then again, Holland is a country where you buy your marihuana at a 
> >coffee-shop, your porn mags & video's at a petrol-station and hamburgers at
> >an electronics store, so whadja want? 
> 
> So are the women in Holland oppressed underpaid sex objects with no other
> value to society and no sense of self-worth?

I take it you forgot to enter a smiley after that sentence, but if not, then
I would like to say that that is not the case. Women in Holland generally
have the highest educational level of all European countries, barring maybe
Sweden or France. They are very productive members of society and are 
present in all levels of management and politics. Not enough of 'em yet
though, but we're way beyond other countries allready. Apart from that,
to an outsider, it might look like the Dutch women are seen as sex objects,
but the Dutch are so simplistic in these kind of things that hardly no-one
in the big cities cares about how others see it.

I must add however that whenever you leave the Amsterdam/Utrecht region, 
and enter the backlands that this liberal view stops. One would think
that a movie like "The last temptation of Christ" would present no problems
to the generally atheistic population of Holland, but one of the 
national networks received so many complaints they decided not to air it.
Also, in some highly-religious villages in Holland it is considered a no-no
if people don't go to church at least twice on sundays. I mean, it might look 
very liberal to an outsider, but we too can be quite prude....

--Ralph
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:48:33 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.010044.362@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
>In article <1992Nov21.161252.6193@nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>>
>>
>>     ..............................................................
>>
>>
>>Anyway, I, for one, do not assume that I have stumbled upon a mountain
>>of enlightenment.  Therefore I assume that my beliefs are just that:
>>my beliefs.  Other people's are equally valid. 
>                                 ^^^^^^^
>So no one is write & no one is wrong ? Say, beliefs of Hitler (in "Mein
>Kampf", for ex.) and Albert Shweitzer ( "Letters from the Lambarene" for ex.) 
>should be treated as equally respectful ? (I'm simplifing, but it was you
>who started simplifications)

I think it makes sense if you read that -other people's beliefs are
personally valid-. What you believe is real for you. But not necessarily
for any other person.
 
>>If only our so called
>>sceptic could come to the same conclusion...
>                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

To be fair, skepticism is not, by definition, a research field. Healthy
skepticism is just reasonable doubt. And technically, it is not up to the
skeptic to disprove things. If someone makes a claim, it is up to them
to back said claim. I have not noticed that the anti-gravity machime
market is saturated.

>So, (1)I'm "equally valid", ergo (2)I'd come to the same conclusion as you ?
>And you are math major ? Hmmm ... ;->

I believe the problem here is literary. 


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 22:23:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov21.182026.14492@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>| >...
>| >No, I was ridiculing the claim that MacKinnon began to be the victim
>| >of an apparently organized harassment as soon as she dared to investigate
>| >the dreaded Snuff mafia.
>
>thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>| I see no evidence that MacKinnon made this claim.
>
>In the article on the censorship dispute at U. Mich. which I
>posted in soc.feminism, there was some mention that anti-
>prostitution speakers and "sex workers" had been subjected to
>threats connected with pornography or opposition to it.  In
>addition, I have read accounts of sellers of pornography 
>being subjected to death threats.  

>                                  Given the passions aroused
>by the subject of sex-repression-and-pornography (can't have
>one without the other, so it's really one thing) 

I see three things, do you mean you can't have ---

sex without repression
repression without pornography
sex without pornography

or the reverse?  (you can't have which-one without which-other?)

Or did you forget a smiley? :^)

I think it would be better to leave them as three distinct subjects.

>                                                     and the very
>large amounts of money involved in the business, it would not
>be suprising if any public move by a figure mainly identified
>with the matter would elicit death threats.  Of course, not
>having access to police records or Ms. MacKinnon's telephone
>line, I can't verify her assertion, but it's certainly not
>inconceivable that such threats were received.
>-- 
>
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:20:00 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

As quoted from <1992Nov11.233553.19019@panix.com> by gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch):

> 2.  Is MacKinnon the biggest threat to free speech around?
> Prior to the election, I would have said that the
> totalitarian social reactionaries represented by Robertson
> and Buchanan were more serious, since they were much closer
> to the levers of power, and Bush appeared to be a Von Papen
> type, an opportunist with no visible principles beyond
> immediate political advantage.  With the defeat of Bush, we 
> can hope that the Republicans will drive the totalitarians
> out of their party.  In any case, they're out of power for
> awhile (except for the some of the judiciary).  So it may 
> be that the kind of person Kenn says MacKinnon is will 
> become more important.
> 
"Biggest"?  Hard to say.  Of course it's kind of moot, since there isn't a
dime's worth of difference between the people that you note and MacKinnon
herself.  In fact in various places, the ultra-radical feminist left and the
religious right have joined together in a loathsome marriage of convenience.

Andrea Dworkin and Donald Wildmon in bed together.  Now THAT'S the ULTIMATE
obscenity.... :(

> 5.  On what _Playboy_ is really all about...
> kb:
> |         Then try reading it instead of just looking at the pictures.
> | Playboy is quite political, with a liberal though not radical bias.
> 
> If you'd like to send me, say, 20 or 30 recent issues, I'd 
> be glad to analyze it more closely.  I'm certainly not going 
> to go out and buy them.  And I can't examine them at the 
> library because, according to a librarian I asked about it, 
> there is no way they can protect the magazines from having 
> all of the pages torn or cut out in a matter of hours.  This 
> means something, although I'm not sure exactly what.  Rabid
> anti-pornographers ripping them out with their teeth, 
> perhaps....

Of course all of this is beside the point, since it doesn't matter if it's
"political" or not, and there's nobody I trust to determine if it IS.  There's
NO requirement for any periodical to embody ANY great truths.  And if *I* got
make those determinations the way the MacKinnons of the world want to (and I
was so inclined), you'd have to get used to limiting your reading to "New
Republic", "International Defense Review", "Players Pictorial" and a select
few other august publications.  Fortunately I DON'T have that power, nor would
I use it.  Of course adherents of millenarian philosphies rarely consider
forebearance a positive trait....

> 
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 08:00:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.164115.12018@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov15.211540.20526@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>
>>So if you're intelligent, you automatically assume that there is no
>>such thing as a snuff-film?
>>
>>I've never seen one, but I think they could exist (not saying that any
>>do).  And I'll tell you why.  I've talked with child abuse survivors
>>who tell of experiences that many people wouldn't want to think were
>>true.  They were.  If people can mistreat children so terribly, it's
>>not such a stretch to imagine that somewhere there are people who
>>would pay to watch women, children, or men fucked and killed.
>
>And some people who call themselves "survivors" of alleged child abuse
>also claim to have suffered ritual abuse at the hands of a vast,
>underground network of Satanic cults. Does *this* seem believable to
>you as well?

A vast underground network of Satanic cults?  No.

Child abusers who use "Satanic" images to terrorize their victims?
Yes.

What better way of discrediting a child than to make her/his story
sound so ridiculous that no one believes it?  If I wanted to molest a
child and get away with it, mind-fucking would be the first thing I
would do.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Socialism for Women
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:04:28 GMT

In article <misdeva-161192203834@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <Bxo11L.9yp@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
>wrote:
>> 
>> >In article <misdeva-111192175853@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

[Don]
>> Abortion is, in general, an elective medical procedure.
>
>What about those abortions that are not elective?  Generally, those aren't
>covered either.

Then I would agree that those should be covered.


>In a society as pluralistic as ours, I don't think it's plausible to allow
>objections.  If each taxpayer were given the chance to make a laundry list
>of everything he/she did not wish to pay for, there would be no federal and
>potentially no state gov't.  (That may not be such a bad thing - hmmm...:)
>)

But doesn't that support government's *not* paying for abortions,
if the society, as represented by democratically-elected officials,
has decided not to do so?


>> >> I'd be happier with your socialism if it meant I, a man,
>> >> could retire to raise my children if I felt like it -- and
>> >> you'd foot the bill for my "freedom to choose."
>> >
>> >Look carefully.  I didn't say "let's socialize child care".
>> 
>> You said, "Someone has to pay for it, all of it."
>> 
>> You implied that "people, parents, taxpayers, all" are responsible
>> for children.

>Just as we are responsible for the rest of society.  Or don't we need to
>worry about children's welfare?

This attitude tends toward socialism.  Pay according to work done;
unequal but state-controlled distribution of goods.  Capitalists 
aren't obligated to worry about children's welfare (except insofar as 
they want to insure future production).  No value judgements implied, 
but you can certainly make your own.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:25:39 GMT

From uchinews!quads!mec6 Fri Oct 30 12:03:34 CST 1992
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>  It didn't seem absurd enough for
>>me to question it.  After all, there was a religiously inspired
>>celibacy movement at that time in our country.
 
>Not ABSURD enough to question? This "Minister's Wife" writes
>a supposed 19th century piece using 20th-century language and phrases,
>displays the type of man-hatred that only came into existence very
>recently, and doesn't even *mention* "God", or "self-sacrifice,"
>or "duty"!!!!!!! And you people think it's a 19th-century item!

Robert, what do you want?  I have already publicly stated that you
are probably right.  I have already said I think I wear pie on the 
face for this one.  Is there something more you want me to do to
clear this up?  Or are you just going to continue ridiculing me despite 
what I do or say?

BTW, no one here has argued that this is a 19th-century item after
your doubt was raised.  To the contrary, everyone has expressed
suspicion.

rini

- It's kinda weird, you know, having my sources ridiculed by a man
  who quoted from the _National_Enquirer_... and went on to defend 
  *that* as a reasonable source....  :(

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Who Is Really Really Oppressed? (was: Who is Really Oppressed ?)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Organization: Rice University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:00:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.032856.2353@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote: 
[lots deleted]
gf:
> ... we just
> thought the blacks were better off.  

It seems that Stewart Schultz has pretty much dealt with this one.
 
gk:
> | Self-defeating argument.  "At least the dominant parts of it..."
> | contradicts your assertion of (need I say binary ?) "oppressed" and
> | "oppressor" classes.

gf: 
> I don't think you mean to sound that naive.  If you are 
> really unaware of group and sub-group dynamics, I recommend 
> you read a book by -- of all people -- Eric Berne, called, I
> think, _Group_Psychology_.  It probably oversimplifies, but
> it contains some essential points.  One of them, relevant
> here, is that a dominant group is itself almost always
> structured into two or more parts, one of which dominates
> the other(s).  The most rationalized version of this
> tendency is called "hierarchy."

Yes I do mean to sound that naive, if a bizarre inability to see beyond
commonplace sexual stereotypes is your idea of sophistication.  The problem
with your oppressor class is that an awfully large fraction of its members
would appear to be "oppressed" themselves.   

gk:
> | The point of the above is this:  the concept of the "male oppressor", if it
> | was ever valid, is dead and buried for today's young adults.  (I rephrase: 
> | the concept is active alright, but the reality ain't).

gf:
> Maybe it is for a community of young adults -- young "middle
> class" adults, I think we'd want to add.  I'm not a young
> adult, so I can't argue with you from the standpoint of
> current personal experience.  I would note, however, that
> the necessity for success is derived from the capitalist
> system and these days, as far as I can see, it affects both
> sexes pretty equally.

It doesn't.  You must've missed the "Liberal men are a hot item" thread.
 
gf:
> Once you get out of sequestered groups of young middle-class
> people, though, I think you'll find it's a different story.

Every year, members of these "sequestered groups" leave to join the rest of
the U.S. population, taking a goodly number of values picked-up in college
with them.  To broaden things, we could get into the underclass if you like
(welfare for her, ventilation grate or prison for him), but we've done that
recently.

Sometimes Gordon, I think you'd have made an excellent Stalinist.


Garry.
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Criticizing Good Intentions (Re: Child Support)
Date: 23 Nov 92 14:58:00 GMT

In article <misdeva-161192204913@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

>Unless you're going to focus on both parts of a problem, your efforts at a
>solution can have only limited solvency.  I can't keep an individual from
>being "pro-life", but I can ask him or her to join with me in worrying
>about the already-born.  I think that's a "good intention", too, but you
>don't seem to agree.

I do agree.  I thought that was the point of the DeMoss Foundation
commercials, to say that there are alternatives and to publicize that
there are people willing to help.  If you want to argue that in fact
the DeMoss Foundation isn't providing *enough* help, that's fine (and
I'm not informed on that), but I don't see anything wrong in their 
trying to do so and to gather more support -- in what appears to be a 
well-intentioned alternative to abortion.

Does the DeMoss Foundation only say that alternatives are available, 
or does their charter include assistance in finding placement for children?

It seems that the DeMoss Foundation is providing what many women's groups
want anyway: a greater power to choose, among more alternatives and
with fewer economic restrictions.  It seems that people are upset because
the messengers are also "pro-life."

The number of "we want to adopt" ads in the paper is large and persistent.
(And racially biased.  But that's another (and upsetting) issue.)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 15:37:21 EST
From: <REA105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject:    PC again

     In response to Steve.  I am not arguing that telling people about their no
n-PC ways is bad.  I am saying that forcing PC is bad.
     I have had teachers that have lowered grades just because I or my friends
did not use PC, in the way that they saw PC.  Of course there was no way to pro
ve it, but every one knows that, this was the case in certain circumstances.
     As far as asking.  I do that on an individual basis, but what I am complai
ning about id`s the fact that when you meet someone new, you can use terminolog
y that some in the specific group have told you to use, and get slapped for it.
     By the way,  how did you get my typing to appear in your article.  You did
 not retype it did you.  Later Steve.  Rea105
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ed@scorpiocmc.ca (Ed Antosz)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Reply-To: antosz@scorpio.ic.cmc.ca
Organization: Canadian Microelectronics Corporation
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 17:09:58 GMT

In article <jay.1.722047982@uuserv.cc.utah.edu>, jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:
|> As my first posting to this group, I would like to pose the following:
|> 
|> 	Why do feminists consider a woman's right "to do with her body what 
|> she will" so basic when talking about abortion, yet so forien when the 
|> subject is pornography?  How about prostitution, suicide, drugs, etc.?

I think the argument is made that the social issues which make it important for
women to have control over their bodies are the same ones which force women into
prostitution (viz control over one's life, career, responsibility for self,
access to equal wages/opportunity, etc).  My understanding is that most of the 
women in the profession are not there of choice but rather of necessity.  
The same situation applies to pornography.  There argument is that most of the 
women involved in the business are there because that is often the only 
lucrative(?) option available to them.  

Looking at your statement on the surface shows that the positions are
contradictory.  Stepping back one level and looking at the causes of both shows
that perhaps the same argument applies to why women want control over their
bodies and at the same time object to pornography etc.

Ed
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:55:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

As quoted from <misdeva-101192162448@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> by misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra):

> In article <1992Nov10.010803.27326@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
> Sheaffer) wrote:

> > 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"!!!!!
> > 
> >         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
> >   
> 
> 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.

How about FICTITIOUS death threats?  Do you find THEM funny?  That was the
obvious intent of Mr. Sheaffer.  Did you find any humor in H. Ross Perot's 
unproveable claims of death threats and Black Panthers?  I did.

I find nothing at all repellent in making fun of self-serving conspiracy 
theories, especially in the absence of any proof to support them.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------