HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography Victims' Compensation Act
Date: 29 Sep 92 05:07:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep28.231914.7561@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

> Committee of Feminists for Free Expression (which includes Nora Ephron,
> Judy Blume, Adrienne Rich, Betty Friedan, Anne Bernays and 180 other
> active feminists):

I don't know how many of you know who Judy Blume is.  She's an author of
scores of children's books.  She's controversial because she doesn't pull
any punches when it comes to tough subjects.  I remember one of her books
generated a firestorm of protest because she had the guts to explore the
topic of female masturbation.  I read the few paragraphs in question and
thought she handled the subject very well.

But when a book like "Dragon Wings" (not one of Judy's, btw) is taken to
court because one mother thought that it promotes "devil worship", it's
no wonder that Judy Blume's frank treatment in her books cause an uproar.

> "Women do not require 'protection' from explicitly sexual materials.  It
> is no goal of feminism to restrict individiual choices or to stamp out
> sexual imagery.  


> I think it is a rather nice statement.

I agree!

> Arlen Specter conspiciously left the room at vote time.  (Woah -- 
> flashbacks to the Anita Hill thing or what?)

Naaa.  He's up for re-election here in Pennsylvania and Lynn Yeakle is
breathing down his neck.  In a state with so many old people and with
competition from a feminist like Lynn Yeakle, I'm sure he saw this one
as a lose-lose situation.

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: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Subject: Re: Property, Patriarchy, and all that (was: women in engineering)
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
	<t16n23p.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Sep21.234626.17735@s1.gov>
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 08:47:10 GMT


In article <1992Sep21.234626.17735@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:


> 	If one can have power out in the open, then it becomes
> unnecessary to pull strings. And one's power becomes much more
> dignified and less demeaning.

And what makes you think women will give up the part of power they
don't need any more. If a woman can't ever have too much money it seems
that she also can't ever have too much power.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: 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: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:18:28 GMT

In article <13026@harry> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>zorro@picasso.ocis.temple.edu (John Grabowski) writes:
>>Hans Johnsen (hans@Software.Mitel.COM) wrote:

[stuff stored in /dev/null]
 
>>I even lost a job to a black woman who
>>: was obviously less qualified than me since she scored lower on a basic
>>: intelligence test (I won't tell how I found out her score). Of course
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>I notice you didn't address this point.
>
>>: these tests are completely unbiased, and are definitely the best
>>: predictor of who would have been better for that job.
>>
>>If they are not worth much to measure intelligence (and I personally agree
>>that they're not), then why are they used so much?  And why are they
>
>This is a good question, to which I have no answer.
>
>>"overlooked" by admissions officers at most universities when it comes to
>>blacks and Hispanics?  No, I'm not making this up.  Many universities admit
>>that they do this, and say that the years of poverty and life in the ghetto
>>are the reason they are willing to bend scores for "minority applicants,"
>
>The real problem with intelligence tests is that they are poor cross
>cultural predictors of intelligence, therefore this type of policy is
>(on the surface) quite reasonable. The problem is that race and culture,
>while related, are not equivalent.

Wait a minute, I though SAT scores were used. I have been in many colleges
and universities, and never took an IQ test. And my understanding is that
SAT scores do correlate well with college/university performance.

What am I missing here?

[bit bucket is not stuffed full]

>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

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 19:11:49 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Sep29170020@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>Okay, I'll try to rephrase it.  Assuming that it is the case that you
>are attractive to other people in a pair of tight jeans, and that you
>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
>partially responsible for the effects of your clothing on this person?
>If not, then what does it matter *how* you are dressed?  If so, then how
>much lighter should the sentence be for what sorts of dress?

This whole discussion seems silly to me.  Any clothing can be sexy to
someone.  For example, those spandex shorts bikers wear.  Now, I
happen to find them incredibly sexy, and tend to ogle bikers at
traffic lights.  Should a biker (wearing shorts that are for biking)
be required to worry about my libido as s/he is biking?
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 4 Oct 92 17:20:22 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

Long reply...

>In article <1992Oct1.191956.7786@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:

>>To talk about somebody 'as a class' often sounds stereotyped.  It is much
>>better to consider people as individuals, rather than giving 'victimhood'
>>to a class which doesn't deserve it.

Note: A group deserves a label only when the label applies to all
members.  Richard seems to think I meant few members deserved
the label.  How many men/women are victims is a different question
to whether it is useful to think in terms of those groups.

In the referenced article, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

>I think many, many, many women are discriminated against by many, many, many
>men who are in positions of power

I think many, many X are discriminated against by many, many Y,
where X=women and Y=men; or where X=men and Y=women; or where X=Y.

I doubt that we can agree on generalisations, so I will be
more concrete.

If by power you mean political power, then it is true that
most politicians are men.  However few political decisions
are gender specific, and if they are, are usually popular
pro-female/anti-male ones.  The accession of female leaders
(e.g. Margaret Thatcher) should result in a large movement
of power towards women, which doesn't happen.

If you are talking about power in personal relationships,
then women have more power here than men IMHO.

If you are talking about power in business, then I think
there is little discrimination in job applications (in the
US).  As for the 'old-boy network' I have seen no evidence
that a women is less likely to have someone pull strings
for them than a man.

If you are talking about money (purchasing) power, women
have more.

>Not a single stereotype in it.

It is a stereotype when you treat members of a group
differently by assuming that a statistical correlation
(or worse, a vague feeling) means it is true/untrue for each
member without finding out the circumstances of the
individual.
E.g. I have a vague feeling that women are more
discriminated against, so I will give preference to all
female job applicants.  Blacks are statistically more likely
to have convictions for theft, so I won't employ them.

>There are lots and lots of women who *are* victims.

There are lots and lots of men who *are* victims.

>Don't you think something could and should be done to reduce this?

People should receive help based on their individual problem,
*not* on what group they happen to belong/not belong to.
That just guarantees more victimisation.

If you promote action based on stereotypes, then you are
part of the problem, not part of the solution.

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

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: epog6796@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Eric Peter Olson)
Subject: Re: Mace, Pepperguard, etc.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:14:59 GMT

bluelobster+@CMU.EDU (David O Hunt) writes:

>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.

From what I have been told:

CS tear gas comes out a fiarly focused spray, you need to 
be able to aim and hit your attecker.  

CN tear gas (Mace) will vaporizes upon impact.  This allows you 
to be less accurate. 

Capstun (peper deriivatives) is powerful enough to be effective
with relativly little aim. (this is what I recomend)

Remember that it is not so much the kind of chemical weapon
you use, it is how you use it.  It is a tool, not a magic
weapon that will save you.

A study was done with comitted attackers.  Their goal was stab
the gas user starting from a distance.  All always suceeded.
The attackers were all martial artist with a single, simple goal. 
In a real situation the attackers will probably be untrained and may
not have a definite goal.  You may have to do more than mace them.
Screaming, running, and counter attacking are all options if 
your are prepared to do them.

Sugestions:
 * Have the gas somewhere accessable.  Your pocket or purse may not
   be fast enough.  We tell people to hold it in their pocket.  If 
   you run, duct tape it to the inside of a glove -- you can't drop
   it and it is always there.

 * Try using it once. (outside!)  You will feel more comfortable using
   it.  (If you can't use it on a tree, you may not be able to use it
   on an attacker.  You will also know what to expect.  

*  Hold it close to your body when using it.  If you stick your arm
   out toward your attackers, they might be able to knock it out of
   your hand.

good luck, may you never need to use it.
Eric Olson (self-defense instructor)
From: be799@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Sean Hillyard)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:20:30 GMT
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


From article <JULIE.92Sep30235017@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu>, by julie@cucbs.chem\
.columbia.edu (Julie Wright):
[...]
>
>       I haven't the foggiest idea why it [the SAT] undervalues female student\
s'
> future academic performance or overvalues male students'.  I don't think
> anyone can say for sure, or they'd fix the thing and make a lot more money,
> because colleges want more accurate predictions.  So I have problems
[...]

How closely has this been looked into?  Since one posible reason is the
distribution of majors (grade inflation has hit math-science majors less
hard than the arts).  Was this corrected for?

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 22:53:07 GMT

In article <1992Sep25.164116.2667@wkuvx1.bitnet> traveja@wkuvx1.bitnet (Mathmagician/Fizix Geek) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.172039.1016@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>> You must be referring to the registration that every 18 year old man
>> must do.  There hasn't been a draft since the Vietnam War--20 years
>> ago.
>> 
>	I think your myopic condition  has forced you to miss the
>	point. Who cares if there hasn't been a draft in 20 years?
>	What matters in this situation is the potential for a
>	condition that lacks even parity. If men can be drafted and
>	forced to participate in combat, then so should women.
>	{sarcasm on} Besides, there hasn't been a draft in 20 years, 
>	what's the big deal? 

And where have I said this is fair?  That I don't support drafting
both men and women or not drafting anyone?

But until the men's movement makes draft registration _the_ number one
issue about men's rights (more important than fathers' rights, for
example), I'll see the call for feminists to do the same as one more
incident of feminist bashing.  What I see is both feminism and the
men's movement involved in issues both groups think are more pressing
than draft registration.

And as Muffy has said, you provide me with a petition or an
organization and I'll sign it and circulate it or join the
organization.
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:43:05 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.191956.7786@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>In the referenced article, zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>>  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.
>
>Do you think men, as a class, *are* victims of the female power structure?
>
>>what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
>>action from another(s).  You (generic you) split hairs with this and the
>
>By that definition, almost everyone is a victim of almost everyone else.
>I think it is a poor definition.
>
>To talk about somebody 'as a class' often sounds stereotyped.  It is much
>better to consider people as individuals, rather than giving 'victimhood'
>to a class which doesn't deserve it.

OK.
I think many, many, many women are discriminated against by many, many, many
men who are in positions of power, and (since this discrimination includes
refusing power to the many, many, many women) this is a self-perpetuating
phenomenon.

Not a single stereotype in it.
There are lots and lots of women who *are* victims.
Don't you think something could and should be done to reduce this?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:40:44 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>#a woman is not a cup,
>>#and her sexuality isn't either.

An interesting aside:

In ancient Hebrew the word for vagina is "kos"
and the same word also means a cup.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:07:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.143119.23156@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>| > 	Speaking of hilarious, I simply must repeat a small piece of
>| > that MacKinnon quote, just to savor it:
>| 
>| > 	"Masturbating over the positions taken by the women's bodies
>| > associates male orgasm with the positions expressed in the articles."
>| 
>| > 	And people actually take this woman seriously?
>
>This seems like elementary stuff to me.

	I'd say that's an understatement - it looks to me like a strained
pun: "positions" of women's bodies, "positions" taken in articles. With
profound philosophers like MacKinnon at work, what need for Henny
Youngman?

>Goes right back to
>Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
>intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
>magazine contains articles.

	No! You don't mean someone could use sex to sell soap, do you?
(Just for Gordon: that's irony above, son) Sorry, I remain amused by
the image of Playboy using nekkid women to sell guys on the virtues of
a free press. Or was it using libertarian ideals to sell guys on the
virtues of pictures of nekkid women? I get so confused.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 1 Oct 92 08:28:52 EDT
 <1992Sep30.152059.7395@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> <1acoe1INNg8n@agate.berkeley.edu>
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu's message of 30 Sep 1992 17:33:53 GMTLines: 22

The next generation is not the personal property of those who procreate it. 
The next generation is a resource we all need.  They will be the members of the
human community with whom we must make political decisions; agree about
cleanliness of air, water, etc.; communicate; share our cultures; and
ultimately leave with the responsibility for Planet Earth.

"Taking time out" from (e.g.) academic careers to raise children, or funding
daycare centers or secondary schools, etc. is all service in support of the
next generation.  It is not equiv. to "taking time out to travel" or "choosing
to have a boat" because children aren't the personal property of their parents.

Children are only children for a very brief portion of their lives.  For the
rest of their lives they are the citizens who vote or revolt or serve the     W
governments of the world;  the folks who drive your busses & trains & fly your
airplanes, your doctors & teachers & political leaders; the pharmacist who fills
your prescription; the musician who makes the music that makes you dance; the
parents who raise the next generation after them.  I can't see how anyone could
NOT feel inclined to support their learning-years, and those who "raise" them.

------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:18:11 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <4373@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us> shomer@cruzio.santa-cruz.ca.us writes:
>In article <v=_pqha.barry@netcom.com>, 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?
>
>Interesting point.

	Thanks, but after reading the followups, I'm gonna retract :-).
It's probable the same number of people would be drafted whether the
pool is male-only, or everyone. Note this on your calendars, folks -
someone's mind was changed by a net.discussion!

						Kayembee
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 2 Oct 92 01:20:23 GMT
	<ZEN.92Sep29160051@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Oct1.202746.23453@netcom.com>
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: sheaffer@netcom.com's message of Thu, 1 Oct 1992 20:27:46 GMT


In article <1992Oct1.202746.23453@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
> In article <ZEN.92Sep29160051@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.

> Come off it [...] 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."

  Ok... so you think that women have it "easier" in this world, that the
small disadvantages that they have are more than offset by the numerous
advantages they get by virtue of being female?

> 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.

  Ah... so you're saying despite appearances, women control the
government, the corporations, the legal system, indeed, the media and
everything else.  Did they get this way by witholding sex or by getting
some poor guy trapped with a surprise pregnancy?

 -- d
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:47:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <26512@castle.ed.ac.uk>, cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
> In article <6608@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:

>>Playboy is
>>one of the most requested publications by the blind.

> Interesting to know how many of them could see before they
> started reading Playboy :-)

This is a myth.  The way I heard it: If you DON'T do it, you'll go blind. ;-)

Besides -- it would be hard to read Braille with hairy palms.

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: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Philosophy for Gordon (Was Re: Choice for men)
Date: 26 Sep 92 17:20:23 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <717485432@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>The insistence of people with no first hand experience in being drafted
>that they understand the problem much better has no base, IMO.

This is a quite convincing reason, I think, why it is that men should
be the ones to fight the sexist draft system we have now, instead of 
asking feminists to wage that battle for them.

>Hillel                                      gazit@cs.duke.edu

rini
From: forest@cs.unca.edu (Forest Davenport)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Daycare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 5 Oct 92 12:25:27 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina at Asheville

In article <BvMFA2.8J9@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
>chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>>  [daycare]
>> Yes.  It should be called that, if it is.  However parents
>> are the best people to teach a young child and they should
>> if they can.
>
>even illiterate, uneducated parents? What about abusive ones?
>What about teenage parents? Or mentally handicapped parents?
>
>Education is `best' done by those with some aptitude for it,
>and preferably some training as well IMHO.
>
>moz 

	Are you proposing some sort of parental aptitude test
	before one is "allowed" to become a parent?

					Forest
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1830 soc.men:17155