HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:18:02 GMT

In article <718761489@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>Were the people who hired Dworkin and MacKinnon, and paid them from
>public funds to write their garbage, liberals or conservatives?

Hillel, with all due respect, your one-sided finger pointing drives me
bananas.  Were the people who drafted the PCVA using public funds to
write their garbage, liberals or conservatives?  Is Jesse Helms liberal
or conservative?  Is the Republican party, which rants against 
pornography in it's platform, liberal or conservative?  We could sit
here counter-firing these questions until Usenet freezes over.  To
what end?

For ever anti-porn leftist anti-porn, there are as many, if not more, 
anti-porn right-wingers.  Why do feel it is so urgent to point the
finger at only one half of those to blame????  If this is a battle we
want to win, put the blame where it belongs:  with closed-minded,
short-sided "do-gooders" on both sides of the fence.

rini

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2539 soc.men:17695
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:41:41 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Piranha Club

#But if their child was born after 1973, they (and not a single man) 
#had the right to choose whether to assume that duty after a 
#birth-control failure.

In article <1bfsf1INNdsq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu 
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
>control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
>pants and stick it into a woman.

Thanks for reminding us once again how a pro-choice
feminist sounds like.

BTW what do you think about the anti-choice for women people who 
tell you "if you don't want kids then don't fuck"?  

Can you understand why I have a similar attitude toward you?
From: be662@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Linda S. Fox)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Date: 11 Oct 1992 21:37:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


Marge -

I also spent time at home raising children, and have experienced some
difficulty getting back on track.  Hang in there, because I have, for 
the last year, been employed by a non-profit as a computer professional

At this job, I am able to upgrade my skills in managing a LAN, while still
managing to handle three kids and a husband ( and two aging parents).  Keep
trying, I believe that job is out there for you.

Society DOES believe that the day starts when you punch that timecard, but
as a parent, I know that some days, I have already put in a full day before
a minute of it went on the timecard. 

Linda
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Rights and Responsibilities
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:20:30 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>litow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (bruce e litow) writes:

>>1. I am opposed to laws that would impede a woman from having an
>>abortion at any time during term, prior to onset of actual delivery.
>>
>>2. Given (note the word) that women may safely obtain abortions as
>>in 1., then there are certain repsonsibilities attaching.
>>
>> a. Outside of marriage, where the father has expressly disavowed
>>    support, and the woman elects not to abort pregnancy, then the
>>    the child will be her responsibility, solely.
 
>If I've been reading things right, the fathers opinion is irrelevant,
>the mother can make the decision without asking the father, and he is
>legally responsible for child support if she decides to have the child.
>He has no options here, the mother has them all, and he is liable for
>her decision. 
>
>It looks like you are just expressing your opinion, although you were
>not crystal clear on this.

Yes, it certainly does look like he is expressing his opinion on what
an alternative policy might look like.  (It's pretty darn clear he is
not describing the current state of affairs...)

Or did you have a problem with what he proposed?

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:30:52 GMT

[ bunch of reasons why women make less money than men  ]

U.S. Labor stats show that women with equal educations and equal time 
on the job (i.e. no breaks for family raising) make $1.01 for every $1.00 
men make (in the same profession).

Just and observation, not a commentary.

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger)
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Femin
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 16:00:52 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 10-09-92 10:57
On Oct 7, baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

B(H>In the new movie _Sneakers_ the sound man is introduced to the audience
B(H>while reading a Braille Playboy during a stakeout. Don't know if it's
B(H>authentic, but it made me chuckle.

One of the political science professors at my alma mater was totally blind;
he read Playboy regularly (I assume in Braille) for the interviews with
prominant politicians.

Just thought I'd throw that in . . .

                                                Cheers,
                                                Greg.

Greg Grainger in Toronto, Ontario.
8:31:20 am on Fri 10-09-1992.
greg.grainger@rose.com
greg.grainger@bville.gts.org

Personal policy statement:
Neither flames nor flame-bait will be be responded to.
---
   OLX 2.2   An agreeable person: One who agrees with you.
   RM 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: A feminist who supports male reproductive rights
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:24:41 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Scorpions Nest

In article <1992Oct15.201322.117609@zeus.calpoly.edu>, 
dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:
# Karen DeCrow is exceptional among feminists for her integrity.  This isn't
# the only issue on which she has taken a controversial stand putting feminist
# principles ahead of pro-woman selfishness.  If NOW today were like Karen
# DeCrow, I might join.

In article <7776@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>Me too!

Me too!
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 16 Oct 1992 04:39:14 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct15.054204.1446@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>When I see some "anti-feminists" make
>statements to the effect that they can't be feminists because of the
>likes of Dworkin and MacKinnon, isn't this saying that two people
>represent a whole movement?  Isn't that implying a monolithness that
>feminism doesn't have?

Possibly, but unlikely.  I'd guess that many people in this category 
are strongly pro-choice and pro-equality, but reject the 'feminist' 
label to avoid the perception of associating with or supporting the 
likes of Dworkin and MacKinnon (who number far more than two 
people, BTW), regardless of the diversity of 'feminism' in general, or 
any accepted definition of 'feminism.'

An understandable preference, really.  And it doesn't have much to do 
with a person's stand on the issues, which after all is more important 
than what badge they are wearing, especially when the badge is 
effectively issue-neutral.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2164 soc.men:17410
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Gordon's Playboy Story
Date: 12 Oct 92 17:42:50 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct11.131914.25486@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> I don't believe in libel and copyright restrictions, at least
> not as they're presently constituted.  I suspect _Playboy_ has
> a more restrictive view on copyright than I do.   

I'd be interested in seeing you flesh this paragraph out a bit.  What
exactly don't you believe in when it comes to libel and copyright?

> Also, I 
> recently posted a little story in which people working for 
> _Playboy_ allegedly attempted to get the law after some nude 
> demonstrators, which I would not have, but I can't confirm 
> that that really happened or that, if it did, it represented 
> a corporate attitude.  We have to guess on that one.

You could try posting your story to Alt.folklore.urban.  It has all the
trappings of an Urban Legend.

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
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2442 soc.men:17616
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct12.150249.27832@das.harvard.edu> 
stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:

>The Bush Administration has failed to do right by
>American women.  We will do better.

>Protect a woman's right to choose

> Sign into law the Freedom of Choice Act.  Bill
>Clinton and Al Gore recognize that personal privacy
.........................................................
>*  Crack down on deadbeat parents by reporting them
>   to credit agencies, so they can't borrow money
>   for themselves when they're not taking care of
>   their children.  Use the Internal Revenue Service
>   to collect child support, start a national
>   deadbeat databank, and make it a felony to cross
>   state lines to avoid paying support.

One more example of what feminists mean by choice - crack down on 
deadbeat dads, no matter why they don't pay.  Men just should have 
*no* choice in a case of a birth control failure, and they certainly 
should have no privacy.  That's *equality*, feminists' style.

OK, we all heard all the stories how feminism is for equality,
and Muffy even said that she is for choice for men, now we see 
what happens in the political reality.

Should feminism be judged by the nice talk of Muffy & Gordon, or
by the political programs and laws that feminists push?

And one more question:

>Crack down on violence against women

Men are *most* victims of violent crimes, why "crack down on violence 
against women" should have a priority over crack down on violence 
against men?

>*  Sign the Violence Against Women Act, which would
>   provide tougher enforcement and stiffer penalties
>   to deter domestic violence.

What about stiffer penalties to deter domestic violence against men?
Why punishment should be gender related?

Is it a part of your "separate but equal" scheme?

Tell me Gordon, if y'all don't ever think about zero sum games,
then why do you behave like if you play one?

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"When I do it to you it's sexism,
when you do it to me it's feminism."
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:01:37 GMT

In article <718103090@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>(Richard Lynch) writes:

[...]

>>I think the data posted (thank you, somebody for REAL data!!!) made it clear
>>that pay is fairly equitable after experience and education were accounted for.
>
>You don't use Politically Correct criteria...

At first I had thought that this was a joke (and you forgot the sliley),
but not I am not so sure.

You -are- joking, are you not? Or do you feel that the results of a
study must meet political criteria to be valid? But if you already know
the answer (and there is only one PC answer, is there not), why waste
taxpayer dollars?
 
>Hillel                                                  gazit@cs.duke.edu
 
Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Feminist Graffiti seen on Pitt's Campus
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

There is a bumper-crop harvest of PITT NEWS articles that might be of interest
to the readers of alt.feminism, today!

Nat Finkin, now officially a columinst for the PITT NEWS, writes on page 7
about the "STOP RAPING" and "DEAD MEN DON'T RAPE" signs that campus feminists
are erecting/spray painting on campus.

It seems that these signs cause his roomate to exclaim: "I hate feminazis!
I hate @#$%&* feminists!", when confronted by feminists who proclaim that
they "love" these signs.

Nat notes:

        "Stop Raping" and "Dead Men Don't Rape" are both not only ineffective
        at bringing to light this serious issue, but they are also counter-
        productive and offensive.
        
        These slogans are a huge affront to men.  They assume that 1) a
        majority of the male population rape women or are planning to do so;
        and 2) rape is motovited by a male instinct to humilate and degrade
        women.  The slogan's argument is that because dead men can not rape
        women, it would be better if men were dead.
        
He concludes with:

        For those of you who sprayed these slogans on campus or for those of
        you who think that they are helpful, they aren't.  The are offensive
        and insulting.  The men who rape others will not be affected by your
        slogans.
        
        And the rest of us will just be pissed off by them.
        
Check out the entire article in the Tuesday, Oct 13th edition of THE PITT NEWS.

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:05:10 GMT

In article <Bw2swo.H0C@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> curdm@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Richard Mancuso) writes:
>Can I get a feminist view of the impact of the Catholic Church on women. 
>Also, does anybody have any thoughts about Sinead O'Connor ripping up a
>picture of the pope and proclaiming "Fight your real enemy" ?
>
The best book I have read on the subject is a scathing book called
"Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, sexuality, and the Catholic
Church" by Ute Ranke-Heinemann, which came out as a Penguin paperback
last year. A theologian herself, the author traces the development of
the church's views on women, from the early church fathers up to the
modern papal bulls on contraception and the family. A very good read.
Similarly, Marina Warner's book "Alone of All Her Sex: the myth and the
cult of the Virgin Mary", which focuses specifically on the image of
Mary (the only female image in the church), has some very interesting
insights into the way women have been viewed by and in the church
throught the years. 
-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 06:07:55 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>>>note that I am still talking about the INEQUALITY of porno, not the 
>>>>existence.
>> 
>>>"INEQUALITY" is anothert invented non-issue. It has never existed, and
>>>I think it is not a stable or realizable position. So what? An equally valid
>>
>>Okay, from the context it's clear to me that he meant "INEQUALITY of
>>representation" -- that is, there are far more females in porn than
>>males.  Is that an invented non-issue?  Nope.  It's a fact.  It
>>may or may not be a problem.
>
>Once again, so what? What is the significance and why does it mean anything?
>If it is not a problem, then who cares and why even bring it up?

I'm just trying to get you to make comments that address the POINT
the poster was trying to make, instead of constructing some other
point to knock down.  You clearly misintepreted Lynch's remark, so
I was clarifying what HE said.  

My only position here is that you misconstrue.

>>It's a problem from my perspective, as a female consumer... not
>>enough merchandise.. :)
>
>I susect that the supply follows the demand in these things.

Me too.

>>>>I enjoy a good porno flick as much as the next guy, but there IS something
>>>>wrong when there are *way* more girly mags than there are Playgirl-type 
>>>>mags.
>> 
>>>So what? Why is this 'wrong'? Where in either type magazine is there a
>>>wrong?
>>
>>Um, he didn't say that anything *in* either magazine is wrong.  He said
>>something more like: There is something wrong with our world when zillions 
>>of men want to go down to the corner store and buy some nekked lady pics, 
>>but zillions of women, for whatever reason, don't do the same with nekked
>>men pics.  Kinda leaves open the question of whether the problem is in 
>>the men, for buying it, or in the women, for not buying it, dontcha think?
>
>What is wrong here, please be explicit and as clear as possible. Define
>it please, and stop talking about it as a forgone conclusion.

What is wrong here, is the way you don't READ what people WRITE.  He
said there is something wrong with the sex imbalance of porn production.  
You said, basically, "what is 'wrong' with the content of porn?"  I said
you are not talking eye to eye... you've misunderstood... you're retorting
an issue that Lynch did not raise....

That is my only forgone conclusion.  I have this uncontrollable
referee impulse, you see.  

rini
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:09:33 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>>If you go into a McDonalds and a crazed gun-man comes in behind you and
>>starts shooting (which is very, very BAD LUCK) I'm not sure that LIFE is
>>telling you much.  
 
>Consider this...there are literally thousands of McDonalds that are
>in the world. How many of them have had this happen to them? One?
>Now what are the odds (statistically) that you would choose to walk 
>into a McDonalds that was about to be shot up at the precise moment 
>before it happened that would make you a part of it?
 
>Doesn't it take just as much timing to be in the wrong place at the
>wrong time as it does to be in the right place at the right time?
>The need for timing is just as great, it's just the polarity of the
>intent that is reversed...

Face it Terry!  You WANTED to be shot to death!!  Why else pick THAT
McDonald's on THAT day, knowing full well you could've gone to 
BURGER KING!!!  Heck -- you could've even done the drive-thru.  But NOOOO.
Your self-destructive tendencies got the best of you.  Yes, you made 
the decision to go in there -- take some damn responsibility for it!!! 
Jeez... the desire to be an "innocent victim" in some people...  amazing.

:)  :)  :)

rini
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:51:34 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct14.170330.28095@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Sure, go ahead.  But I don't have every copy of _Ms_
>handy; I'll have to write to them.  They didn't answer my
>last letter, in which I complained about an article which
>I thought prejudiced and stupid; so I don't know what the
>prospects are.

Hey, maybe there *is* some hope for this guy! 

He's still naive enough to think that the feminist Powers that Be
basically mean well, and are willing to listen to reason.

Wait until Disillusion sets in!!!!!!

Keep writing them, Gordon, and see what they think of *your* objections!!!!

-- 
  
        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: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:52:39 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <ZEN.92Oct9072455@death.corp.sun.com>, zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
|>   Also, in almost all of the hard core movies I've seen, the woman most
|> definitely does *not* have an orgasm.  It's definitely geared towards
|> women pleasing men, at least in the hetero flicks.

You seem to have seen different ones than I am familiar with. One of the
themes that shows up in hetero flicks, as you say, is that the man
gets off on witnessing and being a part of the woman's satisfaction.

You may also count me as an example of a man who really enjoys it when the
woman he is with orgasms. And multiples?! Well bless my soul, what ecstasy.

Performance anxiety, a common male complaint, is the feeling that one,
as a man, feels inadequate to give satisfaction to a woman. Sounds like
women's orgasms are pretty important to male sexuality to me.

-- 
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
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:05:19 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
 
>>It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
>>today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
>>of males! It is NOT about reducing the fundamental human rights of
>>men and it is NOT about making women the "dominant" sex.
 
>When will mainstream feminism take a strong stand on this?  

Gosh, I don't know who really represents mainstream feminism and
how they decide what their stands are and when they are going to take
a strong stand on this...

BUT it's got to start somewhere.  I'm to see that glad Carol,  
mainstream or not, has taken a strong stand on this.  And I will
stand with her.  There.  That's *two*.  

How many makes a 'mainstream'?

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism