HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:05:55 GMT

In article <718926165@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>1) In libellous attacks you have to prove damages in a way which is quite
>   difficult; hopes to collect large sums of money are usually baseless.
>
>2) The penalties on child porn are much stiffer; e.g. mail ordering the 
>   material is enough to throw someone to jail, while buying a copy of 
>   a libellous carries no punishment.

I'm starting to understand, I think.  Thanks.

>>(I'm geniusly curious here.  I *want* to be able to deflect attacks like
>>Gordon Fitch's.)
>
>Gordon probably realizes that the laws against child porn which was produced
>without breaking any laws (e.g. produced in a country were it is legal) are
>censorship, but he does not have the guts to say anything which is not
>Politically Correct.  

I think you're misrepresenting Gordon here.  It was Gordon's original 
point is that *lots* of things are censored and not many people whine
about it.  

>We can't throw the offending party to jail, and the government is usually
>not in the business of deciding what to ban.  It also takes a long time
>till there is a decision, and so the ban usually has no influence on the
>political process.  (E.g. Bush's ads in 1988 were perfectly legal.)

Thanks for your explanation.

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:57:58 GMT

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>>but the way it
>>has worked out with my spouse and I is that I will be the main
>>wage earner, and he will be the primary parent.  For us, it was
>>feminism that helped us see that that decision made the most sense
>>for us.  My husband is thrilled that he will be able to pursue what 
>>he would *really* find meaning in: the raising of our children.  
>>I am thrilled that I will be able to do the career thing without
>>giving up kids.  
 
>I am glad that it works for you, but I can't see what it has to do
>with feminism.  It seems to me that it has to do with people who can
>decide what they want, and get into agreement by negotiations.  

On the latter point, you're definitely right.  And I know this is just 
a personal example (and I generally don't care for personal examples) 
but, let me just say, for *us*, feminism has had a lot to do with it.  

(An aside here.  There has is a lot of talk about how "feminism" is a
bout women and not men, both literally and in practice.  For me, it's 
not that way.  If there was another philosophy out there that said, 
"I think ascribing [encouraging or whatever] people roles on the
basis of their sex organs sucks weenies" then I would call myself that.)

>>For us, feminism allowed us to make those 
>>decisions without feeling like we were somehow "failures" at our
>>[pre-assigned] roles.
>
>Why the hell should you, or anybody else, let society dictate your feelings?!

Yes.  Exactly.  And that is what feminism has let me see.

rini
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Date: 9 Oct 92 23:49:03 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Oct9134657@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> In article <1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:

>>Gordon equates them, and you seemed to think you were agreeing
>>with him. Don't ask me to read your mind.

> Funny how everyone here keeps telling me what I think.  What I *think*

Perhaps it appears that "everyone" does this because you are mistaken.
He didn't say that YOU THOUGHT this, he said "you SEEM to think".  This
means that HE believes that you think this.  It is an invitation for you
to clarify the situation.

Terry "Or so I think" Wood

-- 
        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:2504 soc.men:17663 soc.women:17658
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 11:11:06 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:
| [ apparently advertsiting desirability of Mr. Clinton: ]
| >*  Crack down on deadbeat parents ....

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| 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.

Says "parents."

| 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?

I didn't write the article, nor am I a writer for the
Democratic party or the Clinton-Gore campaign.  If you're
so confused that you believe I am, I think you need a
rest.  While you're resting, it might come back to you
that only a few weeks ago I posted my own views on some
of these issues, which differ significantly from those
reported in the article you're following up.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Womens'" magazines
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:06:47 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>cindy@meshugge.media.mit.edu (Cindy Blank-Edelman) writes:
 
>>I agree that most "women's magazines" are just as offensive as
>>"pornographic" magazines, just in a slightly different way.
>
>>All this being said, I do not think that one can defend pornography by
>>merely saying that women's magazines are bad too!  

I do.

>>I don't like the
>>idea of censorship, but if everyone were suddenly to decide that they
>>didn't want to buy pornographic magazines and the industry went away,
>>I would not be unhappy.  

I would.

>Why feminists fight so hard against "men's" magazines, but give 
>almost no fight against "women's" magazines?

Because it's hard to argue both that women are oppressed/offended by
some material when they are the only one's consuming said material.  
(And note that not all feminists fight against "men's" magazines...)

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2338 soc.men:17560
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:25:04 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
 
>It's interesting to see the defense of jokes as the expense of men:
>one line is to say the butt of the joke was a flasher, not all men;
>another is to say that women tell the jokes in a different way.

The first is a bit iffy in this situation (ie: a women's studies course),
but could be valid for the flasher joke in a more general context.
The second is not valid, for the reasons you outlined.

>No feminist seems ready even just to say that the Women's Studies 
>professor showed a lack of judgement and of sensitivity in telling 
>offensive jokes about men from a position of power.

In fact Muffy Barkocy did EXACTLY that in her response to your post.
Now I (also a feminist) will add my agreement.

I would like to make another comment about the context in which the
flasher joke was told. This was a WS course, and what the professor
may have been trying to do is turn the tables and make people
think about the anti-woman jokes they hear all the time. If she hoped
to convince men that these stereotypes could hurt when the tables are
turned (she seems to have convinced you, if you needed convincing), she
was speaking to the wrong group (ie: a mostly female class).

Most likely what she was doing was a little childish pay-back to the
professors who told anti-woman jokes to her classes when she was a
student. Again she was addressing the wrong audience, but hey, we're
all childish sometimes right? (I'm not, are too, am not, are too, am not,
are too)
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:12:46 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
|>| >I read about NOWs (anti-censorship) stance in LIBIDO.  (A magazine
|>| >which now has a hard time making it into Canada...)

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
|>| These Canadian laws have been held up by _Ms._ as shining examples of 
|>| the "victories" that would be possible if only the tradition of free speech
|>| weren't so strong.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
|>Are you sure this was the position of the magazine as a
|>whole?  The last issue of it I read contained many contra-
|>dictory opinions; the editors seem to think it proper to
|>give feminism many often divergent voices.

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
| I would be interested in knowing what issue that is, Gordon.  I
| couldn't find it.  

You mean the issue upholding the Canadian laws?  I haven't
seen it either.  But those issues of _Ms_ that I have seen
have generally contained diverse viewpoints.  That sort of
thing seems to confound anti-feminists, who quote _The_Second_
_Sex_ as if it were dogma pronounced _ex_cathedra_ for the
faithful to believe without question.  Since they cannot
have perceived this of feminism, one can only wonder where
they find their visions.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:04:50 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>> I have yet to see (or hear about) a woman orgasm in anything less than 
>> hard-core. (Though I'm no expert on this...)
>
>  Obviously you've never seen _when harry met sally_...

No, I haven't.  I had always heard there is a very funny fake 
[female] orgasm scene in there, but I haven't heard about a real one.
Not that it matters much.

>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.

Yes, but that doesn't contradict my statement.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Feminist Mailing List
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:59:47 GMT
Organization: Mitel. Kanata (Ontario). Canada.

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
...
>FIST@hamp.hampshire.edu
...
>      FIST-request@hamp.hampshire.edu.

In light of recent discussions about Susie SexPert, this is an
interesting acronym they have here! Especially that second use!
An I'd hate to think what the 'hamp' is short for!

:^o :^| :^) ;^)
-- 
Take off all your clothes and walk down the street waving a machete
and firing an Uzi, and terrified citizens will phone the police and
report: "There's a naked person outside!" - Mike Nichols
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:07:22 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
 
>>The only thing I can figure out is that someone is trying so hard not
>>to be a victim that s/he loses whatever common sense and compassion
>>s/he has.  Strange, too, how this only seems to crop up in people who
>>have lead sheltered lives, where little bad or evil ever befell them.
>>But they're such great people, of course, they're responsible for
>>their nice, tidy lives.

>I don't think so.  I am one of those people who think that feminists are
>making a fatal error in promoting the victimization of women.  
>Making a person a victim is to make them helpless, to more
>or less distroy their sence of well-being.  In a away take away the
>the control they have over their own lives.   Some people don't allow
>themselves to be victims because they have reached a higher state of
>awareness that is superior.

(many stories of how starbuck has been a victim of crimes, deleted...)

Isn't your philosophy behind the current trend to call victims 
"survivors" instead?  I'm under the impression that a lot of feminist
literature uses that terminology.

>To be a victim is to be a looser.  To teach women to be victims
>is a crime agianst nature.  A real feminist would teach women to be
>strong, to overcome, to prosper, to succeed, to live with a fire
>in the gut, to "roar like a mama lion" ( joni mitchell ? ). 

Real feminists (at least some of them) do just that.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:42:35 GMT


dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>>Dave -- you and I -- we share absolutely *no* responsilibity for the
>>rain.  Snow either.  Not even tornados.  It's true.  Really.
>
>Not the occurence thereof, of course. But standing out in it, that's
>what we have responsibility for doing or not doing.

Yes, we do control our reactions to factual realities, but we cannot
always control the factual reality itself. 

>>If you choose to believe/argue otherwise, you have no place in rational
>>debate.
>
>By whose standard do you say that? 

Mine, of course.  But it's not that uncommon for magical beliefs (such
as believing that the use of umbrellas effects the weather) to be
dismissed as non-rational.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:23:52 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>>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
>
>libel n.  1. A written, printed, oral, or pictoral statement that damages
>             by defaming a persons character or reputation.
>
>Hmmm, don't see anything here about censorship. Libel is about reputations.
>I'd like to point out that as far as I know, to win a lawsuit for libel, the
>statements, etc... must be false. You can libel all day long. But you may
>have to explain to some judge why you should not pay damages and print
>some sort of retraction.

The censorship part follows from this statement:  libel is illegal.
That is, the law would like you not to say it.  That is, the law
can punish you for saying it.  I'm wondering how that is different
from censorship...  I must admit that I don't know.

>>copyright infringement
>
>copyright n.  The sole right to sell, publish, or distribute a literary
>              or artistic work. adj - protected by copyright. -v To protect
>              by copyright.
>
>No censorship here either, copyright is about theft of intellectual or
>artistic property.

Yes, which means if I want to say something (that someone else owns)
I can get in trouble with the law.  Thus, it's not true that I can
say *anything*.  Hence, I am a tad bit censored, no?

>>and some forms of harassment.  
>
>What does harrasment have to do with playboy or censorship?

Some forms of harassment, which could be considered forms of
expression, are illegal.

As I've said before, I'm against censorship of pornography, but
I think Gordon has raised some points....  points I wish I 
refute...  but I dunno...  (?)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon, Playboy,...
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:15:44 GMT


farthing@leland.StanfordiEDU (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

Chop their damn peckers off!

Um, just kidding.  Really.

'Bout as good of an idea as censorship....

rini
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 11:24:55 GMT
	<1992Oct8.040814.25037@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<MUFFY.92Oct8110213@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct8.235516.20982@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:55:16 GMT


In article <1992Oct8.235516.20982@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> 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...)

  Obviously you've never seen _when harry met sally_...

  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.

-  d
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
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: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 17:18:17 GMT


payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>Nope.  It makes it *much* easier, since in the great diversity of
>>feminist views, there are some pretty bizarre and even repugnant ones.
>>Here's a sample of what an anti-feminist can do with this:

(Deja-vu argument between hypothetical Anti-Feminist and Pro-Feminist
deleted.)

>To take a stand against the ideas espoused by Dwor/MacK is no more taking
>a stand against all feminism than supporting gender-neutral job qualificatins
>is a taking a stand against all men.
 
>>It is definitely a great advantage for the anti-feminists to have so
>>many different views coming from "feminists."  Not that they generally
>>acknowledge that there *are* differences.  They ascribe all the most
>>extreme, indefensible views to all of us.  
 
>Who here has done this, give examples (except for that flame-bait post
>a bit). If this is the way things are, you should be able to pick
>practically -any- damn post for an example. If things are not the way
>you paint, you will have to look hard for something marginal, or open
>to misinterpretation to make even a weak case.
 
>Or if you are not talking about the net, give some examples who are
>not themselves the extremists you complain are non-representative.

This may or may not be to your satisfaction.  This was *not* posted
and yes, it was personal e-mail.  I'm sorry if posting that offends
anyone.  I will cancel the post if someone requests it done.  The name
of the author has been deleted.

This all started in response to the post with the subject: "feminism is
not about hatred."  I had some correspondence with this new e-mail pal 
who brought forth some evidence that there are, indeed, feminists who
hate men.  To this I agreed, but said that the purpose of the post
was to point out some of the feminists who do not hate men.  My e-mail
pal didn't seem to get this latter idea...

*********************************************************************


rini> "who do not hate men" is a qualifier, modifying the noun "feminists".

rini> All of the following statments are not only *not* implied, but they
rini> are definately false:

rini> all those who hate men are feminists
rini> all those who are feminists hate men

	So what? Begging the question proves nothing. 

	It has been asserted (and you have agreed) that 
	"all feminists do not hate men". Thus, either Dworkin
	et al are not feminists or the assertion that
	"feminism is not about hate" is false.

	This has been done; now answer the question, please,
	are Dworkin et al "feminists" or not?

	Is the sweeping generalization "Feminists do not hate
	men" true or false?

	I'm not surprised to see that a feminist is deficient
	in logic.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism