HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:12:14 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Oct3103843@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <ZEN.92Sep30122752@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>ds > In other words, calling someone responsible is not always blaming the
>ds > victim.  
>
>zen>    Dictionary time; first definition of blame:
>
>zen>   "To hold responsible; accuse."
>
>zen>     I don't know what you mean by being responsible when you're the victim
>zen>   and something bad happens, but that this definition is exactly what it
>zen>   means to me and what people think of in general, I'd suspect.  To blame
>zen>   someone.
>
>  This is why I wish people would stop using the dictionary as some
>sort of ulitmate source.  By blaming the victim, I meant it in the
>context that Muffy brought up- e.g. blaming the victim = excusing the
>actions of the agressor. (Note: this is MY interpatation of what Muffy
>said.   This might not be what she meant by blaming the victim, but it
>seemed to follow from her post.)  If you re-read my example, what I
>was saying is that if my car gets stolen because I left my keys in the
>ignition, I was stupid.  (Yes, to some extent I could be blamed.)  But
>if I catch the thief, her/his sentence should not be reduced because
>of my stupidity.

This is exactly what I see in another context. Women <victims> are being
disempowered? <describe it as you wish> by the "male power structure" (not
quoting your post, but a quote nonetheless) (c). The "male power structure"
creates a "power imbalance" (nach). Since the "male power structure" has
the same tax status as the "feminist party" (neither exist), one cannot 
blame them directly, ergo, all men become responsible.

While blaming the victim is not an answer, neither is blaming the class
to which an offender might belong. I also have a problem with granting
'victim' status to one just because of a group they might belong to.

My opinion is that a "power balance" could be stable only if all other
things were equal. And since they are not, individual and group differences
will be destabilizing forces which would eventually destroy a "power
balance" if one were created. Feel free to disagree BTW. Let me re-state
that this is my opinion based upon my observations. I will not attempt to
'prove' it.

IMHO (as this entire post), many things being done in the name of equality
are good, but just as many are bad. The net result may or may not be an
improvement. Time will tell.
 
>I hope that makes things clear...
>-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
>***********************************
>*  "There's a dog in the station  *
>*   With a bad reputation         *
>*   That's a sign of the nation's *
>*   Decay"                        *
>***********************************

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:16:33 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| | Can't you decide that there is a bug in a theory by looking in its
| | conclusions?  (Have you ever heard about "counter example?)
| | Don't you know that censorship is the result of MacKinnon's theories?

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >You have two categories of outcome here, I think.  One is
| >the production of predictions 
| 
| Do you accept the prediction that banning _Playboy_ will reduce rape rates?

Is that a MacKinnon prediction?  I had read reports that
indicated otherwise.  MacKinnon has criticized _Playboy_,
but I believe her interest in censorship has a narrower
focus, that is, pornography linking sex to violence.  With
your impressive access to feminist writings, you should be
able to set us straight on this one with a few quotes or
citations.

| >and the other is advocacy of a social program.  
| 
| Do you see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship?

Calling something "censorship" doesn't say very much; it's
propagandistic.  As I just pointed out, most people believe
in a great deal of suppression of free expression, for
example laws against libel, copyright laws, laws and regu-
lations against harassment, laws against fraud, zoning,
and so forth.  Are all these "censorship"?  No, because
somebody likes them.  

| >In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
| >or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms a bit.  
| 
| Do you (Gordon) view the anti-porno laws that MacKinnon
| pushed as censorship?

I think the question here has very little to do with
how I categorize MacKinnon's views.  What's really going
on, in my opinion, is an attempt to set up a bogeyman, a
bete noire, through which feminism as a whole can be
attacked.  The original title of this thread was
"Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda"
which demonstrates clearly the method of linkage.  If
the title were honest it would read "... and anti-
feminist propaganda."

A real discussion of MacKinnon will start with some
real material, not propaganda, and will occur only if
people are interested in something besides throwing 
stones over the barricades.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:50:08 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.160823.15340@ils.nwu.edu> 
lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>In article <1992Sep26.172400.29654@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>(Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>>> (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>>
>>>> Boy, are you... (holding my toungue).  "Real feminists"?  Where on earth
>>>> was that defined for you?  I challenge you to find one radical, extremist,

>>>Even reading this newsgroup a while will show some examples.
>>
>>Oh please, share with me one statement that says that men should have no 
>>rights, since you persist on insisting it is so rampant.
>
>I'm not sure since y'all trimmed so much of the arguments out, and <deity>
>knows you can't trust Subject: lines in this group, but I think the legalities
>of a woman's right to bear/abort a fetus without consultation with the father
>is such a statement.

You're right -- can't trust Subject: lines.  

For historical perspective on this debate, this Sami person implied that
feminists believe men should have no rights, period.  I know it's
hardly worth arguing to someone so uninformed (read: ignorant), but...
I tried.

>Note that this is merely one example in a complex issue, but let's not be
>extreme and say that men have NO rights OR that men have ALL the rights, ok?

Right.  Silly to make that sort of statement.

rini
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 00:08:27 GMT

>For years and years and years a woman is continually referred to as a "man".
>Now it may be because of poor grammar skills, (as you seem to contend is the
>problem here) but many wome, because man can be exclusively male as well as a
>blanket term for male and female, feel "left out".

How "for years and years " is a women referred to as a man?  If you are 
referring to the word 'freshman', you are wrong.  Freshman doesn't mean:
"first-year male student unless your talking about a women."

>This went unnoticed for the longest time in much the same way that a dripping
>faucet may only become annoying after lots and lots of drips.

Unnoticed because man hadn't yet been beaten into submission by 'politcally 
correct thinking'.


>
>Regardless of WHY women dislike this term, and regardless of whether it's sill
y
>or not, don't you think that if somebody prefers not to be called something
>you should respect that?

I may not like to be called a technician, but that is what I am.  Should I 
carry around a questionairre full of terms and hand it to someone so they can 
check off the 'labels' they may not like?  Seems rather ludicrous.

>Are there no labels for you that you find objectionable?  And isn't it really
>silly when you get down it that these labels are objectionable?  But wouldn't
>you appreciate it if people didn't use these labels for you?

Usually, only labels that are deragatory, do I object to.  But I always 
consider the source.  Now if you want to try and convince me that
'freshman' is deragatory I am all ears.
>
>To see why women might object to this whole language thing, (which I, for the
>longest time, "just didn't get it") perhaps you could try to imagine that you
>had grown up in a world where it was the exact reverse, ie woman was the
>umbrella term for male and female.

You, like many posters, who are on this "I have reached enlightenment" kick
and then take a condescending view of those you have considered "left in the
dark", really irritate me.
>
>Don't just casually shrug it off and say it wouldn't have bothered you.  Maybe
>you are thick-skinned and it wouldn't have.  But really reflect on this and
>try to run through your whole life in your mind again, but just imagine it wit
h
>this little difference.  You may conclude that it wouldn't have bothered YOU,
>but I hope you will at least see how it COULD bother some people.

Maybe, I already have.

>
>I know this is hard to do.  It's hard for a male to see why it matters.  Even

Are you a spokesman for all men?

>if you can't see why, don't you think it's small enough that if somebody
>doesn't want to be called <foo>, you should respect that?

I will not change my use of a word because someone wants to read something
into it that doesn't exist.

>--
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 03:25:28 GMT

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:

>And how did Thomas Jefferson become so passionate about the entire
>constitution?

For all I know, he may have been in the habit of enjoying some things that his
neighbors would have wanted to make illegal.  See my .sig quote, for example.
(BTW, if anyone could cite me the source of this quote I would be gratful.
I am quoting this thing second hand.)

>  Did Ben Franklin sell him some nudes? ;-)

I wouldn't put it past the guy!  :-)}
--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 14:38:35 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <1992Oct3.070904.26820@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| 	I suspect that Hillel, like myself, is forever amazed that any
| response beyond "garbage" to such hilarious tripe is needed. Mackinnon
| is simply espousing that most ancient of human superstitions, animism,
| the belief that objects (magazines and photographs, in this instance)
| contain a _geist_, an animating spirit of their own. "Playboy" cannot
| objectify women; every issue I've ever seen just sat there, on table or
| shelf, thoroughly inanimate. Objectification is done by the
| viewer/reader. ...

Do you mean to say that one cannot use the term _Playboy_ 
to mean the whole system of composing, publishing, selling,
buying, and reading _Playboy_, as McKinnon is clearly doing,
and be understood?  She'd have to drag the whole business
out, every time?  That would certainly keep her busy!

Let's see -- "The _New_York_Times_ said today..."  "No!
False animist!  The _New_York_Times_ cannot speak!  It can
only be read!"

Surely you guys can come up with better stuff than this.
Maybe Hillel can't, because his thing is knock-off points,
but McKinnon does have a theory and in order to trash it
properly you're going to have to understand what it is.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1925 soc.men:17250
From: walkerr@wpi.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:46:28 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: wpi.wpi.edu

In article <1adhr7INN38b@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>defianately use a condom, 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.
>
>But how can you ever be *absolutely* sure "where your partner has been"?
>
	You don't know were they have been.  But if they won't tell you or
you don't trust them why would you want to have sex with them.  IF they've
"been around the block"  then if they said "hey I've had a few" pardon the 
crude terms,  then at least you know they aren't lying and then you can 
use a condom.  I was just saying that if they aren't honest to you, then
you shouldn't havve sex with them,  not that everyone shoudl know what
their partner has for disease, because they can't but if your partner says
that there is a risk then defianately use a condom.  

Hope you can understand that.
                                     Bob



Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1688 soc.men:16990
From: bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Mace, Pepperguard, etc.
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:21:14 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

According to my SO, who worked for a PI who used to be on a major metropolitan
police force:

Mace:  Good against dogs, etc.  Chances are all it will do is make an attacker
       mad.

Tear-Gas Concentrate:  Highly recommended!

Pepperguard:  Recommended.




David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Choice for men
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<SK73171.92Sep21210633@korppi.cs.tut.fi> <q16ncnp.payner@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:17:44 GMT


In article <q16ncnp.payner@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

> You lost me here, if there is a law against something, then it is not
> allowed.

That is not enough. The law isn't enough, there must be at least some
sort of negative feedback if someone breaks the law. And if the
authorities doesn't have enough power to provide that feedback to
those who break it, situation is the same if the law doesn't even exist.

> I'm glad to hear that things are going well in Finland. But you stand

Grrhh... 

> a chance fighting crime, fighting the government is another thing
> entirely.

But if the government has already collected our money by taxes, what 
would it gain from ordinary subjects with more power ? I think it is
fair to ask government some services for the money we have paid. Like 
putting criminals out of business.

> >Nope. Mostly bad. Bad economy. People are not happy with government policy.
> >Crimes. Disasters. etc...

> But you just claimed that things were going well, or so it seemed to me?

Nope. I said that in that particular issue we have things better. Like
some other issues too. In some other they are worse.

> Show me a situation where everybody is happy? 

And there isn't a country where everybody is happy. But that isn't
an exuse for making things worse.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 18:33:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.034643.24329@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>| 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?

For starters,
   -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
   -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
    censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
    men the SAME power)
   -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
   -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
    same footing.

-- 
  
        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"
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1856 soc.men:17190
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 1 Oct 92 16:48:15 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Sep30143525@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>> views, but its not like its "her" boss, its "her" lover, which does not
>> neciessaraly have to be a man.

> If her lover isn't a man, they don't need birth control, do they?  By
> the way, what's the difference between "her" boss and "her" lover, in
> this context?  I would think the issue of condoms would not come up at
> all with a person's boss.

This is one of those situations where "If you have to ask, you'll never
understand" ;-).

HINT:  "her" boss/ "her" lover have NOTHING to do with condoms.  Think
REALLY hard about it and it will come to you.

Al
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 5 Oct 92 22:01:46 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| 
| >Surely you guys can come up with better stuff than this.
| >Maybe Hillel can't, because his thing is knock-off points,

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Thanks for demonstrating a much better style...

You're welcome.  Always glad to help out.

gf:
| >but McKinnon does have a theory and in order to trash it
| >properly you're going to have to understand what it is.
| 
| Ha?
| 
| Do you have to read every line in a program in order to show that
| there is a bug there?
| 
| Can't you decide that there is a bug in a theory by looking in its
| conclusions?  (Have you ever heard about "counter example?)
| 
| Don't you know that censorship is the result of MacKinnon's theories?

You have two categories of outcome here, I think.  One is
the production of predictions and the other is advocacy of a
social program.  They're related, but distinct.  Which are
you talking about?

In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms
a bit.  For example, _Playboy_ is "against censorship"
when it comes to suppression of certain kinds of sexual
material, but is probably "for censorship" when it comes
to libel, copyright infringement, and some forms of
harassment.  It may be that _Playboy_, MacKinnon,
you, and I mean four different things by "censorship."
So again, we want to define it pretty precisely before
we start slagging one another about it, right?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 1992 16:11:06 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
	<1992Oct1.200919.24015@midway.uchicago.edu>

>>I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
>>"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  
> 
>I never had a problem with the pictures, but the text is often
>irritating, IMO.  Especially the centerfolds' self-descriptions...
>Blech....  "I'm a space cadet and I like wine and candlelight..."
>Whoever finds *that* exciting... I dunno.  I always find it a little
>depressing.... :(
> 
>rini

Ever looked at some of the others?  Typical example:

"Carla loves oral sex.  She'd really like it if you went down on her..." type
of thing.  Playboy is tame by comparison.

Incidentally, while I've seen the Playboy descriptions saying the women LIKE
sex, I've never seen them saying they WANT sex...especially not from the
readers.  That, I think, is a key difference.




David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest