HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Porno and beauty standards (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy...)
Date: 8 Oct 92 08:04:20 GMT
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

>In article <1992Oct7.180559.10555@midway.uchicago.edu> 
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>In my life, I have noticed that the softer the porn, the more likely it
>>involves [36-24-36] women only.  Take a look at the swimsuit issue of SI,
>>for example.  Then Playboy.  Then maybe Hustler (more likely to have
>>a male at least in the background.)  Then hard-core porn mags or
>>movies.  Once you get into hard-core, the % of men in the scene
>>jumps *way* up.  And then of course you get classic titles like "Fat
>>Mommas and Their Machines ."  The airbrushed Sex Symbol is missing.
>
>>Anybody else notice this?  What's the deal?  Theories?

Economics of supply and demand.  "Ideal" women cost more to hire than
"non-ideal" women.  The softer the porn, the more women willing to
engage in the porn (and, realistically, the wider the mainstream market).
I understand that female porn stars make fourfold what male porn stars
do, which, if true, would bear this theory out somewhat.

One can put a feminist spin on the economics and argue that women
inherently prefer not to do hard-core porn, but once they decide to
model, the "ideal" women get the "good" jobs in softer porn, and
the ones who are less ideal have to settle for jobs in harder porn.
Observation Agreeing with this Theory: as actresses become more noted
and famous, they become less likely to do nude scenes or more explicit
sex scenes.
Observation Contradicting this Theory: Madonna.

Disclaimer: I've spent too much time working for Richard Posner.
-- 
ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu 
also at quibeaux@uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
ajax crypto-analyzer -- warning! remove all chicken bones first
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Date: 15 Oct 92 03:26:27 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Oct14.161630.25926@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>While that's certainly part of the feminist movement, I believe
>that Gordon was trying to point out a different facet of it:  the
>conquest for the "feminine" by men.  

What that has to do with feminism?

>In other words, we should allow "feminine" to be valued for it's 
>own characteristics and let men pursue it without being called 
>losers and faggots.  At least, that's how I read Gordon's statment.  
>And I think men do have a lot to gain from that.

Gordon took a traditional myth about women being "better," and 
made a lot of assumptions about what feminine is.  There are basic
question about the traditional myth that can be asked, e.g.:

Let's see what's going on in the education and families.
Both of those are more and more women's dominated, but the
quality of the school system goes down and single mothers are
not such great parents, even when the state and/or fathers
pay them $$$$.

Another problem is that Gordon ignores that fact that all those
"feminine" good qualities need a non-feminine someone to do the
dirty jobs of maintaining the environment which is needed around them.
If men will stop to provide the environment, the system will break
apart.  As a result, it is a feminist interest to keep men in their
place - over-worked, dying young, losing custody but pay $$$$
as child support and alimony.

If too many men will have the option of taking the "feminine" path 
then not enough people will keep the system running, 
and it will break apart.

>(Somehow, I'm not feeling very lucid here...)

No doubt...

>rini

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Women are care givers -- Men on the other hand are death dealers and rapists."
                                   -- Barbara J Stubna in soc.men
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Rights and Responsibilities
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: 0
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 21:09:41 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct13203405@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.012331.21691@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>This seems to bother Hillel, and Muffy thinks the guy should get a
>>vasectomy or give up sex. Although she says 'for the paranoid',
>>this seems to apply to all males in America who have sex, paranoid or
>>not.
>
>What are you saying here, Rich?  That you do not believe that I only
>meant for the paranoid?  

I said so right above, what -is- your problem? I said that while you
said 'for the paranoid', the laws apply to the non-paranoid as well.
This is what -I- said dammit. Try -reading- before yelling.

>                         Well, fortunately, I just happen to have found
>the article that Hillel reposted, so you can now see for yourself that
>you have misrepresented me.  

No Muffy, you are misrepresenting me. But now that you've jumped upon
Rini's misrepresentation bandwagon, I imagine you will just be happy
repeating the party line endlessly. 

BTW, I'd just like for you to demonstrate the difference between
misrepresentation and misunderstanding. There is more than a hint of
a claim to -willfull- misrepresentation in this hysterical chant.

>In particular, please note the sections on using condoms (starred).  
>Here's the post:

Long re-post deleted, along with sig. Lets start the next round of
name calling with repeated claims of misrepresentation from scratch, OK?


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2167 alt.sex:32170
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Censorship
Date: 7 Oct 92 07:00:31
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct7.071509.17723@nwnexus.WA.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: elf@halcyon.com's message of Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:15:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.071509.17723@nwnexus.WA.COM> elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:
> In other words, feminists don't like gay men 'cause gay men can
> enjoy themselves without feminists.  :-)

Imagine my surprise.  I didn't know I didn't like gay men.  In fact, I
could have sworn that I liked some of them (most of the ones I know)
very much.  And I imagined that I had a great time at the gay fandom
party (all men but for me and one other woman) at WorldCon.  And my
favorite sex scene in a mainstream movie is the two men in "My Beautiful
Laundrette." Oh, well.  I *do* like my gay friends and I am a feminist.
How confusing.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Context, which one...
Date: 11 Oct 92 20:57:29 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


After re-reading the posts about contexts, again, it occured to
me that the use of the word context was causing a communication
problem.

The example given, Muffy's friend had many contexts, and unless
it is clear which context is under discussion, misunderstandings
are bound to occur.

Obvious contexts are...

1) The context of American society at large. (I used this one)

2) The context of a meet market (bar or restaurant with dancing)

3) The context of going out with friends.


There are many others, but without details, I would not care to guess.

It is not enough to state a context, you must state -which- context
you are talking about.



Rich

payner@netcom.com
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: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:02:16 GMT

>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>| Okay, let's make a deal then.  I will give you the reference
>| to one issue (I think I can come up with two, in fact) which 
>| uphold the Canadian laws as a victory.  Now can you tell me 
>| which issue(s) contradict that opinion?  I am genuinely 
>| intrested.
 
>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Sure, go ahead.  But I don't have every copy of _Ms_
>handy; I'll have to write to them.  They didn't answer my
>last letter, in which I complained about an article which
>I thought prejudiced and stupid; so I don't know what the
>prospects are.

Okay, I went through all my issues of _Ms_ (I have all but
two of the new incarnate version).  I have not seen anything 
pro-porn.  But, in Volume II, Number 6, page 14, there is an 
article titled "Canada: Antipornography Breakthrough in the Law," 
which starts with the sentence, "Feminists won a stunning 
victory in February when Canada's Supreme Court ruled
that obscenity is to be defined by the harm it does to women's 
pursuit of equality."

I would very much like to know what articles you were referring to
which disagree with this viewpoint.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:34:30
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<MUFFY.92Oct8142838@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct9.163804.11031@javelin.sim.es.com>
	<MUFFY.92Oct9105253@anableps.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct9.192554.13750@javelin.sim.es.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com's message of Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:25:54 GMT

FIn article <1992Oct9.192554.13750@javelin.sim.es.com> biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>...[referring to more open sexual displays - hb's theory is that
> violence is connected to sexual response to these displays]...
>Consequently, one would expect more violence, in the example case.
>Please recall, your original comment referred to the behavior of a
>mob, the unplanned collective action of a group of people, presumably
>an innate response. Individually we would expect each of them to control
>his/her violent urges. Statistically, we would expect some of them
>to display violence. Collectively, occasionally all bets are off.

Agreed.  However, I believe that most offensive or violent acts against 
women which are related to sexual display are individual acts, rather
than collective ones.  More than that, I think that these individuals
are influenced by our society and its views on sexuality, so that if
those views are changed, there might not be the same response,
particularly the violence.  I think that a lot of the violence related
to sex is caused by the rather repressive attitudes of our society.  As
you suggest, one change often causes other changes - so a change in
views of sexuality might well cause a change in the amount of violence 
associated with sex.

>I think our disagreement is based upon a difference in our views of
>human nature. You seem to believe that humans are perfectible; with
>enough good will, the right social conditions, etc. humans will be
>nice, or at least non-violent. I don't.

I don't *know* if humans are "perfectible."  My contention is more that
they do not *need* to be perfect, and that men are, despite popular
opinion, *already* capable of choosing their actions and being
responsible for their actions, even when under the constant influence of
their hormones.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Al)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 12 Oct 92 23:55:12 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
>Listen.  I have no problem with friends giving friends advice

This guy is no "friend".  Just think about this for a moment.  What type
of "friend" TELLS you not to go to bed with someone and THEN when you
exercise your free will, decided that "you must go" -- that you are history
as a friend.

That's what that posting says.  But you got so "involved" with what I wrote
that you can't see it.  The original posting is about control.  Control of
women by men.  It subtle, but it's there.

It was designed to make women see red.  I just gave the bozo who posted it
"what for".  If you think that this is a case of a "friend giving a friend
advice", you don't know what "advice" really is.

When you give a "friend" advice, you don't dump him or her if they don't
follow the advice.  Not unless you are trying to control them -- use them.
The entire posting screams of control of women.  It says that they can't
think for themselves and that they absolutely need men to look out for them.
Of course, they need the right men to help them think "right".

Personally, I think it was planned to inflame women.  I don't think for
a moment that any of it really happened.  I think that they guy who wrote
it is laughing his ass off -- sorry bastard that he is.  At least, let's
hope that is the case.  If they guy is for real, he's one screwed up puppy.

But let's look at the issue that this clown raised, though I'm sure that
wasn't his intention:  When a friend goes "down the wrong path", what do you
do?  Do you stick with them even though they are making a mistake?
You bet you do!  Does this guy?  No way!  If you don't do what he says,
he dumps you.  You have to beg for his friendship.

So who's the "School's Sleaziest Scoundrel"?  HINT: It ain't Fernando.

Al
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: del@fnx.uucp (Dag Erik Lindberg)
Subject: Re: Porno and beauty standards (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy...)
Organization: I/Ovations
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:39:28 GMT

In <718504427@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>3) Quite a few beautiful girls who dream about being a movie star prefer
>   not to leave traces in hard-core porno.  The less beautiful girls (by
>   the main-stream standards) know that they will never be stars.

Really?  Would you call Whoopi Goldberg beutiful?  Sandra Bernhard?  How
about Carla from Cheers?  Peggy from "Married"?  The list goes on and on...

-- 
del AKA Erik Lindberg                             uunet!pilchuck!fnx!del
                          Who is John Galt?
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:03:07 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

solnorda@dmpe.csiro.au (Chris Solnordal) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Dave -- you and I -- we share absolutely *no* responsilibity for the
>>rain.  Snow either.  Not even tornados.  It's true.  Really.
>
>Hey I think you're being a little harsh on Dave.  I mean, if you choose to have
>a big party outside, you should be taking responsibility for the possibility
>of it raining.  

But I do not bear responsibility for the weather itself.

I can choose how to *react* to the weather, but I *cannot* choose whether
or not rain (snow, tornados, hurricanes) will happen.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 20:37:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com> 
barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
 
>The fact remains, a statement such as "all the women in Playboy look alike"
>is purely subjective. It's an example of what C.S. Lewis called "dislike
>of kind". 

Would you, Kenn, settle for the statement, "the women in Playboy are
not representative of the variety of women in our culture/society/world"?  

I, myself, would be willing to go one farther, myself, and say "the 
women in Playboy are not representative of the variety of beautiful, 
sexy women in our culture/society/world."

Of course all the women in Playboy do not look exactly alike.  (Then it
would just be *one* women, no?)  But they do seem to conform to a
fairly generic, vanilla standard of beauty.  At least, IMO.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:41:12 GMT

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:

>Group psychology is IMHO an oxymoron. About all we can say is that sometimes
>people behave in a group in ways one would not expect from their individual
>values. This seems to be true regardless of the culture. Since there is no
>planned action it would seem to arise from innate responses that over-ride
>the social conscience created by the environment. But I'm no expert.

Yes, then, as you've argued, it can't be *purely* innate, since it is
only triggered in group (i.e. social) environments.  Yes, it must be 
something more than biology.  (Unless you want to argue that it is 
pheremones....)

Not that this has beans to do with feminism.  I'll drop it.

rini
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:42:41 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct13.201029.24013@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>Have you ever heard any feminist outside of the net who supports
>>"choice for men"?

>I have.  Sure, it's not a scientific sample (my friends), but I have
>heard it, yes.

So the situation is better than I thought.  (No  sarcasm, I mean it.)

>>And if they vote for people who think otherwise then please don't
>>blame them...

>And who was the last person YOU voted for who didn't hold any
>views that contradicted yours....  

I usually agreed with the top priorities with the people I voted for.

If I had a choice now I'd probably vote for Clinton, but I'll never
claim that he is against sexism and the rest of Cheryl's jazz.  The
only thing that I can really say for him is that he will probably be
better than Bush, but that is not so hard to do.

>I know I have NEVER voted
>for anyone who I agreed with on every issue.

My problem is not with the compromises you have to make, but with those
that you don't have to make; especially when later you say "I had to make
that compromise."

E.g. when I started to debate the issue of choice for men Gordon wrote
against the idea bringing zillion arguments why there should be choice 
for women but no choice for men.  Now he says that such a law just 
can't be passed, so we have to make a compromise of choice for women
but no choice for men...

>rini

Hillel                                  gazit@cs.duke.edu

The Roman Rule
	The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the
	one who is doing it.
From: djm@kbs.citri.edu.au (David Mills)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The word 'woman'
Date: 12 Oct 92 06:16:45 GMT

greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger) writes:


>Date Entered: 10-09-92 10:57
>On Oct 7, baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:

>B(H>|> What exists:
>B(H>|> A whole class of words derived from man.

>B(H>I have it from scholarly sources here on the net that woman was not derived
>B(H>from the word man. It does seem to be a point of debate though.

>From 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' - the word 'woman' derives from 'Old
>English "wif-mon" (as wife, man) a formation peculiar to English, the
>ancient word being "wife"'.

>It's even worse than we thought - according to this, it seems that there
>has never been a word in English for the human female as an entity in
>itself, but always as an adjunct to the human male.

>                                                Cheers,
>                                                Greg.

Not just in English but other languages as well.  In German all words are
genderised.  They are either Neuter, Feminine or Masculine.  All words that I
know about referring to males are masculine.  But only some of the words
referring to females are feminine.  The distinction seems to be that words
referring to younger, unmarried females are all neuter (or at least the ones I
know), while only the ones referring to married females are feminine.

Young girls are called `es' (it) and not `sie' (she).

Similar situations probably exist in other languages.

David Mills
The opinions expressed here are my own ...    etc.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:15:50 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>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.

Well, I don't know about the modern men's movement, but historically
Playboy as argued that *wives* (not women in total, granted) are 
superfluous or worthless or unnecessary.

>   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")

    35 years ago:  Men should "enjoy the pleasures the female
                   has to offer without becoming emotionally
                   involved"  (Playboy, 1957)
>
>   Today:         Woman needs man like a fish needs a bicycle.
>                  All (hetero) sex is rape. (etc. etc.)
>
>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 don't know.  (In fact, I did not know that that the most hate-filled
viragos *were* the authorities here....  I'm confused....)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism