HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:44:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep25182331@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> In article <6327@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>>For the longest time, it hasn't been considered "right" or "correct" for men
>>to form organizations.  Many men's groups are met with hostility or are seen
>>as a threat to women's groups.

> Can you give some examples of this?  I have known men in various men's
> groups and they have never complained of this being a problem.

Sure!  "MENS RIGHTS, INC" a not-for-profit 501(c)3 corporation has been
around for a number of years.  One of their hardest problems is getting men
to join the organization.  They find that men don't take them seriously, for
men aren't used to joining organizations to fight for their rights.  They
found that men believe that it isn't "manly" to join together collectively;
men believe that they should "go it alone".  Funny, though, that men have
no problem joining together when it's a labor action -- they call those groups
unions!

If you want examples of men's groups being seen as threatening to women's
groups, get a subscription to Playboy.  (Check out the copies for the blind
at the local library if the pictures offend you).  There's often a discussion
of the uphill battles that men's group face.

Or check out soc.men -- you can find some information on men's groups there.

>>> If the problems facing men are as great as they appear on this
>>> newsgroup, I would expect to find dozens of organizations formed by men
>>> to work on these many problems.  Anyone have any ideas on this?

>>Make a sizable donation to the men's group of your choice.

> Um...the point was that it seems like they need to *form* some
> organizations, but they don't seem to do so.  I was not asking what I
> personally could do about this, I was asking why the millions of men in
> the area haven't done anything about it.  I mean, there are even
> hundreds of men on the net posting about these problems.  Surely they
> could start *some* sort of group?

Their are some groups, but they are struggling.  I assumed that you were
interested in helping to lend them some financial support.  The groups
really need it.  If you truly believe in equality, you'll want to help with
your very own pocketbook.  A group that defends fathers from charges of
sexual abuse in divorce proceedings is a good place to start.  Once again,
check out soc.men for details.

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 7 Oct 92 04:17:53 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Oct7.022614.11998@panix.com>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Now we have a shibboleth called "censorship."  Education
>being what it is these days, I should explain that
>_shibboleth_ was a meaningless word which an army in the
>Bible used to determine who were the good guys and who

Gordon probably talks about Judicum, 12,6; he makes a minor mistake
when he claims that _shibboleth_ was a meaningless word for an
agriculture-based society, but that's just a minor point.

Now for the major point; a couple of articles ago Gordon said:

#So again, we want to define it pretty precisely before
#we start slagging one another about it, right?

I tried to understand what Gordon means by censorship, so I
gave an example and asked "is this censorship?"  His response:

>But that's not the point, is it?  The point is to conjure 
>the demon DworkinMacKinnon, and thereby attack feminism in
>general.  

Gordon, if you really want to discuss censorship *your* way 
(fat chance...) then please define your terms first.  OK?

>Otherwise, there would have been an equally long
>discussion of free-expression feminists and even feminist
>pornographers.  But there ain't, surprise, surprise.

If feminists who have the guts to fight against censorship (e.g
Pat Califia or Joanna Russ) were the majority in the feminist
movement then I'd like it much more.  Since they are a small 
minority, I don't think that too many feminists are going (on the 
net and off the net) to say anything against MacKinnon in public.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Hillel                                         gazit@cs.duke.edu

A bachelor is a selfish, undeserving guy who has cheated some woman
out of a divorce.
		-- Don Quinn
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshman
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:03:41 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Oct5.200738.6899@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
|>For example, if you had a friend who didn't like being called 'tech-weenie' or
|> 'tech-geek', wouldn't you avoid calling him/her that?

That's "techno-weenie" and "techno-geek" please. Much more euphonious.
But, for that individual, yes. (caveat below)

|> Derogatory is in the eye of the recipient.

And as such out of the control and responsibility of the giver. Until I am
courteously requested by the individual to refrain. Then I will for that
individual. Of course if they're not courteous to me, why should I change.

|> What exists:
|> A whole class of words derived from man.

I have it from scholarly sources here on the net that woman was not derived
from the word man. It does seem to be a point of debate though.

|> A usage of some of said words in two meanings, one excluding females, one not

Only in the eye of the recipient.

|> A large number of people who are offended by these words.

I would be truley interested in the real numbers. Instead of trying to
proselytise a new English usage I think it would be more telling if
you found out why many women don't feel offended by either the term
freshman or woman.

BTW, put me in the class that doesn't care what we use, just as long as I
don't have to change every year for the sake of new incoming student's
feelings. Perhaps all college applications should have a blank for
Preferred Class Title. ;^)

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: julie@amazon.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:08:44 GMT
	<Bv8u7z.4Aq@cs.psu.edu> <v=_pqha.barry@netcom.com>
Organization: The Cultural Elite

barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>Test question: which is worse, a male-only draft, or one where
>both sexes are eligible? Stinking choice, but I prefer the former. At
>least only half the population gets shat on that way. If you'd choose
>the latter, perhaps the draft isn't your main concern?

	I liked the rest of your post, but I don't agree with your logic,
here.  Presumably, whether we had an all-male draft or a male-and-female
draft, the number of people drafted would be the same.  (Or do you think
that with a greater available pool, the government would expand its 
military to meet the supply?  I suppose that could happen -- yikes --
but it looks to me like they'd usually require X people, and then go
get them.)  Anyway, if 10,000 people (say) were to be drafted, I see
no reason why making them all men makes the effect better because "only
half the population gets shat on".  
	Personally, I'd say that if the government announced tomorrow
that women would now be required to register for the draft, I would be 
pissed off about having to register (as I was when my brother had to), 
and I might not do it, but either way, it wouldn't be as pressing a 
political issue for *me* as abortion rights, sex discrimination
in workplaces, unequal funding for men's and women's health care research,
RU-486, and probably some other issues feminist organizations have been
heavily involved with that I haven't thought of right now.  And I would
be pissed off because I don't think drafts are right, not because I think
they should only be for men.  As I said in another post, *if* we have 
registration for the draft, I think women should have to register too.
It's not at the top of my list for things to fight for, though.  (I
think it's a moot point for me in a week or so, due to age, anyway :),
if I have the age range right.)
	I don't see any inconsistency in being against the draft, but
in favor of equal treatment of men and women if there *is* a draft or
registration.  It is fair to say, though, as you do, that the draft
isn't my main concern... for *now*, anyway.  Ask me again if a Certain
Someone gets reelected.

(oh *please* don't crosspost to alt.politics.* if you answer
that last crack...)

---Julie
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:20:35
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<CINDY.92Sep20171742@meshugge.media.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Sep28180535@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Sep29.234427.23775@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Sep29170020@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct1.003625.16186@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:36:25 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.003625.16186@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>know this, and that you are raped while wearing such clothing, do you
>>think that the rapist should get a lighter sentence, since you are

>Again, there are assumptions in your question that prevent me from
>answering it. Please rephrase the question (and the scenario). 

I'm sorry, but I can't see any other assumptions except that the rapist
will get some sort of sentence.  Is that the assumption you object to?
If not, please tell me what is.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 17:32:25 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep23113600@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>In article <6189@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>> From what I've read here, a certain someone wants this group and soc.men
>> censored to help womyn.  It's lucky that the net is so diverse.
>
>*LAUGH*.  Well, this certainly is a surprise to me.  What I said, as
>quoted right here on this fine newsgroup was that I did *not* recommend
>anyone doing that, but that I would find it more *believable* as an
>effort to help women than I do the censoring of alt.sex.bondage.  After
>all, *this* is where all the hatred of women comes out, not a.s.b.

Yes, "I'm not favoring *censoring* this slimy newsgroup, but if
SOMEONE ELSE were to do that, I'd stand by the sidelines and cheer!"

How many people recall my own prediction of a few weeks ago (soundly
derided at the time), that the P.C. crowd would soon be telling people
NOT to post on "alt.feminism"?



Article 974 of alt.feminism:
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: The anti-choice-for-men, Muffy (Was Re: Winning by Violation)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 92 13:55:44 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

> Now we see WHY "soc.feminism" has been such a tightly-controlled, Politically
> Correct little universe. It enables the moderators to promote
> blatant hypocrisy without ever being forced to answer for it.
> 
> Now that we have "alt.feminism", I think that our newly-found Freedom of
> Speech is going to quickly send these prissy little hypocrites running for
> cover. 

> I wonder how long it will be before we see the word going out to all 
> those of Correct views, "Oh, don't *ever* participate in that horrible
> "alt.feminism."! Don't even read it! It's been taken over by sexists and
> racists and....."

Do I understand the mindset of these petty tyrants, or what? Folks, the one
thing that the feminists CANNOT afford is to have their naked emperors
paraded before the world. Even more threatening to them is the specter
of a large number of men who have learned not only to stop cowering
before feminist attacks, but even to argue effectively against them.

Still, my prediction was not quite accurate. I thought they'd go for
the "boycott" first. Instead, it was talk of "censorship."


-- 
  
        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.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:57:32 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct5.032822.19572@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

> (For those getting steamed about that last crack-- is it any less stupid
> or ludicrous than MacKinnon's version of "masturbation is evil"?)

My officemate wants to know if MEN are so passionate about the second
amendment because they maturbate over "Field and Stream"?

And how did Thomas Jefferson become so passionate about the entire
constitution?  Did Ben Franklin sell him some nudes? ;-)

I'm sorry, but defending this "theory" is perhaps the most absurd thing
I've ever read on the net.

Terry
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 2 Oct 92 12:05:50
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep30.191808.877@netcom.com> <1992Oct1.190112.14711@ils.nwu.edu>
	<1992Oct2.002927.15042@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 2 Oct 1992 00:29:27 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.002927.15042@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.190112.14711@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>I'm curious, Rich.  Who are the extreme feminists you are arguing with?
>>Are they here on this forum?
>>IMHO, most of the people on this forum seem quite moderate.

>Maybe so, maybe not. From previous re-posts, it seems that Muffy's
>idea of male reproductive responsibility amounts to sterilization or
>abstinance. 

Rather than "re-posts," shall we say "quotes out of context?"  To
re-supply the context:  Hillel claimed that women frequently lie about
having used birth control so that they can get a man to get them
pregnant and then use that to make him support them and the child for
years.  So, I said, any man who thinks that that is what women are like
should either get a vasectomy or not have sex with women.  Seems
perfectly sensible to me.  What's so "extreme" about suggesting some
useful ways for a man to avoid this horrible risk?  By the way, please
note that I am not really recommending abstinence, just no sex with
women.  They would be perfectly safe (from this danger) if they had sex
with other men, blow-up dolls, sheep, or whatever.

>This seems rather extreme to me. I asked for clarification and whether
>she thought that female reproductive responsibility would also be
>sterilization or abstinance. She did not respond.

Well, I almost never read all of your articles anymore because they are
so long.  I probably just missed this.  You might be better off sending
me email, if you want answers to these burning questions.  Anyway, yes,
I would recommend sterilization or not having sex with men to any woman
who believed  that all men were lying about birth control in order to
get them  pregnant.  Somehow, though, I haven't met/seen posts from a
woman who was this paranoid yet.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:38:09
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep30.193957.13721@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1ad4tuINN8kb@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU's message of 30 Sep 1992 21:07:10 GMT

In article <1ad4tuINN8kb@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
> Well, if you knew who you were having sex with, ie could stay with one person,
> and not cheat on them and wait quite sometime before hopping in the hay with 
> them

Sure, just wait 10 years or so to make sure they don't have AIDS.  It
can take that long (maybe longer) for any symptoms to show up.

> but if you want to use a condom because you don't
> know were your partner has been then you don't trust/know them enough to 
> be having sex with them.

Your partner may not "know where they've been," either.  I remember all
the people I have had sex with and AS FAR AS I KNOW none of them have
any STDs, but I can't be 100% sure of that, especially since they might
not even know.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:27 GMT

JerkfaceJeffy   :^]
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry King)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 22:28:46 GMT

baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

>	[the following is shamelessly edited for humor's sake]
>|> The very last thing a man wants to do is
>|> to buy a woman. 

>At least, it's the very last thing he wants to do TONIGHT! ;^)
>Or is that the first thing? Anybody got the ISO standard protocol on 
>this thingy?

O.K., I was getting too serious again.  

What I meant to say was that the very last thing a man wants to do is to buy 
*an expensive* woman.  "I'll take a six-pack, thanks."

That should make ljf happy.

Garry.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 03:46:43 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| Come off it. Now that "all are equal" but women are "more equal than men"
| (having special preferences, special legal rights, etc), it's men who
| are being victimized far more often by the power structure, which will
| invariably bend over backwards to accomodate any demand that is labelled
| as "feminist."
| 
| If you want to *do* something, help the balance of power (at least here
| in North America) swing back away from the position that calls itself
| "feminist," back in the direction of equality of REAL power for women
| and men.

Which would be what?  What would you do to women to
redress the balance of power?

-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:13:04 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside

In article zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>The boy part, to me, at least, refers to the "old-boy" network, ...

Ah, what is the "old-boy" network?  Is it a "plot to keep outsiders out or
is it something else?

I claim that feminists misunderstand the what the "old-boy" network is.  At 
the center of what you call the "old-boy" network are the webs of frienship,
family ties, and loyalty relationships that have more to do with the people
involved then the people who are not.

At least three times this year I have received call from people I know with
either offers or tips on positions they felt I might have an interest in.
(I am quite happy where I am at, I no intention of leaving at this time.)
Not a single call was solicited by myself.  Of positions I have held in
my life a great many of them were obtained in part through people I know.
That is family contacts, friendships, my reputation, or other relationships.
I see nothing wrong with that.  I have done the same for people I have
known by putting them together with the right people even by advocating
for them.  This is what human beings do for family and friends.

Now I understand how things work and I don't see anything wrong with it.
Femininsts may think it is wrong but that is only from their prospective.
A prospective they have only because they are cut out of somethings.  But
femininsts do the samething.  Since they do they have no right to be 
critical of other people for it.  It is more paranoia that an issue.

Case in point was a women's networking convention here in Riverside a few
months ago.  2500 women attended.  According to the papers much of what went
on was how to "network".  Speakers were quoted as saying women should find
other women for positions when they open.  Connet women with the right
people, advocate for them. SAME THING.

I say yes to these women because instead of trying to tear down someone
else to create the illusion of having achieved something they wish to
compete.  By doing so they will be the one's who create more positions for
women by increasing the job base.  Yet, they are excluding men.  SAME THING.

Would you not take a position because it was in part to be gained by
feminist contacts?  Surley you would and not have a loss of sleep over
it.  If you choose to do the SAME THING then I will not listen to any
argument that you make for me to do any different.

Many men I know are now inculding their daughters and the daughters of
friends in the "old-boy" network  by setting them up with the right people.
Many men are doing the same thing for women they know or worked with.
I have aided women in getting connected, it is how it works and nothing you
or anyone else can do will stop it.  Ties of blood and friendship, and race
and religion and many many other bonds between humans will continue to prevail.

starbuck
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men