HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: "Ms." Promotes "Satanic Cult" Scare (Reposting)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:40:59 GMT

Article 36819 of sci.skeptic:
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.skeptic,alt.sexual.abuse.recovery
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: "Satanic Ritual Abuse" in the media
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 04:07:04 GMT

The cover story on the new issue of _Ms._ magazine is 
                 "Believe it!
            Cult Ritual Abuse Exists
               One Women's Story"

Inside is a 6-page first-hand account by "Elizabeth S. Rose" (a
pseudonym). The article ends "If we want to stop ritual abuse, the
first step is to believe these brutual crimes occur."

The lead story on ABC's "Primetime Live" was also on ritual abuse. It
was much more skeptical. It pointed out that some psychotherapists
were getting rich finding ritual abuse almost everywhere they look.
The show also talked to four women who said their psychotherapists had
exploited them by feeding them fantasies (while ignoring their
truthful accounts of "ordinary" abuse.) Primetime Live also said that
an FBI study (dated January 1992?) concluded that there was no
evidence of even one ritual-abuse related murder. (Some of the
psychotherapists claim that tens or even hundreds of thousands of
ritual murders are involved.)

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7040 alt.activism:20351 talk.rape:3035
From: aj336@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Pat Weber)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.activism,talk.rape
Subject: Re: NEWS: Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
Date: 11 Jan 1993 18:17:59 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


If men insisted on attending an all-womens group, the men would
be rejected as interfering busy bodies - another example of
wanting to dominate.But when women do it - that's different.

Just another example of the hypocritical double standard of racial and
gender quota'ing'.

Putting my flame suit on....

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: The BEM Test
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:05:00 GMT

In article <C017oD.2n@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>holzman@fnalno.fnal.gov (Daniel B. Holzman) writes:
>
>>In article <BzzoAJ.Kwo@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore 
>>Levine) writes:
>>> The fact that I found this test, suggests that it was in use some time
>>> in the past ten years. I am curious when and how it was devised, whether
>>> it's still in use, and for what clients it's intended.
>
>>If I recall my Psych of Women correctly, the Inventory was devised by feminist
>>psychologist Dr. Sandra Bem.  The result of the inventory are plotted on a
>>"masculine"/"feminine" cartesian axes set, as follows:
>
>>Quadrant I (high masculine/high feminine): subject is culturally androgynous
>>        II (low  "        /high "       ): "       "  "          feminine
>>       III (low  "        /low  "       ): "       "  "          neuter (?)
>>        IV (hihg "        /low  "       ): "       "  "          masculine
>

I took a test much like that in college, but in my recollection, I was not
rating myself, but whether I perceived the adjectives themselves as masculine
or feminine or neutral.

I don't know if I was hyper-aware (as the only male in the class) or what, but
basically after putting neutral for the first five, I skimmed the list and
saved myself a lot of internal arguments [eg below] and just filled out neutral
for all of them.

So I ended up being at the origin (in no quadrant at all).  Oddly enough, all
the others (women) in the course were off in the same quadrant.

[sample internal argument]
I see 'strong'.  First reaction: masculine.  Then: strong is not inherently
physical: neutral.
-- 
-- 
--
-- "TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Education, who's responsibility. was(Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:59:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.014301.29093@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.220128.10494@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>In article <C0JsLB.IuG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>
>: >	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
>: >	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
>: >	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to. 
>
>: ...Not necessarily. I am a het woman, I don't hate men; however, I've
>: known a few that did. And mostly these were women who had spent a
>: good part of their lives assuming an artificial personality with
>: men, for economic reasons.
>
>: I think that if I had had to be a courtesan with women I would have
>: ended up hating women; with men, hating men; and with green space
>: aliens, hating them the most! There's nothing like faking orgasm (or
>: even friendship) to make you hate the person you're doing it for!
>
>>So, implicit in *your* Cosmology is the notion that A) The only reason
>>women enter into long-term relationships with men is for money, that
>>there's no possibility they might REALLY fall for the guy; their orgasms
>>must be faked, etc.; and B), any kind of dependence upon a man is
>>degrading, horrid, unthinkable.
>
>	I think it was unpleasant men that she was talking about and
>of adopting a fake personality to please them.
>
>	And Robert Sheaffer, do you _seriously_ think that men ought
>to be one-man welfare agencies? That's what happens when women are
>economically dependent on men.
>
>	I think it is very tacky for men to complain about women being
>after their money while doing nothing to ensure that women can be
>economically independent of men.

This is interesting. Who's responsibility -is- it for an adult to gain
job skills? And what is she does not -want- job skills? I know several
women who will -not- go back to school because they hate it with a
passion. And some of them bemoan their current job status.

I think your suggestion amounts to a requirement for treating women as
children. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's a lose-lose
situation.

But it must be comforting to know that the man is always available to
be blamed, for all occasions.
 
>/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
>/lip@s1.gov


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: SURGDM@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Diane)
Subject: Re: Saint Robert the Skeptical
Organization: University of Missouri
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 13:18:52 CST

In article <1993Jan6.195235.23012@netcom.com>
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>In article <1993Jan06.004608.22218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>No, the fact that Robert posted it doesn't automatically make it wrong.
>>
>THANK YOU! I can see that my star rises ever higher. Recently, my "right"
>to post was grudgingly conceded. Now it's even acknowledged
>that I'm *less than* 100% wrong! Hey, at this rate, sainthood can't
>be too far away!  :)
 
Wait a minute, before you call Rome... just because you're not *automatically*
wrong doesn't mean you're not eventually wrong... :)
And if I remember my catachism- you're going to have to come up with a few
miracles anyway.... (no, card tricks don't count!).
 
Diane
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Damned Souls (was Re: Version Five)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 17:05:52 GMT

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>In article <C08roy.JFG@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
>levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>>The government of Alabama was ordered to institute a *temporary* policy
>>of affirmative action, to amend for previous discrimination. 

>"*temporary*"?!

>Look Lenore, affirmative action started more than 20 years ago as
>a temporary solution, and today we have all the young (and old) 
>women who demand affirmative action for themselves.

>I think that the word "temporary" has been used to reduce men's
>resistance, but the people who have pushed affirmative action
>think that "temporary" is something like 3,000 years.

The policy specifically approved by the U.S. Supreme court was
temporary. 

>>>Most employers and most schools ask all applicants to fill out
>>>affirmative action when they apply.  In those forms one has to 
>>>tell about his/her race and sex.  I'm a little surprised that
>>>your school has not asked you to fill out any.

>>My gender is obvious from my name. My race is Caucasian, which would not
>>grant me any affirmative action preference. 

You eliminated:
>> I do not list any fact on these forms which would give me affirmative
>> action preference.

>If everybody would refuse to fill up affirmative action forms, then
>the bean counters will have a much harder time enforcing schools
>to accept more women and/or minorities.

>It is your choice if you want to cooperate with the system or not,
>but cooperating with the system, and being sure that you are/were/will
>be accepted on your own merits, seems to me a little contradictory.

>Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

I would like to hear more, on why you think those forms should
not be filled out.

However, I don't see how my filling them out, in the way I do,
would in any way change the way I'm evaluated. 

You are right that they can tell my gender from my name. Do you think
that names should be eliminated from these forms? 

(Of course, my gender would still be obvious in an interview...)

Lenore Levine 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 19:05:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan8.230044.26794@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>
>	So I think that a lot of men will have to learn to treat women
>with respect, and not simply treat women as sex objects or pride
>themselves on being one-man welfare agencies.

 Yes, those Het Men really *are* a sorry lot. Some day they might even
 become as good as women and gay men, but I doubt it.

>	C'mon, buster. Gay men can show plenty of virility. Just look
>at some Blueboy magazines some time :-) Or read soc.motss. There may
>be fewer "big lugs" among them, but that's probably a side effect of
>become aware of one's sexuality. I don't see why men have to be "big lugs".

Well, that depends on how you define "virility," a word meaning many
different things in different contexts. If you mean "capable of maintaining
an erection," then plainly you are correct. However, "virility" is usually
thought of as denoting some sort of behavior. Actually, we've had this
discussion before. Twice, I think. You said something like "Some gays
really ARE macho, see how they dress up in black leather." And I said something
like, "But macho is not what you wear, it's how you act. Maybe this
'leather' is just a form of cross-dressing, for sexual arousal." I asked
you whether these "macho gays" get into fights in bars over their lovers,
like ordinary "machos" do. And twice, you never replied, so I think
I know what the answer is. In other words, in gay bars does Tim say
to Joe, "Joe, get your measly hands off Bob or I'll knock your teeth
out?" Is this an "ordinary" occurrence? If not, then these guys are not
"macho" in the usual sense. (Me, I *never* get into fights like that.
I wear glasses.)

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!


     "Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that
      they are not even superficial."

                   - Friedrich Nietzsche    (The Gay Science: 126)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Gender Hostility (was Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders)
Date: 09 Jan 93 07:05:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1993Jan8.190855.16866@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>	Reason it bottom-up, instead of top-down. You're a woman. Your
>sweetie mistreats you. He sleeps with someone else, or treats you like
>shit, whatever. You get angry, and some of that anger comes out as anger
>against men, generally.
>
>	It isn't fair, but it's very human, and the example above works
>with either sex in either role. 

...very true, and it may be *less* likely to occur in same sex
relationships, because then when your sweetie mistreats you and
you get angry, generalizing your anger into anger at your sweetie's
gender would include yourself, and you're not the one doing X,
it's that (*&d%^*!#%#D@*()^*&%#^ person that you hate. Or love. 
You're not sure. So you rant about, say, how you'll never date
a computer type again. Or a non-computer type. Or whatever.

:>

-jen
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: learning about "feminism" (was: Re: Equal -numbers-)
Date: 8 Jan 93 01:33:26 GMT
	<1993Jan06.223219.24274@microsoft.com>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jenk@microsoft.com's message of 06 Jan 93 22:32:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan06.223219.24274@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1993Jan5.224614.3803@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
>>-Feminists came along and said "everyone should be
>>-free to follow their own interests, and this is not true for women, so
>>-things need to be changed."  
>>
>>I've been considering this some more, and I still cannot agree with
>>it. I originally posted that this was not what feminists "came along"
>>and said, but upon reflection, this is not even what is being demanded
>>today....
>>
>>This is the only place where I have heard any claims about "everyone should 
>>be free to follow their own interests"...

>My reaction to this was to wonder where Rich learned about
>"feminism". And to wonder where Muffy learned about "feminism".
>Where did they get such different ideas...since they're definitely
>different.

I learned about feminism from talking to other feminists.  Like you, I
got a degree in Computer Science and took minimal humanities courses.
No Women's Studies at all (I'm not sure if my university even had a
Women's Studies department, although I have an idea that they did).  I
have never studied feminism; I have read a few "feminist" books,
although most of these were somewhat strange, like the one of feminist
fairy tales (I've always been interested in fairy tales).  I haven't
read any feminist theory books, either, but I have a feminist friend who
is very well-read and can give me references when I'm interested in some
topic related to feminism.

I've developed most of my ideas on my own, from observations of the
world; the ideas that come from other people tend to come from my
philosophy classes (haven't studied any feminist philosophers, but if
the UC Extension comes up with a class in that, I'd be interested).

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                      | ~Never had a lot of faith in human beings/
muffy@mica.berkeley.edu            |  but sometimes we manage to shine/like a
"amorous inclinations"? Aha! I'm   |  light on a hill beaming out to space/from
not "not straight," I'm *inclined*.|  somewhere hard to find~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.activism.d,talk.rape
From: andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman)
Subject: Re: NEWS: Feminists Integrate Men-Only Rape Talk
Keywords: press rape
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 00:59:40 GMT

>	The main reason given for having a men-only group was
>so that men would "feel comfortable asking frank questions
>about rape without fear of retribution" in the words of police
>spokeswoman Angie Tipton. Former organizer Daniel Klein said the
>forum's 'purpose was to provide a comfortable atmosphere for men
>to discuss rape and ask questions about it.'
>
>	Many feminists said that they thought it was wrong for
>men to feel comfortable about rape. If men feel uncomfortable in
>a forum like that, that's good, said one feminist who is a man.

Thus demonstrating that said feminist is clueless.  Being comfortable
at the discussion says nothing about whether or ont one is comfortable
raping.  However, it may say quite a bit about whether or not one may
attend.  Make the whole thing "uncomfortable" enough and you're going
to have to club men to get them to show up.

I realize that the "let's punish them, they're men and women hurt"
feeling is common, but it isn't always expressed rationally.

-andy
--
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:7051 soc.men:22539
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Do you believe in what you want me to believe?
Date: 11 Jan 93 20:13:20 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

#I don't want to help a system which is discriminatory, and 
#passive resistance seems to me appropriate.  IMO if everybody
#will refuse to fill up AA forms, the AA system will collapse.

In article <C0nDBu.4p2@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:

>Once again: How would my gender be obvious from the forms, in
>a way that's not obvious from my name?

If you are so sure that the affirmative action forms give
you no advantage then why do you fill them up?  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Susie Bright on Camille Paglia
Originator: lip@s1.gov
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Labs, Livermore CA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 09:17:34 GMT


	Here is what Susie Bright, of _Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex
World_ had to say about her, in her chapter "Undressing Camille" (oh,
my, what does _that_ title suggest? SB seducing CP?) in _Susie
Bright's Sexual Reality_.

	SB wrote an introductory section in which she recalls CP
claiming that she was SB's only friend in academia, which fits in with
CP's rather big ego. She is bitter than novelist Susan Sontag will not
concede to her the title of the world's biggest female thinker, for
example, and according to Susan Faludi, she has attacked mainstream
feminists out of pure spite, since she is jealous of them being more
successful than she is, an unrecognized professor at the Philadelphia
University of the Arts. SB also stated that she snickered at how CP
was exaggerating for effect, and that when CP claimed that lesbians
are intellectually sterile, that "_You_ haven't gotten any in a long
time", as if she needed some good sex courtesy of some lesbian
sexpert.

	In the interview, CP repeated her criticisms of mainstream
feminism of being erotophobic, mentioned that Thomas/Hill case as an
example, and claimed that she was simply doing some guerrilla theater.

	SB and CP also reveal a different in sexual histories, with SB
starting out uptight and unadventurous, and CP wanting some real
rough, down-and-dirty sex and not getting any, which is what she likes
about men.

	SB diagnosed CP as a "butch bottom", some macho woman who is
looking for another woman who can really flip her, a diagnosis that CP
found rather amusing.

	CP also confessed to being a "fag hag" and to being very
influenced by gay men.

	Afterwards, according to one newspaper article, CP accused SB
of leaving the women's movement to the Dworkinites. SB's response was
that CP had never been accused of being a dildo dolly, of never being
called stupid for only being interested in sex, of being threatened
for being a pornographer, or anything like that.
-- 
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/lip@s1.gov
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:27:08 GMT

sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>	I have heard this "het women hate men more etc" comment about
>	3 times before.  Each time was from a lesbian who did hate men.
>	These two women I know ( unfortunately ) were pretty outnumbered
>	by the lesbians I know who dont have a problem with men, and with
>	the men/women I know who love the opposite sex despite some general
>	traits they dont like.  Take this ancedotal point for what it is
>	worth.

>	In saying het women have more reason to hate men because they are
>	around them more, does implicitly assume there are odious traits
>	in men in general to be exposed to or not exposed to. 

...Not necessarily. I am a het woman, I don't hate men; however, I've
known a few that did. And mostly these were women who had spent a
good part of their lives assuming an artificial personality with
men, for economic reasons.

I think that if I had had to be a courtesan with women I would have
ended up hating women; with men, hating men; and with green space
aliens, hating them the most! There's nothing like faking orgasm (or
even friendship) to make you hate the person you're doing it for!

>SFJR

Lenore Levine
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Feminism's Lesbian Leaders (was: Why are there only men on)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 02:48:05 GMT

In article <michael.726529492@glia> michael@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Michael) writes:
>In <1993Jan8.185322.14911@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>>I doubt that gay men WOULD be accused of "misogny" much, they
>>having already done to themselves what feminists hope to do
>>to the rest of us! :)
>
>Oh give me a break! :)
>
>I'm not even going to respond to this one.  I think just bringing it back
>for us all to read and laugh about again is enough of a reply. :)

Maybe you can explain to me then what Sheaffer means.  I have no idea
what gay men have done to themselves that feminists hope to do to the
rest of men.

>Who told you gay men were supposed to promote nonviolent behavior?

I guess you missed the undercurrent of this statement.  Gay men are
hopeless, effeminate sissies when they aren't being violent sex-driven
maniacs.  If it suits the argument to have hetero men be "real" men,
then gay men are non-violent sissies.  If it suits the argument to
have hetero men be calm, gentle, loving husbands and fathers, then gay
men are violent sex-driven maniacs.  Either way, straight is good and
queer is bad.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism