HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Summary: There is sarcasm in the article
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:07:09 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Oct7.093136.4738@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>So, what the hell is going on?  If rape is happening at these rates,
>something is terribly wrong with our society.  How do we stop this
>violence?

\begin{sarcasm}
Try to ban S&M hard porno (e.g. fist fucking in porno is legal in
Holland but not in the US), if that does not help ban Playboy, if that
does not help start to lock up S&M people, if that does not help add
feminist propaganda to all school programs for all ages, if that does
not help just throw to jail everybody that you don't like.

We have to do something about the problem, don't we?
\end{sarcasm}
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:48:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.081218.26583@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.094759.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>>In article <1992Oct6.021155.26304@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>   Note the words "preferences" and "quotas". They're not just space-fillers
>>in the sentence. It appears to be that Robert is suggesting that women not get
>>preferential treatment.
>>
>>   Secondly, don't you see the innate hypocrisy in your (implied) approval of:
>>
>>> The women almost certainly got their jobs at least partly as
>>> a result of this corporation's being busted severely several
>>> years ago for never giving women managerial or engineering
>>> jobs.
>
>>   What's the basic difference between hiring them because they're women, and
>>firing them because they're women? IMHO, both actions are equally reprehensible
>>because they're based on selective treatment dependent on a person's gender.
>
>Read what Fitch wrote:  "...this corporation's being busted severely
>several years ago for never giving women..."  Doesn't this seem that
>selective treatment dependent on a person's gender had indeed been
>going on before the women received the jobs--that men were receiving
>preferential treatment? 

AT the time, this -was- socially acceptable, and indeed, the right (tm)
Thing to do. It is no now. You are comparing things that are unequal as
if theey were the same.

You claim that this "preferential treatment" is wrong, and yet you seem
to demand it (It seems that you support it, correct me if you do not)
through AA. So the basic stance is that it is wrong when you do it to
me, but right (tm) when I do it to you.

You might as well compare conditions here with those in Rome during the
middle ages, you will get a comparison with about as much validity.
 
>That's what AA is all about, imo.  After years of white men receiving
>preferential treatment (and damn little outcry by middle-class white
>men about it), now we're all supposed to have a level playing ground
>and AA is preferential treatment.  It only matters if white men are
>being hurt?

You just don't get it do you. This is not then, and if you claim that this
sort of thing is wrong, then it is just as wrong when you do it, and for
exactly the same reasons. AA is sexist and racist, by what right do the
proponents of this claim it is wrong?


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:56:27 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

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

In article <1992Oct13.111106.6702@panix.com> gcf@panix.com 
(Gordon Fitch) writes:
>I didn't write the article, nor am I a writer for the
>Democratic party or the Clinton-Gore campaign.  

At least twice per week you paint the anti-feminists as playing zero-
sum games, but you have no such complain toward the feminists.  Even
when a political campaign states as targets, loud and clear, that there
should be choice for women but no choice for men you have nothing to say.

Even when they suggest plans that will hurt the privacy of men you and
all the "abortion is a matter of privacy!" crowd have nothing to say.

Just afterward you come back and say "so what if the feminists' 
sponsored programs hurt you?  It should not be a zero sum game."

What a hypocrite.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: LLNL
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:02:19 GMT

In article <DSTEINBE.92Oct8074843@emmy.nmsu.edu> dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon
>Fitch) writes: 
:    This is pure speculation, but my theory is that the reason
:    human beings have very large sexual organs with     ^^^^^^
:    respect to body size compared to most mammals, are in heat most of 
:    the time, and have a sex drive far beyond the need to 
:    reproduce in spite of the most dire environmental 
:    conditions, is that the emotional result of sex is 
:    important in keeping humans from killing one another.  
: 
: 
: Excuse me, why should there be any REASON for human beings to have any
: of our characteristics.  Do you believe that we were created by a God?
: Do you believe in some life force that shaped evolution?  If either of
: those two are true then fine.  But if you believe in an evolution
: "caused" by pure chance, than the "reason" we have large sex organs
: and are in heat all of the time is because it happened by chance.
: There is a fallacy in some arguments involving evolution: just because
: something would be an evolutionary advantage doesn't mean that it
: exists.  We might be more fit to survive if we had two heads, but we
: don't...

	Darwinian natural selection is _not_ based on "pure chance",
but on a mixture of random variation and natural selection, so it
would not be "chance" that leads to something, but proliferation of
variations that are more efficient at reproducing themselves.

	Evolution by natural selection _does_ work -- I've seen it
work in computer simulations.

	But if some evolutionary events were brought about by the
efforts of what I call Exogenous Genetic Engineers, who are either
time travelers or extraterrestrial visitors or both(!), then we have
the possibility of "purpose" coming in. But even then, it is not clear
that the purpose may be a very appetizing one -- it might just be for
the fun of it.
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 7 Oct 92 21:34:18 GMT
	<1992Oct6.231105.7461@panix.com> <1992Oct7.225000.19594@netcom.com>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 22:50:00 GMT


In article <1992Oct7.225000.19594@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>   Only those businesses whose highest priority is to earn a *profit*.
>   They'll hire whichever qualified candidate is willing to do the
>   work for the lowst pay. And if, as Warren Farrell points out, women
>   *really were* (as in the fairy tale) paid 59 cents on the dollar
>   for doing the same work as men, then corporations EVERYWHERE would be
>   dumping overpaid men on the streets, and hiring women in their place.

  Unfortunately, no.  If that happened, then all the women would take
over in more ways than just the jobs -- they would start by giving
themselves all raises to equal their male (ex)counterparts.  Then if you
were a man you'd be worse off than where you started; you'd be out of
work, and the women would be in power.  What'd be the point?  It works
fine now -- you just keep the women in line by economic as well as
social force.  Give them all the jobs and power and you'd lose both.

 -- d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<DSTEINBE.92Oct7095856@emmy.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Oct8.074719.23829@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 03:26:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.074719.23829@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

   >Of course, some of them are restrictions on speech.  And yet, in a
   >working environment, aren't there already restrictions on speech?  

   >I don't know about you, but I think most people would quickly be in
   >trouble if they started calling a coworker a fuckhead, a nigger, a
   >yid (insert derogatory comment of choice).

Yes, they might be fired.   But if someone continually calls me a
kike, can I sue the company I work for?  Is that the best solution to
the problem?  The company is blameless (Yes they hired her/him, but
that doesn't mean that they have any idea about the interpersonal
relationships between every two employees...) 

   Is it reasonable to expect a Jewish worker to share an office with
   someone who puts up Hitler posters?  How uncomfortable can you make
   someone until your actions and/or speech become harassment?

Are these two things really compatable?  I don't think that there is
the same level of offensiveness perceived by most women to a pin-up
calendar as there is with a Hitler poster.  Of course, when was the
last time that you went to an office and saw a picture of gool ol'
Adolph anyway? 

Also, I'd rather know right off the bat that my co-worker is a real
asshole, then to find out that s/he has been sabotaging my work (or
some such thing) since day one.  One reason I dislike censoring ideas
is I like having my enemies out in the open where I could see them.
Censoring them wouldn't change her/his opinions, it would just drive
them underground.
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Choice for men: movin
X-To: DON BEAVER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:47:00 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes...
DB> The "excessively restrictive" portion of Pennsylvania's law was struck down:
DB> the husband "notification" requirement that was, in essence, "permission."

Are you sure of this, Don?  Since you are from Pa., would it be possible for
you to take a jaunt to the office of your nearest legislator, and pick up a
copy of the original law, especially the notification provision.

My understanding was that it was notification-only - *not* permission or even
"permission in disguise".  Could you please clarify this for me?

Thanks!

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids            "GOiDS Rule"
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Air Force Sex - Up, Up and Away!
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Women Against Porn (WAP!)
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:26:40 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct11.193122.6353@daimi.aau.dk>, pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted) writes:

> Yes. It seems to me, that women generally have very little interest
> in pornography; 

You just don't know the right women.  Or perhaps what you call "pornography"
they call "erotica" and are two different things.

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: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:24:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.142443.1493@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>In article <BvyLvt.7oJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
$ 
$ Maybe I'm wrong -- but that was my impression of the meaning, anyway: 
$ 
$    Women have no use for men.
$ 
$ Hence it's a slam.  In either direction.

>Yes, that's clearly what it's supposed to mean. Men are (choose: superfluous,
>worthless, useless). A one-sided insult; I am unaware of anyone in the
>"Mens movement" suggesting that women are superfluous or worthless or
>unnecessary.

	But have you ever heard of the jokes about how beer is better
than women?

	Ask on rec.humor sometime.

>See what progress we have made in the popular culture (Loren Petrich,
>please don't read this, else it will be "First the National Enquirer
>and Sistah Souljah, now it's Humphrey Bogart!!!!")::

>   50 years ago: "Woman needs man, and man must have his mate, that
>                  no one can deny .... the world will always welcome
>                  lovers, as time goes by." (From "Casablanca")

	A throwaway line in a script. What is that supposed to prove.

>   Today:         Woman needs man like a fish needs a bicycle.

	This is just a joke.

>                  All (hetero) sex is rape. (etc. etc.)

	Andrea Dworkin is _not_ all of feminism.

>HOW in the world did we come to this? How did we let the most hate-filled
>viragos become the 'recognized authorities' on relations between men and
>women?

	I know that you don't like jokes about how cucumbers are
better than men, but misandrist women are simply giving misogynist men
a taste of their own medicine.

	If you don't like "why cucumbers are better than men" jokes,
you ought also to reject "why beer is better then women" ones, also.

	And your hero Camille Paglia is also a virago, so it's just a
question of who's your favorite virago :-)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent)
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 02:19:57 GMT

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:

>In article <1b347tINN9g9@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> ah897@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Robert Lai) writes:
>-
>-
>-I am taking a feminist theatre class, and there was a mention of
>-a phenoMENon called the "male gaze".  Is this necessarily
>-when a male looks at a woman?  Is this "male gaze" the reason
>-for breast implants, cosmetic sales, plastic surgery?

No, the male gaze in movies and theatre is when the camera perspective
is from that of a male viewer.  You can get an excellent example of
the male gaze if you've seen _Last of the Mohicans_.  In it, there
is a scene where Daniel Day Lewis and Madeline Stowe are passionately
kissing each other in the English fortress.  Throughout the scene, we
see her reactions, her face, her skin, and her passion, but we only
see the back of Daniel Day Lewis' head.  The perspective of the viewer
is assumed male, and hence men and women are viewed differently in
film and theatre.

>The reason for breast implants, cosmetic sales and plastic surgery is vanity.
>Feel free to make up any reason you may feel suits you politics better.
>As a consulation prize I might mention that some men have been geting
>the male form of breast implants, I way to get a look with out working
>out.  I would say that the reason is vanity, but it could be female gaze.

I don't think that the "male gaze" is the cause of breast implants,
cosmetic sales, and plastic surgery.  All are a result of how men
perceive women and how women perceive how men perceive women.  This
perception changes with the times, but one thing remains constant---
It is the men who change the perception, not women.

>starbuck
-- 
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek)                      el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Nobody told me there'd be .sigs like these."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-&{&gp% +/)@ooooooo
NO CARRIER
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Women Against Porn (WAP!)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:11:53 GMT

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:

>Ok, one more time:  If it turns men on, it's Pornography.  If it turns women
>on, it's Erotica.  If it turns men AND women on, it's the answer to Life,
>the Universe, and Everthing.

MY GOODNESS!  Little did I know what those video cassettes held!  So
where's the answer part?  Is it like written in the background?  Should
I experiment with slow-mo?  I know!  Play it backwards, right!!

Damn, I've gotta go check this out ASAP.  Ciao!

rini  :)  :)  :)
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: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:59:49 GMT


>Yes. It seems to me, that women generally have very little interest
>in pornography; it varies, but on the whole, their interest in
>it seems to apply to a minority. I'm curious as to if the 'complainers'
>want more 'porn for females', or wish to decimate(?) the amount available
>for the male population. It seems to me, they want the last thing, or
>better, they want it changed to something 'politically correct'
>(comments/corrections anticipated(?))

This is interesting question.  I wonder if it wouldn't help the 
anti-censorship fight if we could get more 'porn for females' out 
there... Maybe then more women would feel that they have something
to *loose* with this silly legislation that's being proposed.
Just a thought.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 18:00:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.235516.20982@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>
>>>I don't know what I'm trying to say, but it seems to be that there are
>>>*elements* of a true feminist porn not in the muted soft-core stuff (and 
>>>god, not in romance novels) but in the *hard-core* stuff...  I don't know.
>>
>>Whoah!  Talk about your revelations.  You know, I think there is
>>definitely something in this.  Here's the difference that struck me when
>>reading your article:
>>
>>The "soft-core" stuff is more *telling* people what they should like:
>>"here are pictures of beautiful women.  You now know what's beautiful
>>because they all look very similar."  (That's oversimplified, of course,
>>especially as the desirable characteristics start out by being
>>societally defined and are then refined by the magazines, but I'm just
>>trying to find the distinction here, not discuss all the fine points.)
>
>Just one more thing -- 
>
>I have yet to see (or hear about) a woman orgasm in anything less than 
>hard-core. (Though I'm no expert on this...)

I'm having trouble figuring what this means. Do you think that the SI
swimsuit models should be having orgasms? Since the actual sex starts
at hardcore, is this not where one should find the orgasms? And if you
want to read about them, try the Penthouse letters column.
 
>Certainly stuff to think about.
>
>rini 
>
>I guess one exception would be the Betty Dodson vibratorama 
>instructional video on masturbation for women.
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:24:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.174756.3385@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>solnorda@dmpe.csiro.au (Chris Solnordal) writes:
>>(Bet you didn't think anyone would stick up for you, did you Dave ? :-) )
>
>Frankly, no. Most of my viewpoints are hard for most people to understand.

	But, Dave, surely _you_ are responsible for this?

	Get a clue: either there's something defective about your
viewpoint, or something defective about your attempts to explain it.

						Kayembee
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:01:03 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >This is the third time:  I think the word "censorship" is
| >nearly meaningless without a context for both the subject
| >and the object(s).  That's why I called it a "shibboleth."  

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Either give a definition of what *you* mean, or give several examples 
| (with "the subject and the object(s)") of what you see as censorship.
| Adding degrees (X is worse than Y because...) would be nice too.
| 
| If you don't want to do that then your call for definitions of
| the terms first is quite meaningless.

I suggest we not use the word, since it requires such
an apparatus to make its meaning clear in the present
context.  If you think it's especially useful, tell
us why.

hg:
| | 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.

gf:
| >Please tell us how you know that feminists who are
| >opposed to "censorship" are a small minority.  Did you
| >take a census or an opinion poll?  You have the names and
| >the addresses of all those feminists?  

hg:
| I see who talks more, sales more copies of their books, and tries
| (and sometimes succeeds) to pass its legislation.  (I never quote
| Dworkin because nobody buys her books, but Brownmiller is popular.)

What do you mean, you see who talks more?  Do you mean on
television?  If so, let me let you in on a little secret:
the people who run television stations are not feminists.
At least, they're not my kind of feminist.  The same goes
for those who push books and pass legislation.  The 
construction of the DworkinMacKinnon monster has been a
project undertaken from outside anything I recognize as
feminism.

In any case, appearance on television, articles in
Usenet news, sale of books, and legislation say very little
about the opinions of all feminists.  When a feminist
goes out to buy a book, she or he may not realize
the dire moral consequences of not selecting one of
which you approve.  Actually, come to think of it, your
extensive quotation from Dworkin, MacKinnon, and 
Brownmiller is rather suspect....
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )