HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 04:19:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.202344.25055@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>  It didn't seem absurd enough for
>me to question it.  After all, there was a religiously inspired
>celibacy movement at that time in our country.

Not ABSURD enough to question? This "Minister's Wife" writes
a supposed 19th century piece using 20th-century language and phrases,
displays the type of man-hatred that only came into existence very
recently, and doesn't even *mention* "God", or "self-sacrifice,"
or "duty"!!!!!!! And you people think it's a 19th-century item!

Gosh, I thought that the University of Chicago was, like, 
real cultured, you know? Rini, why don't you show this to one of your
school's professors of English literature and ask if this was written
in the late 19th century by a Minister's wife!
>
>Besides -- my grandmother (who is still alive) was born the year that 
>this peice was supposed to have been written.  It's not *that* old.
>(We have plenty of writting in my family that has been preserved from
>that time and it doesn't come across as Shakespearean or anything.
>Even the turn of the century Quaker pamphlets I have at home do not 
>sound foreign, and you know that Quakers are weird about language, 
>saying "thee" and "thou" and all.)

Look, it's not the use of "thee" or "methinks" that dates a piece of writing.
Rather, it's the phraseology, the cultural presuppositions, the
underlying moral asumptions, etc.

University of Chicago, huh?
>
>- So where did the Cheif Seattle quote come from? 

From a Hollywood scriptwriter, on a TV show! He said what Chief Seattle
"should have said" so well (displaying, of course, 20th-Century
phrasing, and concerns) that the hoax speech has become sort of the
"Lord's Prayer" of the ecology movement. For a debunking of the hoax,
see the New York Times, April 21, 1992 ("Chief Seattle's 1854 Ecological
Lament Is '71 Script").

-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:18:00 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>My assumption...which my hypothetical plan is an attempt to legislate...
>is that I miss a period or two; I check with the doctor; the doctor

note: if you wait till you miss two periods you'll be 6-10 weeks 
pregnant.  Then if you take 2 weeks to find him and tell him (per
previous post), and he takes a couple of weeks to decide, you're 
pushing at the limits of the 1st trimester.

>tells me; I tell him; he tells me what he wants; if he's in, we do
>it jointly; if he's out, I take a hard look at myself and my finances
>and I decide if I'm in or out.

In your assumption:  what if you don't want to carry the child to term?
Do you still have to tell the man?  Do you have to tell him before or after
the abortion?

							--  Michal
From: pere@chopin.udel.edu (Persephone Brooks)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Linda Nochlin
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:46:36 GMT
Organization: University of Delaware


	Does anyone have any information that they could pass along to
me concerning the feminist art historian Linda Nochlin?  Her written works
have focused on the accomplishments of women in the art field, which like
many other fields had been largely ignored until recently.   
	Any information would be extremely valuable to me, even it if is
just a general summary of her ideas.  I need this information for a
research project.
	Please respond here or send me mail at:

			pere@brahms.udel.edu

	Thank you for your help!


Persephone Brooks
University of Delaware
_______________________
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: souzaj@woods.ulowell.edu
Subject: The problem w/ feminism today
Organization: University of Lowell
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:38:20 GMT

I think one of the greatest issus I have with much of the feminist writing I
have come across is that it is exlucive rather than inclusive. The feminine
identity does not have to be one which is exclusive of the masculine. I think
at one time we needed to separate ourselves from the masculine world in order
to begin establishing and validating an identity which was ours, but I think
the time has long come that we bbegin reintegrating ourselves. We can include
the male world without threatening our own identity. Men are not all bad. If we
want things to continue changing, we need to begin using dialogue instead of
monologue to accomplish our aims. Issues such as rape are perpetuated by the
patriarchal system, but it is not the patriarchal system that has a problem
with these issues, it is us. Unless we can make others understand and begin to
empathize, many issues such as rape will always simply be "women's issues."
Dialogue means an exchange. Right now, I don't feel that happening. I see
alienation and finger pointing isntead of communication. I think that the new
challenge feminism faces is reintegrating itself with the whole identity. 
								-jules
 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 08:59:13 GMT

In article <1e92clINN9ei@saffron.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>In article <1992Nov13.234022.12765@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>>I'm in agreement with Axel, I see advertising (esp. the ones which depict
>>unreal women) as mind rape. 
>
>Mind Rape!?!?!?
>'Rape' is the unwanted and forceful penetration of a woman. It is a serious
>criminal act. The victim of Rape is affected for years afterwards, suffering
>from post-traumatic stress disorder. She runs the risk of an unwanted
>pregnancy. 

I have one problem with this.  Everything here talks about rape as
gender-specific.  Men can be raped.  Men can be sexually abused.  

I have an article from _The Advocate_ about male-on-male rape that I
keep meaning to type in.  (When I do, I'll post it to talk.rape and
soc.men.)  It's not scientific, mostly anecdotal in nature, but
interesting.  I've tried to find something on female-on-male rape and
haven't been able to.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:48:12 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.192018.4057@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.081048.19399@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>If I went out on a date with you, you could probably rape me. 
>>If we had sex and I got pregnant, I could probably not tell you.
>
>I retract this example. 

Why?  They are true.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Frats
Followup-To: soc.college,soc.women,alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:53:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.153931.26893@midway.uchicago.edu>,
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov16.221148.12925@rtsg.mot.com> gatchall@rtsg.mot.com (Scott W. Gatchall) writes:
> >In article <1e8hs1INNqg4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> garvey@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (Heather Garvey) writes:
> >>	And I also don't like that the first warning I got about walking 
> >>alone was not about  the fact that we live next to East Cleveland, a truly
> >>scary place, but about walking alone at night past one of the frat
> >>houses on my very own campus, noted for rapes.
> >
> >Trust me, Heather.  As an alumnus of CWRU and Sigma Alpha Mu, I can
> >honestly say that after sharing a semester of Electricity & Magnetism
> >with you ... that you are indeed safe. :)  Cheers.
> 
> I nominate this for most disgusting post of the month.

I second.  Thirds, anyone?

> -- 
> ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
> standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
> the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

       /-                 Devjani Mishra      misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
      /   /               New Haven, CT          diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___           
 /  /   /   | /  /  /     "Women are repeatedly accused of taking things
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_      personally. I cannot see any other honest way of
                           taking them." - Marya Mannes
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 17 Nov 1992 22:47:12 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov17.174514.1082@midway.uchicago.edu>
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>I would not underestimate the magnitude of conflicts
>about domestic chores.  (Hint: they quite often lead to divorce.)

OK, I'll buy this, although I tend to think most people, of
either sex, are pretty reasonable about this sort of thing.

But if there are many divorces due to domestic incompatibility,
then it's reasonable to infer that there are many couples who
aren't pairing up well on this basis.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Socialism for Women (was Re: Child Support)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:39:48 GMT


Somebody somewhere wrote:
>>In a society as pluralistic as ours, I don't think it's plausible to allow
>>objections.  If each taxpayer were given the chance to make a laundry list
>>of everything he/she did not wish to pay for, there would be no federal and
>>potentially no state gov't.  (That may not be such a bad thing - hmmm...:)
>>)

I've often wondered what would happen if we *could* do taxes by laundry list.
So, after you fill out the tax form, you have the option of checking off broad
categories of where you want your money to go.
Sounds stupid, but I gotta wonder if it wouldn't be a better system than the
mess we have now.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: jbct+@andrew.cmu.edu (John R. Beer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Idiocy in High Places
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:29:57 GMT
Organization: Misc. student, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

According to this week's Time, the Catholic Church is defending its
refusal to ordain women with the argument that women, not being
men, would be unable to serve as convincing symbolic representatives of
Christ, whose male status is well-documented.  A  woman advising the
committee which is drafting the pastoral letter on this says, "Would you
want Nick Nolte playing Mary in your nativity play?"
So when do they start replacing all the florid hefty balding Irish
priests with skinny long-haired bearded Palestinian Jews?
I thought theologians were supposed to be good at arguing...... 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:54:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.004539.4631@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.002624.17380@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov13.230651.27302@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov10.184649.24682@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov9.225035.15414@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
[...]
>>>>>of calendars of scantily clad women, I think it'd be silly to conclude
>>>>>that the sexism has now simply doubled.  
>>>>
>>>>Too bad, because it would indeed follow.
>>>
>>>Ah, but only if you accepted the premise that the calendars were directly
>>>linked with sexism.  :-)
>>
>>Was that not the basis for this thread? More to the point is the subject line,
>>"Elle MacPherson causes rape". I do not accept this premise, but it seems
>>that many women do.
>> 
>>>Seriously, there are all sorts of other conclusions about sexism that 
>>>would be equally valid.
>>
>>But due to double standards are not considered so?
>
>I have no idea why you do not consider them valid.  

You lost me here, what do you think that I am considering valid?

>                                                    If you think it's because
>you have double standards, you are probably correct.

Those being?? 
 
>>>>>                                            Instead, this would be a
>>>>>convincing indicator to suggest that isn't a sexist world anymore at
>>>>>all.
>>>>
>>>>Or that neither one was ever sexist. (you know, the sexism is in the eye
>>>>of the beholder)
>>>> 
>>>>>rini
>>>>Rich
>>>>payner@netcom.com
>>>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
>>Rich again
>"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu


Rich

payner@netcom.com



Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 04:03:05 GMT

In article <1992Nov22.044850.7382@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gf:
>| >                                  Given the passions aroused
>| >by the subject of sex-repression-and-pornography (can't have
>| >one without the other, so it's really one thing) 
>
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>| I see three things, do you mean you can't have ---
>| 
>| sex without repression
>| repression without pornography
>| sex without pornography
>| 
>| or the reverse?  (you can't have which-one without which-other?)
>| 
>| Or did you forget a smiley? :^)
>| 
>| I think it would be better to leave them as three distinct subjects.
>
>I thought I would be understood.  For full, complete,
>and total explicitness, we need two levels of hyphenation,
>or use of parentheses:
>
>      ((sex repression) and (pornography))
>
>Okay now?

Clear, yes. OK? I expect the female porn producers might disagree.

Let me ask an honest question, do you really believe that these three
(or two) go hand-in-hand, that you never, ever, have one without the
other(s)?

I suppose it would help if you told us what you considered pornography.
If it was -only snuff films-, I would agree with you. Otherwise, what
makes you think so?

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:43:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov16.081048.19399@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.001531.25073@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov15.041315.7218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>My assumption...which my hypothetical plan is an attempt to legislate...
>>>is that I miss a period or two; I check with the doctor; the doctor
>>>tells me; I tell him; he tells me what he wants; if he's in, we do
>>>it jointly; if he's out, I take a hard look at myself and my finances
>>>and I decide if I'm in or out.
>>
>>   [examples of two who did it that way gone.]
>>
>>Yes, but it is your *choice* to tell the father, and your *choice* to listen to
>>what he wants.  The assumptions Don makes are completely consistent with your
>>idea of how it works and your examples, it's just that with *your* personal
>>values/ethics, you've only mapped out how *you* would do it [and how your
>>friends did it].  I believe this is how *most* honorable people, in *most*
>>cases would behave.
>
>I agree. It is also my choice to grab a knife and shove it in
>someone's back. It is also my choice to get drunk every night.
>It is also my choice to lie. It is also my choice to accuse someone
>of rape (perjury). It is also my choice to practice insider trading.
>It is also my choice to drive my car off a bridge if I'm unhappy.
>It is also my choice to rape someone. Anyone can do anything they
>want that they are physically able to do.

All of which are ILLEGAL.  Not informing the father is legal.

>>Needless to say, others might do things a little differently...
>
>Naturally.  The world is full of people who choose to act in
>violent and/or destructive and/or hateful ways. 

Yes.  And that's why we have laws and courts and police and suchlike.

>>For a personal example, try to think of somebody you know who *wouldn't* tell
>>the father...
>
>IE, a total and complete shithead?  Or a rape/abuse victim? Or
>the girlfriend who's lover has told her repeatedly that he doesn't
>want any more kids, and who's told me that if she gets pregnant,
>she'll get an abortion and may not even tell him?

All of these are valid examples.  Know anybody like the first?

>:> I guess the point I'm trying to make is that while yes, anyone
>can do anything that they want to do and are physically capable of
>doing, that there are limits imposed by society and/or self.

There are NOT limits posed by society at this time about notification.

>If I went out on a date with you, you could probably rape me. 

Wouldn't

>If we had sex and I got pregnant, I could probably not tell you.

And would that be just?

>Problem with dealing with humans is that it does require some trust.

Another is that one that seems trustworthy might not be.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 19 Nov 92 06:17:17 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: abortion

In article <1e8s58INN316@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>My assumption...which my hypothetical plan is an attempt to legislate...
>>is that I miss a period or two; I check with the doctor; the doctor
>
>note: if you wait till you miss two periods you'll be 6-10 weeks 
>pregnant.  Then if you take 2 weeks to find him and tell him (per
>previous post), and he takes a couple of weeks to decide, you're 
>pushing at the limits of the 1st trimester.

True. I was going general case, tho I'm the type who does a home
pregnancy test at 6 weeks (I've always been irregular, once skipped
6 months...didn't mind, either :-)

>In your assumption:  what if you don't want to carry the child to term?
>Do you still have to tell the man?  

Me, or all women?  :-)  I think I would have to...not as "I'm going
to kill your potential baby and you can't stop me (manicial laughter)"
but as "this situation exists, what do you think??"  But then,
if he wanted to be a father I'd likely rethink at least completing
pregnancy. I'm a choice-but-not-sure-I-could-have-an-abortion-type;
any abortion would be asap.

A harder choice would be if I had been advised to abort for medical 
reasons...if he were abortion-is-murder, telling him then might
cause him pain for no reason. OTOH, would I be able to face him
later?  (For me this is a real concern; my mother's family has
a large incidence of diabetes, both my mother and my cousin had
difficulty finding an ob/gyn willing to take them on, my cousin
had to sign a malpractice waiver stating that yes, she had been
counseled to abort, she understood that she could die if she
completed the pregnancy, etc, etc.)

>Do you have to tell him before or after
>the abortion?

Before or not at all, I'd say.  Again, I'm speaking for what
I'd do, and not tailoring to what I think the alt.feminism.NOT
clique would like...and comments from other women on answers to
these questions would be very interesting. You made me do some
thinking, Michal...nasty of you!  :> 

>
>							--  Michal


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:13:49 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.021510.5975@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>>891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>
>>>I'm in agreement with Axel, I see advertising (esp. the ones which depict
>>>unreal women) as mind rape. 
> 
>>Mind Rape!?!?!?
>>'Rape' is the unwanted and forceful penetration of a woman. 
>
>[50 plus lines of discussion of the term "rape"]
>
>Perhaps you have forgotten that rape also means "despoil" or "pillage", 
>as in "raping the land" ???
>
>>Bloody annoying when strong words are used in innapropriate contexts isn't
>>it? Now multiply your annoyance by the seriousness of Rape, and you will see
>>what I mean.
>
>Boy, I sure hope we don't get into a discussion of rape seed oil...

I believe they are marketing it as 'canoli' oil, or somesuch. Who would
buy a product with such strong negative associations in the name? Since
neither the oil or the seed have anything to do with the act, I see no
ethical problems with changing it.
 
>rini
>- I don't really know what Trish meant by the word... my own reading was
>closer to the useage in "raping the land."

How so? "Mind rape" would necessarily be a peosonal thing, while "raping
the land would not be (although one could take it personally).


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Choice?
Date: 18 Nov 1992 20:55:29 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu
Keywords: abortion, pornography

jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:

>As my first posting to this group, I would like to pose the following:

Welcome to the group.	:-)

=======================================================================

>	Why do feminists consider a woman's right "to do with her body what 
>she will" so basic when talking about abortion, yet so forien when the 
>subject is pornography?  How about prostitution, suicide, drugs, etc.?

First, to eliminate flame fodder, allow me to re-phrase your question:
"Why do some people consider it a woman's right...."

I (as one of aforementioned subgroup of "people") don't have any problem
with women posing nude, etc.  I *may* have a problem with some of the 
uses to which such nude art, etc., is put.  But I will defend the right
of any woman to choose to have her photo taken under any circumstances.

I also believe that a woman should be able to choose to exchange sex
for money, provided that she follows some rules to protect her health
and that of her customers.

I also believe that any person should have the right to end their own
life.

Drugs are a more difficcult question, because their use often affects
more than just the user.  Perhaps it would be possible to decriminalize
drug use, but criminalize the endangerment of others through the use
of drugs.  Ie, it would be OK to smoke dope in your own home, but not
OK to be under the influence on the job.  Kind-of like current laws
pertaining to use/abuse of alcohol.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,sci.classics