HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kosts@ursa.calvin.edu (Steven Koster)
Subject: Re: Feminist Perspective of Batman Returns
Keywords: Batman, feminist, confusion, symbolic, movie
Organization: Calvin College
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 14:51:53 GMT

jjj@mits.mdata.fi (Joni Jarvenkyla) writes:

>In article <poznikof.711851264@sfu.ca> poznikof@fraser.sfu.ca (Kenneth Shane Poznikoff) writes:
>>That is what confuses me.  When I look at certain scenes,
>>I see some progressive notions, for example woman being
>>equal to man.  When at other sceens, or if I look at the same 
>>scenes in a different light, I see very negative, reactionary 
>>notions, for example, the psychotic nature of (Cat)woman.
>>
>>What do you think?

>I think that you're taking the film 900% too seriously.

>In my opinion the film is meant to work only in its own context and not
>to relate to the real world. God, it's FANTASY! The "stupid lines and
>acts" are meant to be FUNNY because they're so goddamn stupid that
>nobody's expected to take them seriously, well, uhm, except you.

Specific issues aside, I'd have to disagree that 'it's only
a movie, so it doesn't matter.' Popular culture both
reflects and shapes the wider culture. Young people
especially rely on popular media for 'road maps' and
indications on how the world works. So, to say it just a
fantasy and therefore meaningless is mistaken.

Nevertheless, some movies 'mean' more than others; with that
I must agree. Robocop had no intention of making a statement
of any kind, unlike 'dances with wolves' or 'Thelma &
Louise.' Robocop nonetheless *made* statements about
revenge, government, corruption, technology, etc.
Sure it was just a dumb film to make money, but that's
all the more reason to pay attention. It's a 
'loose cannon' of sorts.

So, Batman has impact, and probably more than most films
given its blockbuster status. And as for it's portrayal
of women, I would suggest it was *supposed* to be
confusing/split/dual--that (should have been) the
entire key to both Batman's and Catwoman's characters.
To be honest, I thought the whole film was a major 
disappointment. Truly a great film gutted.

--
<-SJK->
==============================================================================
Steven J. Koster                      |Internet: kosts@calvin.edu
Calvin College Video Productions      |Compuserve: 72020,3342
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Danielle  (story)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 21:24:39 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.160803.29725@hobbes.kzoo.edu> tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver) writes:
)I write:

)>This ending really weakens the story, IMO.  Probably the most dramatic
)>way to end it is to have the police arrest the girl, grill & threaten her
)>for a bit, and then have her commit suicide in her cell.
)>
)>Much more plausible.  If you really insist on having the cops kill her, make
)>one of them the father of the basketball captain at least.
)>
)The poster seems to really like blowing the heads off of people.  Witness
)the last story posted.

Could be.  The previous one didn't do much for me at all.  Danielle seemed to
have more potential.  Disturbing, but the main character was IMO well
portrayed  - an immature 'latch-key' kid with mostly absent  parents. 
Without the characterization, it's just another 'slasher' story (IMO again).
The poster seems to like them as is, though.
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 00:59:55 GMT
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	Double BARF!!!


	-Mike-

Xref: sparky soc.women:14095 alt.censorship:6278 talk.politics.misc:35926 soc.men:13715
From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.censorship,talk.politics.misc,soc.men
Subject: Re: Hate speech okay, Supreme Court says
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:09:54 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <robert.711924326@labyrinth> robert@informix.com (Robert Coleman) writes:
>
>	It's not, but it's irrelevant.  You wouldn't be arrested for your
>exercise of speech, you'd be arrested for robbery, which is a crime regardless
>of your intended message.  You *would not undergo any punishment for your
>message*.

Your legal alchemy is able to transform the act of the punk Viktora, a
form of assault, into protected speech that at one and the same time
(you claim) can be punished under laws other than hate speech laws.  You
fail to address how at one and the same time a citizen can be engaged in
a crime (for posters have called for Viktora's prosecution under
statutes other than hate crime statutes) AND in free speech.  One would
think that a commission of a crime is NEVER speech.

Why, then, is your legal alchemy unable to transform my hypothetical
robbery (just another crime) into speech.  Because, again, I declare
that these robberies are protests against economic injustice.


     "Let's go do some crimes!"
     "Yeah, let's get sushi and not pay!"

                                - Repo Man



>
>	In contrast, Viktora would have been arrested for the message, when
>it is not otherwise illegal to burn wood.

Again: these attempts at miscasting what Viktora did constitute
disinformation. In reality, Viktora victimized a black family with his
crime.  Absent a hate crime statute, victims of these sorts of Nazi
performance pieces have little recourse.  They can bring a private
lawsuit, but often the perpetrators have little money and cannot be
sued, or the victims cannot afford a civil suit.  In the absence of
property damage (or a prominent white victim), the perpetrators are not
likely to be sued for rowdyism because (again, absent a hate crime law)
the authorities are apt to treat Nazi performances as little more than a
hallowe'en prank.
>
>Robert C.
>-- 
>----------------------------------------------
>Disclaimer: My company has not yet seen fit to
>	    elect me as spokesperson. Hmmpf.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Ed Nilges and Snuff Films?
Date: 25 Jul 92 06:11:30 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Jul22.210407.19766@news.media.mit.edu> tsmaster@media.mit.edu (David LeCompte) writes:
/In article <1992Jul22.050251.25566@news.eng.convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes:
/>>You've been reading too much MacKinnon.  No such thing as snuff films.
/>>At least, none have ever been documented.
/>It may be a stretch, but I recently saw a program on a local public station
/>that included explicit footage from the Holocaust.
/It is a stretch.
/The criterion to remember is that the murder is planned *for* the
/film. i.e. if the camera runs out of film/batteries/swill the murder
/would be postponed until it would be possible to film.

Remember the officers' plot to kill Hitler? They were sentenced to death.
They were hung slowly on meathooks, being filmed all the while. The film
was shown to Hitler for his amusement.
From: Arthur_T_Hu@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: RU-486 volunteer
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 92 09:45:54 PDT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Is Leona Benten (or whatever her name is) who tried to smuggle in RU-486
a flake? She got laid off from a homeless shelter job, can't find another
job (or won't?), and won't have her baby because "I can't raise my baby
in his father's culture, and I can't raise it in mine, and the timing's
real bad". She says she's always been political.

Related issue - what would Quayle do if her daughter needed an abortion.
I'd bet that if they've raised their daughter the way I think they did,
that question would simply never come up, because she would never need one.
Believe it or not, there are patterns of behavior that make this a moot
question. It was never an issue in my family because none of us go pregnant
or got anybody else pregnant, and it is unbelievably easy to make it happen
this way (basically we didn't sleep around!)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Hillary Clinton - Family Values?
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:45:32 GMT

deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom) writes:


> Jennifer Brown <JLB155@psuvm.psu.edu> writes: 

>In article <1992Jul21.182938.7985@athena.cs.uga.edu>, heath@athena.cs.uga.edu
>(Terrance Heath) says:
>>
>>          For example, a child who is sexually or otherwise abused
>>might exercise her right to divorce her parents. At least this way the
>>child has a say in her own life.

>So (back to a common subject), why can't the parents divorce their
>children??  Oh, I guess they're not allowed to have a say in their
>own life.

>-Jennifer

>PS.  Child(ren) means after birth.  No abortion.

>----------

>This is quite possible.  It's called "giving up your child for adoption"
>or "relinquishing parental rights".

Unfortunately, it is not an option which can be exercised at will. Parents
have a legally defined duty to their children. No reciprocal duty for
children exists. As a general principle every duty also implies certain 
rights, which Hillary's proposals are trying to limit.

To maintain fairness I hereby plead for the right to divorce myself
from my son because the little snotnose refuses to eat his oatmeal,
causing me Grave Emotional Disturbance.

(Oh, how can he make so light of these Serious Issues?)

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: JJ's Girlfriend: Cheryl Stewart
Keywords: hans_und_frans is a fake id, for those with credulity problems
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 92 05:38:42 GMT

In article <23259@alice.att.com> jj@alice.UUCP (jj, curmudgeon and general grouch) writes:
>In article <ya-ya@hans_und_frans>
>
>You know, Herr Clever Hans, you are a perfect example of why women
>don't like men. 

I don't like this statement.  He's not an example of why women don't
like men, because global statements about people are inherently wrong.
His nastiness is just _his_ nastiness.

>Or do you just like to try to silence women by being such an ass in a
>newsgroup supposedly dedicated to women's issues?  You won't silence me.
>You won't silence anyone who counts.  

I think nastiness does tend to silence the more gentle, less
aggressive posters.  I'd like to hear some of those gentle voices, but
I don't think we'll hear them in this atmosphere.

As I posted earlier, I am interested in setting up a mailing list.  I
tried one of the mailing lists already in existence, but it doesn't
seem to be active.  So, send me email if you're interested.  (I
already have some email from people, but I have a glitchy mailer,
so...  It would be best to send me more email.)
From: dswartz@redondo.sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Pennsy abortion law q
Date: 31 Jul 92 14:26:55 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Software Engineering

In article <1992Jul31.014721.19302@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will Steeves) writes:
>bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes...
>BW> Who pays for the choices?  If a woman has an abortion, then (aside
>BW> from the relatively small financial cost of the procedure) either
>BW> noone pays, the woman pays, the fetus pays, or the man pays, depending
>BW> on your views on abortion.  What about the choice of opting not to
>BW> support a child--who pays for that?  (I've asked this question several
>BW> times of men who want the option to opt out, and have _never_ gotten
>BW> an answer)
>
>Okay, an answer, finally...  Adoption.  (ie., if neither parent wants to
>support the child)
>
>There are *plenty* of couples out there who are BEGGING for a pregnancy,
>even an "accidental" one.

No kidding.  A co-worker of mine and his wife tried for 10 years to have
a baby and she had several miscarriages.  Finally they decided to adopt
and were dismayed to find that the waiting lists were years long.



>---
>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 * Love is grand.  Divorce, twenty grand.


-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Separate but equal is
X-To: TIM WEAVER
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:47:00 GMT

tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver) writes...
TW> The real tragedy is that Will could have just said, "Yeah, it's hell
TW> for us guys too."

But that is in essence, what I said.


TW> Unfortunately, he has kind of a knee-jerk reaction.

Where is the knee-jerk reaction in replying that "it's not just hell for
girls"?


TW> Fact is, the flavor of hell women have to go through is a product
TW> of their gender.  Just as the flavor of hell that men have to go
TW> through is a product of our gender.

I agree with you 100 percent.


TW> I have one favor to ask, when you say "You men..." in reply to one of

She was being sarcastic, Tim.

Will
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * The height of cleverness is being able to conceal it.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Impossible
X-To: LJF
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 02:17:00 GMT

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes...
LJ> As long as a person is being investigated, it's reasonable not to have
LJ> that person alone with children.

Well, you've fallen right into the trap that is set by wives/ex-wives who
allege child abuse in a ploy to get custody.  Indeed, your statement, which
is also the current legal standard, is one of caution, ie., "if he is being
investigated, he should not be left with children," is also tantamount to a
feeling that *the man is guilty until proven innocent*!

And believe me on this one, during the time that the father is being
investigated and fighting the charge in court, which may sometimes take
YEARS, the mother (obviously) has custody of the child(ren), and no court
in the land is going to reverse a custody decision where the mother has had
the status quo for so long, EVEN IF the father finally PROVES HIS INNOCENCE.
(note my wording carefully...)


LJ> >And what do you do when the charges are shown to be FALSE and MALICIOUS?

Nothing.  As soon as the charge is made, it is a virtual fait accompli.  The
father will spend years, and thousands of dollars, during which time the mother
has custody and is unlikely to lose it even after a not guilty verdict.


LJ> >This is a serious question, and I would like a serious answer. As long as
LJ> >the *system* does NOTHING about such false charges, it will merely encourag
LJ> >MORE false charges. After all, there is almost nothing risked and a lot
LJ> >to be gained.

LJ> Aren't there laws against filing deliberately incorrect police
LJ> reports?  Couldn't that be used against the person?

Yes...in Canada (probably in the States too), we have laws dealing with
Public Mischief (ie., making a charge known to be false, saying that someone
is dead when you know that he/she is not, etc.), but in cases of wrongful
accusation, it is VERY hard to PROVE, even given a case having been thrown
out of court, that the mother "knew" that she was lying.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                    "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * We pause for station identification...
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,sci.med
From: stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Glenn Stone)
Subject: Re: Ancient Methods of Birth Control
Reply-To: stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Glenn Stone)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:58:40 GMT

Now I always thought that 

in days of old,
when knights were bold
and rubbers weren't invented,
they just wrapped socks
around their cocks
and babies were prevented.

But I don't follow the literature on this, so this view may be out of date.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Glenn Davis Stone                                BITNET: stone@cunixf
  Columbia University            INTERNET: stone@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu (Michael Rawdon)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Right to not support
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:50:45 GMT
Reply-To: rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI

In <nancyo.712390711@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca (Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:
>>In article <nancyo.712373787@sfu.ca> nancyo@fraser.sfu.ca 
>>(Nancy Patricia O'Connor) writes:
>>>We live in a society where DNA testing should eliminate this
>>>uncertain paternity, and it would thus be (if he is able)
>>>in the father's best interest to support his child.

>>Thank you so much for deciding for other people what are their
>>best interests; I don't know what all those stupid men would 
>>do without the help of women like you...

>I was not making any value judgments; I used the phrase
>"best interest" in terms of reproductive fitness, or,
>the success one has in producing offspring which survives
>to reproduce.

>I think it would be in a father's best interest in that regard
>to ensure the survival of the child, rather than rely on a
>society which, also in that regard, should not have any concern
>for the child (since he or she is not related to the majority
>of of its members).

What if the father is not interested in producing offspring which survive to
reproduce (or in producing offspring at all)?

-- 
Michael Rawdon
rawdon@cabrales.cs.wisc.edu
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department, Madison, WI

beta test, v. To voluntarily entrust one's data, one's livelihood and one's
    sanity to hardware or software intended to destroy all three.  In earlier 
    days, virgins were often selected to beta test volcanos.
From: deannab@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Deanna Bergstrom)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 00:38:10 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: All feminists are lesbian man-haters
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (NMD MTA MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

Janice made many good points in reply to the original message.

One other point I would like to add...women get AIDS from men much
more easily than men get AIDS from women.  I have seen figures ranging
from 3X to 10X greater transmission rate from men to women, compared
to from women to men.

Also, the rate of increase in infection in the US is increasing much faster
in women than in men, in the last couple of years.

So yes, women have an interest in AIDS, above and beyond the interest
that men might have.

And by the way...AIDS didn't START as a gay men's disease.  It is
believed to have begun in heterosexuals in Africa, and to have initially
spread in the US among gay men. 

Deanna
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: women's place in life
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:14:00 GMT
Organization: LLNL

In article <1992Jul26.142146.1@engr> s_mesbah@engr writes:
>Hi y'al

>	I am new to this group and I'd just thought I'd share my views with
>you.  I think that all you women should get away from the computer and start
>doing what you were created to do (kitchen, kids, and domesticated love slave).
>Remember, you were made from our rib!

	This is a joke, right?

	And while we are on the subject of the Bible, I suggest that
this fellow read Matthew 4:8 about the shape of the Earth. How could
it be shaped like a ball if one could simply climb some high mountain
and see "all the kingdoms of the world"? Yes, ALL of them.

	And the idea of the male sex being biologically primary is
baloney; if anything, it is the female sex, because it is more
important for gametes to be well-fed than to be mobile, even though if
one of them is very mobile, the other one can get VERY well-fed
without too much trouble.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org>
Subject: Re: Separate but equal is
X-To: SUSAN LARSEN
Organization: The Zoo of Ids
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:42:00 GMT

slarsen@mozart.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes...
SL> In article <1992Jul1.012914.9271@zooid.guild.org> goid@zooid.guild.org (Will
SL> eves) writes:
SL> >slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes...
SL> >
SL> >SL> I'll say this, High School is hell on girls.
SL> >
SL> >Don't be so narrow-minded...high school is hell on EVERYONE!  Just because
SL> >you're a woman and high school might have been hell for YOU does NOT mean
SL> >that it was because of your gender.

SL> Well, well, well.  Pardon me for making a statement about women's
SL> experiences in soc.women.  And pardon me for making the oh-so-
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Just because soc.women is for the discussion of women's experiences does
not mean that this is a women's-views-only newsgroup.

And if a poster says that problems in high school are due to discrimination
from the opposite sex (as many posters have said), I do not feel that the
fact that this is soc.women should somehow prohibit me from challenging that
view.


SL> >Radical feminists seem to blame EVERYTHING on men, INCLUDING their own
SL> >problems.  It's gotten to the point where anything that doesn't work out
SL> >for them exactly as they want it, is due to "It's a patriarchal world,
SL> >damn it!".

SL> Please quote me a post I wrote where I have claimed to either be a
SL> radical feminist or where I have blamed EVERYTHING on men.  I think
SL> you will be hard-pressed to find such writings.

I wasn't claiming that you were doing so, but many *do* tend to blame a lot
of their problems on discrimination from men (either intended or otherwise)
without first considering how to empower themselves to effectively fight
situations where they face problematic situations.


SL> ---SARCASM ON----
SL> Oh why is it that anti-feminist men feel that any experience

I realise that you were being sarcastic, but I do not consider myself
"anti-feminist".  You would also be hard pressed to find writings from
me where I referred to myself as such.



SL> One would think that persons educated enough to post on the net
SL> would have discovered that this world of ours is not a line
SL> drawing, but rather more like a photo featuring 256+ shades
SL> of gray.  Sheesh.

True.  While I would agree with you that things are not a matter of black and
white and right or wrong, but your quote that "high school is hell on girls"
seem to be quite a generalisation, ie., not a very "gray" thing to say.

Mind you, if you had said "High school was hell on me," as opposed to all
girls in general, I would not have criticised your generalisation.

---
Will Steeves, goid@zooid.guild.org                      "Neil Hull is GOiD"
ZOOiD BBS, Toronto, Ontario - The Zoo Of Ids
(416) 322-7876
---
 * SLMR 2.1a * Shampoo - no thanks, I'll use real poo.
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Those hairy legs again was Re: Exercise wear for the abundant of flesh
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 17:36:54 GMT

cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf) writes:

>If someone told them many young Scandy women don't shave their legs,
>would they die from the disillusionment?

They don't? Gasp, choke.... shudder.. thud.. twitch... ....pfft......


Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA