HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 23:13:28 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1dugagINN97g@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>
teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>If you are saying that women and men are equally well-off in society,
>I have to disagree.  I think it's fairly well accepted that women have
>been disadvantaged and considered inferior for quite a long time.
>I also think this is something you disagree with.  

Women are disadvantaged and considered inferior in some ways, and
men are disadvantaged and considered inferior in other ways (I
assume we're talking about North America in the 1990s).

What I'm asking is whether you think the disadvantages on one side
are more important, significant, telling, oppressive, etc. than the
disadvantages on the other.  If so, you must be using some sort of
uniform scale on which to compare the two, in order to conclude that
women 'have it worse' in an overall, absolute, objective sense.

What exactly is that scale?  For instance, how do you compare the
lower lifespan and higher rates of suicide intent in men relative,
say, to the higher rape rates in women?  We're obviously talking
apples and oranges here; how exactly do we make the comparison?
How do -you- know how difficult being male is (assuming you're female)?

I'm just wondering what the yardstick is.  It apparently isn't
psychological well-being, because you say you wouldn't be impressed
with this sort of information, no matter how extensive.  If being 'worse
off' by your intuitive assessment has no psychological significance,
why should anybody be concerned about it?

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:16:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.045411.19018@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.213837.13554@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov1.174836.12192@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct26.224830.20044@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>>>>>Really - I think you'll find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>>>>accomodating the husband than the other way around. To get some peace
>>>>>>many women would just lie there and allow her body to be used by
>>>>>>her husband, even though she wasn't in the mood at all. Allowing
>>>>>>this use is made easier to her by a life of brainwashing from
>>>>>>society about the role of wives. But how often would a tired husband,
>>>>>>not at all interested in sex right now, consent to go down on his
>>>>>>horny wife just to "see <her> reasonably well-satisfied sexually"?
>>>>>Proof by stereotype, how compelling.
>>>>It is hard to representative data for historical situations.  
>>>              | (find)?
>>>Does not the "I think you will find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>accomodating the husband" seem like a clear representative claim? But
>>>I have had it claimed that a) women have the same sex drive as men,
>>>and b) men more often want sex. The above seems more in line with (b).
>>Not necessarily.  It could easily be that women and men wanted sex equally
>>often; but that women were expected to perform when he wanted and she didn't,
>>but not vice versa.
>>There is not even a correlation between the two, much less cause and effect.
>What?? There is no correlation between the occurances of men having sex
>and the occurances of women having sex? Are you hypothesizing 100%
>homesexual sex? I really do not understand this at all. 
>As for cause and effect, is there not a common cause?

Duh.  The non-existent correlation is between 1) Carol's story of the compliant
wife and 2) men having larger libidos than women.  I was beginning to think
that Rich actually read the posts he tore into.

-dave
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:40:42 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations


Just one last note from me on the male/female sex drive thread.... 

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>No, you omit every instance where you actually have fucked up, and ignore
>all references to them when I point them out. Funny how some text keeps
>disappearing...

Rich, this is because, very much unlike you, I believe in trying to keep
my responses short and to the point.  Yes, I know it's *radical*, but I
believe in *editting* the posts I reply to, to preserve only the most
relevent and pressing issues.  (Perhaps you might meditate for a moment
on the possible benefits of such practice.)

IMHO, the "did not!"/"did TOO!" banters you seem to have a habit 
of getting involved in (which result in huge cascading attribution 
lines and dozens of screenfuls of already-been-read text...) 
are pretty damn silly. 

In any case, I've said what I wanted to say on this thread to the point 
that I'm confident that anyone who had an inclination to try to 
understand me has gotten the chance.  You may continue 
to say that I lied or that I'm no fair or whatever, if you want to.  
I'm sure you have a huge audience just panting for your next follow-up
on this thread.  :)  But keep in mind that I just feel no compulsion 
to address arguments that have gone around sixteen times already, never
had much merit or importance in the first place, and are obviously 
going nowhere.  

I'm so finicky.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:19:51 GMT

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

Sorry, Rich. I can only read so many posts, because I only have so much
time.  I have time to comment on even fewer.   You're not referring to the
flame baiter that dropped in recently, are you?  If you are, then I guess
I'm guilty.  If you're referring to another thread, then I must have missed
it.  		

Care to repost, mystery person?
 
> Some men -are- bad, and should not be out on the street. But not the vast
> majority. Some women are in a similar condition, and should not be out
> on the street either. But this judgement needs to be made on a person-to-
> person basis, not on a sex-by-sex basis.
> 
> 
> Rich
> 
> payner@netcom.com

I wholeheartedly agree.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:21:23 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <MUFFY.92Nov11130708@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>However, I find them
>>>extremely hot...particularly the androgynous seriously-feminist types.
>
>>According to the literature, you're in a small minority.
>
>Which literature is this?  Is this a minority of feminists, of het/bi
>women, or of all people who are attracted to men?

Women of unspecified sexual preference, but the trend is
probably more general than that.  See my first contribution
to this thread for a sampling of abstracts.

>*grin*...I can't imagine androgynous being synonymous with liberal in
>any sense.

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

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hasch@chem.queensu.ca (Hartmut Schmider)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Summary: Marxism and MacKinnon
Organization: Dept. of Chemistry, Queen's University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:35:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.005606.24686@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>In it, MacKinnon starts out with "Feminism and Marxism" (you didn't
>think that a "feminist theory of the state" would be otherwise,
>did you?)  [...]
>MacKinnon does not really disagree with this, [...]
>Yep, that's correct, folks - a big feminist
>honcho builds her intellectual foundation on "Marxist theory" in the year
>that Communism collapsed in Eastern Europe, yet people STILL think she's
>looking toward the future rather than stuck in the past!.

Communism bashing of this sort is not any better than the redneck common
sense it apeals to. It seems that the professional toga of the Scepticus Maximus
does not protect vital part and has therefore to be replaced by a leather jacket. 
Switching the laurels for a baseball cap, he? After several quotes out of
MacKinnons book, with which he is trying to ridicule somebody else than himself
for a change, the master shares his wealth of knowledge of western 
philosophy with us:

>If the paragraphs discussing "pornography" seem to make no sense, it is
>probably because the reader is unfamiliar with the technique that Marxists
>call "the Dialectic," which enables one to prove anything one wishes
>by demonstrating that everything both is, and is not, the same as 
>its opposite. 

and demonstrates his deep understanding of modern literature:

>(This is what Orwell was parodying when he wrote "War
>is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery", etc.). MacKinnon is trying to argue
>here that freedom for men means repression for women.

Bad Communism, bad. Worse Feminism, worse. Worst MacKinnon, worst,
because she

>builds her intellectual foundation on the theories of
>Marx and Engels. She savages heterosexuality, saying that all sex is
>rape. She is willing, even eager, to jettison the First Amendment to
>suppress so-called "pornography". 

Mr. Sheaffer, are you sure that the first amendment is really what you 
are trying to defend against a conspiracy where MacKinnon shakes hands
under the table with hard-line communists? Red, purple, green, they
are all in it together, and they are after YOUR heterosexuality. Not
only does MacKinnon think pink, she also

>is *already* dictating how you are allowed to behave in your workplace, 
>and in Canada she is now dictating what you may read or see.

Yep, folks. They have taken over. Too late now, at least in these parts.
Where Lenin failed, the RadFems have succeeded.

>And you thought that Marxist totalitarianism was dying or dead!  

Actually, I thought something else. But I don't tell.

>        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
> Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!
>       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet."

No sweat, blind alarm.                      Sincerely,Hartmut Schmider
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:22:39 GMT
Organization: Fachschaft Computerlinguistik, U of Saarland, FRG

tzeking@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (chan tze-king) writes:
> women should feel nothing but obliged to fulfill
> their reproductive responsibility to the species, bearing as many children
> as it is within their means to produce.
[...]
> if you fulfill your role as child barers of the species
> you are of paramount importance.  I only want to remind you of what most see
> to be your obligation to wellbeing of the race.  So stop fighting the system 
> and return to your roles, beside your man, providing for your children until
> your role in this function has passed.

Oh no - we German women have already had this from '33 to '45 (luckily I was
born well after that). PLEASE stop that kind of propaganda!
(Honestly, you sound like a modern edition of Mein Kampf. There's just the bit
about the Jews missing.)

			Julia 8-)

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				Julia Simon

 Fachschaftsrat Computerlinguistik	DIaLOGIKa GmbH
 Fachbereich 8.7, Bau 17, Zi. 201
 Universita"t des Saarlandes		Albertstr., Pascalschacht
 D-W-6600 Saarbru"cken, Germany		D-W-6602 Dudweiler, Germany

			email: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
			       sileas@coli.uni-sb.de
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: children and divorce
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 11:57:26 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.015448.4880@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard
Lynch) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov7.043132.2250@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >
> >It has been established for a long time that having children
> >reduces the likelihood of divorce (staying together for the
> >children's sake, have an important joint investment, etc.)
> >
> >There is an interesting footnote here however.  Apparently, boy 
> >children "hold marriages together" better than girl children.
> >
> >If the first child is a girl, the probability of divorce is .43.
> >If the first child is a boy, the probability of divorce is .39.
> >
> >If the marriage stays together long enough to have two kiddies:
> >
> >If they are both girls, the probability of divorce is .31.
> >If they are both boys, the probability of divorce is .27.
> >
> >It has been argued that this differential may be explained by the
> >fact that fathers take a larger role in raising boys and thus
> >releive the mother of over-reponsibility and frustration.  
> >
> >(see Morgan, Lye and Condran, American Journal of Sociology 94: 
> >110-129.)
> 
> That is scary.
> 
Think that's scary?  According to the New York Times (sometime earlier this
year) there are over a million females "missing" from the world's
population.  That is, while birth rates and infant mortality rates indicate
that a certain percentage of the population should be female, a lot of
these females just aren't there.  Much of this stems from cultures which so
devalue girls relative to boys that girls tend to suffer more often from
malnutrition and are not taken to doctors as frequently, such that young
girls die of ailments as uncomplicated as diarrhea.  In any case, they're
just not there to be counted.

That's scary.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Followup-To: alt.supermodels,soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:14:49 GMT

In article <BxGI8H.BMt@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>,
mmstahl@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (michael m. stahl) wrote:
> 
>    Try reading "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Campbell.  I do
> 
> michael m. stahl

A correction: Naomi Campbell is, I believe, a supermodel.  The author of
TBM is Naomi Wolf.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
From: pickerig@eee.bham.ac.uk (Mr. G. Pickering)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 09:49:35 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, England
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Kristen Kohlbecker (tyger@netcom.com) wrote:
: 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...

 Yesterday it was voted that women should be allowed to become priests,
 by two votes mind you. I have no opinion as to whether this is a good
 or bad thing, not being religious myself, but it is interesting all the
 same.

Guy.

PS. The vote was here in the Uk.

--
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Guy Pickering                  | School of Electronic & Electrical Eng,  |
| E-MAIL: G.PICKERING@uk.ac.bham | University of Birmingham,               |
| Tel: (021) 414 4340            | Edgbaston, Birmingham. B15 2TT.         |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| "I have ten pairs of trainers...One for each day of the week" - Sam Fox  |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Date: 8 Nov 92 01:03:53 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <BxCwnD.Kpr@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>>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?
>
>I don't know.  Maybe if you point out some of the awards that women are
>barred from, I could find out.  I really can't think of any that apply to
>Canadian scientists.  I know that I have never come accross one.

I don't know of any, which is why I asked.

Closest I can come is scholarships to all-male universities, which are probably
offset by scholarships to all-female universities.
Seems just as unfair as AA to me, btw.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 17:52:02 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
  
>>>>To my knowledge, no one has gotten away with saying/implying something 
>>>>like "all men are rapists" on the net.
   
>>>So you are saying that while using man when speaking of all mankind
>>>devalues women, talking about rape as if it were usual, normal, and
>>>almost the expected behavior does not in any way devalue men?
  
>>Nope. I have never claimed either.
 
>I did not ask if you -had- claimed, but if you find it reasonable now.

Okay.  I continue not to claim either.

rini
From: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Honest Question -- No flames please
Date: 10 Nov 1992 18:06:35 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

In article <1992Nov11.002443.113@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>And some interesting person wrote:
>>
>> So stop fighting the system 
>>and return to your roles, beside your man, providing for your children until
>>your role in this function has passed.

and then what?

>	Would you like the gender roles of the beehive instead?
>	Even in many human societies, women make significant economic
>contributions. And in our own, which has traditionally idolized
>housewifery, women often work. 

A very thought-provoking comment by Gail Sheehy in her book Passages:
not everyone realises that when a woman becomes a mother, her children
generally leave her 20 years or so later.  Her motherhood, which was
a more or less fulltime job up to that point, suddenly lacks a subject. 
At this point the woman is anywhere from 40-ish to 60-ish.  One of the 
smartest things a woman can do is be prepared for new things (like a career, 
for example) after her children have grown up and left her.  Regardless
of what you feel are proper roles for a mother/wife, you have to admit
it's not *all* childraising.

Teri Tracey              "When people are free to do as they like, they
 San Diego, CA            generally imitate each other."                   
  teri@sdd.hp.com  
=============================================================================
From: tomek@maple.circa.ufl.edu (Tomasz Mazur)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: KEEP WOMEN IN CHAINS (THATS WHERE THEY BELONG)
Date: 6 Nov 92 21:22:14 GMT
Reply-To: tomek@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Organization: University of Florida - CIRCA

In article <92306.130351DWL110@psuvm.psu.edu>, DWL110@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>FEMINISM IS FOR THE BIRDS AND ANY REAL WOMEN KNOWS THAT. WOMEN ARE BORN SUBMISS
>IVES AND LONG TO BE TREATED AS SUCH. 

...and so on.

Ha, ha. You are soooo funny...

tomek
 ******************************************************************************
 *                                   *                                        *
 *         TOMASZ MAZUR              *        tomek@maple.circa.ufl.edu       *  
 *                                   *                                        * 
 ******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism