HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:48:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.000643.22167@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>       One final thing: this song, at least from a phallocentric
>perspective, might be interpreted as proof that Madonna is a closet
>lesbian. Is that fair?

No.  Not bad, but not fair.

-dave
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:18:36
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1drs1lINNjv2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov11130708@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1dsbijINNknh@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 12 Nov 1992 01:21:23 GMT

In article <1dsbijINNknh@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov11130708@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>*grin*...I can't imagine androgynous being synonymous with liberal in
>>any sense.

>Which means that your remarks about androgyny have little relevance
>to the original claim (see the subject line).  I'm pointing this out
>on the off-chance that you might have thought otherwise.

Well, I *did* think otherwise, because in the article I was replying to,
Robert Schaeffer was talking about men looking like "hunks."  Sorry to
confuse you by addressing the contents of the article and not just the
subject line.

Muffy

--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 07:17:21 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.054047.11378@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>However, in this particular case, I've also been blowing off
>a bit of emotional steam.  I have been homeless for brief
>periods myself, and I know that it would take only a small
>accident, a stroke, say, to make me homeless again, as
>miserable as any one of the people I step over in the
>subway, in spite of having supported myself and others and
>paid taxes for thirty-odd years.  We (in the U.S.) now live
>in a virtually bottomless society whose form has little to 
>do with gender attitudes, although it does seem to have 
>been inspired by the tough guys and hard noses of an
>extinct patriarchy.

I read a (totally unscientific) article by a reporter who pretended to
be homeless.  He said that working class people were more likely to
give money to the homeless, because they felt that they could easily
be there.

I also read a letter to the editor where one man was saying that some
street people assume that he's well-off because he wears a suit and
carries a briefcase to his many job interviews.  But he has no money
and walks instead of taking the bus because what money he does have
goes to buy food for his kids.  He's been unemployed for 6 months.  He
seemed angrier at the street people than at the circumstances that
have made him unemployed.  I had a lot of sympathy for him, though.
He came across as a hard worker, good husband and father, who was very
close to losing everything he'd worked for.

>As it happens I've done some work for a local outfit 
>called Project Hospitality which has succeeded in 
>sheltering dozens, maybe hundreds, of homeless people.  
>That's how I came to notice that almost all the people 
>involved in working for it and similar organizations as 
>a regular practice were women, as I reported.  I hope
>this explains my lack of _perspective_.

The parish I attend is involved in ministry to the homeless and people
who can't live on their incomes.  I've noticed that the vast majority
of the volunteers are women (both old and young) and older men.  Very
few young men seem to get involved.

For some practical suggestions (sorry for preaching)...

Nearly every community has a food closet and every little bit helps.
If all you can do is buy one can of tuna a week, that helps.  Often
containers are needed for portions, so old margarine containers, baby
food jars, etc. are needed.  

Also, a lot of us receive junk mail containing samples of shampoo,
detergent, toothpaste.  We often don't use them, just throw them away.
But these can be great for the homeless, since they're small portions
that can be discarded after use.  Women need sanitary supplies and men
need razors.  With winter here, you can check your closets for warm
clothes that you no longer wear.

And of course, money is always good.  And your time.  And maybe your
station wagon, pickup, or van to haul supplies to the distribution
center.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 12 Nov 92 11:36:36
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1dsbijINNknh@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov11181836@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1du1a2INNn6e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 12 Nov 92 16:38:26 GMT

In article <1du1a2INNn6e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Nov11181836@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>Which means that your remarks about androgyny have little relevance
>>>to the original claim (see the subject line).  I'm pointing this out
>>>on the off-chance that you might have thought otherwise.
>>
>>Well, I *did* think otherwise, because in the article I was replying to,
>>Robert Schaeffer was talking about men looking like "hunks."  Sorry to

>And why did a reference to hunks make you think 'otherwise,' i.e.
>that you were contributing to the subject of liberal men?

*sigh*...one more try, although it would be simpler if you would read
the two posts (Robert's and mine).  Robert *also* discussed feminist
men.  To summarize, he talked about how feminist men could not be
attractive and "hunks" were.  I said that I found feminist men
attractive and preferred androgyny.  Once again, I was responding to the
content of the article.  I don't know why that bothers you so much that
you have to repeatedly question me on it.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 18:31:21 GMT

In article <JGZSB5HB@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.003315.23302@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>[...]
>>None of it has been funny. But I would like to point out another
>>anti-symmetry in these feminist arguments. (did i invent a new word?)
>
>Undoubtably.
>
>>In another thread, it was pointed out that women who are self confident
>>could care less what the models look like, while those who are insecure
>>may well feel threatened. This was taken as an attack the victim post
>>by at least one person, and I suspect more to follow.
>
>How prophetic!

Little prophesy was required. 
 
>>                                                      In another thread
>>it was directly asserted that any male who feels threatened by feminism
>>is obviously not getting enough sex, because it could only be the result
>>of sexual frustration. None of the other feminists commented on this.
>
>As author of said attack, I must protest that you were overgeneralizing my
>attack to all males.  

I did not recall who said this. Nor can I find the post, it seems to have
expired. Do you remember exactly what you said?

>                         It was an indirect assertion at best and was
>related to your argument that there was a scarcity of available women.
>This context has gotten lost in the above synopsis.

It seems lost beyond retrieval.
 
>[More contrasts between male and female victims...]
>
>With this I agree.  Men and women who are victimized should be equally
>defended.  I came to your defense at least when I apologized for that attack,
>publically, I might add.

I am not sure what you are saying. But there was no reference to you in
what I posted, please do not take it personally. And remember that I
apologized publically for my response as well. 
 
>-dave

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:14:10 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
>>to be the parents (how many single parents can affort to raise children
>>without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.

>If a woman is presumed able to make a responsible, considered decision
>regarding abortion, then she should be presumed able to consider
>economic factors in her decision.

>If she knows she will become a single parent without taxpayer support,
>she should take this into account before a child is created.  Don't
>forget the "pro-choice" convention that there is no child before birth.

>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.


In our society (as things currently stand) the woman has neither the 
right nor the responsibility.  A woman is prevented from making a
responsible, considered, unbiased decision regarding abortion.  And
the law is most unclear on the responsibility that will devolve upon
her if she decides to bear the child, as well as on the responsibility 
that will devolve upon the father.  

Basically, America has been unable to reach a consensus on who is 
going to care for children.

							--  Michal
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:11:56 GMT

johnr@ee.uts.edu.au (John Reekie) writes:

>riaedwards@halls1.cc.monash.edu.au (AUDREY EDWARDS) writes:

>>One things for certain, whilst I'm as confident as I want to be, I 
>>certainly would not date a man with an Elle MacPherson calandar on his 
>>wall! Now, a Paul Klee calandar is different (and for the culturally 
>>unenlightened, he is not a member of the Chippendales!!!!)   

>I do not have an Elle PacPherson calendar on my wall. I would
>like to, but I do not, because it would upset my girlfriend. Does that make
>me a Dateable Man or a Nondateable Man?
>John

Well John, if it were up to me, I'd say no. You've got a partner already!
From: s_wilkin@csd.uwe.ac.uk (Simon)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 9 Nov 92 09:30:48 GMT
Organization: University of the West of England, Bristol
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


Gods, yes.

pornography is subjective and can only be wrong by opinion.

Rape is so wrong it hurts!
Can you actually provide a feasible argument for why rape _might_ be right?

Simon
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item? (yet another ref!)
Date: 13 Nov 92 08:36:14
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1dv4aaINNpal@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov12191241@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1dvpi7INNq4e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 13 Nov 1992 08:38:31 GMT

In article <1dvpi7INNq4e@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>>Which means that your remarks about androgyny have little relevance
>>>to the original claim (see the subject line).  I'm pointing this out
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>on the off-chance that you might have thought otherwise.
>>
>>Well, I *did* think otherwise, 

>>Ahh, I understand your misunderstanding now.  I "thought otherwise"
>>about my "remarks about androgyny having little relevance."

>So you misspoke above when you said that they were relevant to
>the original claim, i.e. regarding 'liberalism.'  Glad to clear that up.

Nope.  I considered, as I made clear in my response, that I thought they
were relevant to the "original claims" in  article I was responding to.
So, why is it that you feel so strongly that you just *must* find some
incorrectness or inconsistency in my postings?  You're starting to get
kind of obsessive about it.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 13 Nov 92 18:05:58 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1dudf8INNhda@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>[Don: 
>> Women are presumed to be able to make responsible reproductive decisions.]
>>>>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.
>
>>>[Michal:
>>>In our society (as things currently stand) the woman has neither the 
>>>right nor the responsibility.  A woman is prevented from making a
>>>responsible, considered, unbiased decision regarding abortion.  And
>>>the law is most unclear on the responsibility that will devolve upon
>>>her if she decides to bear the child, as well as on the responsibility 
>>>that will devolve upon the father. ] 
>
>>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?
>
>>In what state is it impossible for a woman to obtain child support
>>from a proven father?
>
>>Where can a father avoid HR 5123, the "Child Support Economic Security
>>Act of 1992"?
>
>>Where does a mother have less than a 90% likelihood of success
>>if she chooses to keep custody?  Where is it illegal for a mother
>>to give her child up for adoption?
>
>>Her rights and responsibilities, under the law and in our
>>court systems, seem pretty clear to me.
>
>
>>Don't tell me you have an acute case of Supreme-Court mania -- beyond the
>>"one vote away" to "abortion is already illegal."
>
>In what state can a woman seeking an abortion be guaranteed that she
>won't be harrassed by Operation Rescue?

These 'rescuers' are often in violation of the law themselves, and are
some of the most offensive and persistant harrasers the world has ever
seen. Take your complaints to the religious right, not the laws and
courts.
 
>Where does the government guarantee that a woman won't be rejected
>by her friends and family, won't be discriminated against by her 
>religious community, won't be abused by her SO if her abortion
>becomes known to them?

It being a given that all her friends and relations are insensitive
highly opinionated louts, and that most SO's are abusive. The truth is, 
the government should have no say in the feelings or reactions of anyone 
else either. 

BTW, nobody has any guarentees, with the possible exception of death
and taxes.

>							--  Michal


Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:20:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.045411.19018@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.213837.13554@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov1.174836.12192@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct26.224830.20044@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>>>  
>>>>>>Really - I think you'll find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>>>>accomodating the husband than the other way around. To get some peace
>>>>>>many women would just lie there and allow her body to be used by
>>>>>>her husband, even though she wasn't in the mood at all. Allowing
>>>>>>this use is made easier to her by a life of brainwashing from
>>>>>>society about the role of wives. But how often would a tired husband,
>>>>>>not at all interested in sex right now, consent to go down on his
>>>>>>horny wife just to "see <her> reasonably well-satisfied sexually"?
>>>> 
>>>>>Proof by stereotype, how compelling. 
>>>>
>>>>It is hard to representative data for historical situations.  
>>>              | (find)?
>>>
>>>Does not the "I think you will find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>accomodating the husband" seem like a clear representative claim? But
>>>I have had it claimed that a) women have the same sex drive as men,
>>>and b) men more often want sex. The above seems more in line with (b).
>>
>>Not necessarily.  It could easily be that women and men wanted sex equally
>>often; but that women were expected to perform when he wanted and she didn't,
>>but not vice versa.
>>There is not even a correlation between the two, much less cause and effect.
>
>What?? There is no correlation between the occurances of men having sex
>and the occurances of women having sex? Are you hypothesizing 100%
>homesexual sex? I really do not understand this at all. 
>
>As for cause and effect, is there not a common cause?

No.  In my 1st paragraph I had two sentences.  The first was "Not Necessarily".
This indicates that I am about to disagree with you.  The second contains two
clauses separated by a semi-colon (;).  The first clause can be reduced to "sex
drive". The second can be reduced to "expectation of performance under duress".
These are the two that do not have to have a correlation:

Specifically, it is entirely possible that women, in general, have a higher sex
drive but would not, in general, expect a man to perform when he didn't feel
like it.

I am sorry to have confused you.

Disclaimer:  I have already said that I think men and women have equal sex
drive, so please read carefully all the embedded disclaimers.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Repression Resurfaces (Was: MacKinnon )
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:09:16 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>>(Actually, feminism has long been associated with prudery and
>>repression. The ultimately-successful Prohibitionist movement of the
>>19th and early 20th century was largely feminist-led.)

Yes, women in general have long been associated with "prudery and
repression."  Paragons of virtue and all that.  

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 01:08:03 GMT

In article <misdeva-091192161955@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>> (Sheaffer):
>> One *big* factor is that on the net, you GET criticism and, shall we say,
>> "peer review" of a sort, whether you want it or not. Hence, in an
>> unmoderated forum, it is impossible to maintain the unmaintainable, a
>
>Catherine MacKinnon travels under a variety of aliases and must change
>hotel rooms several times a night as a result of the death threats she has
>received, especially during her recent research into snuff.  It may not be
>the sort of enlightened "peer review" we have here in alt.fem, but it seems
>like unmoderated criticism to me.  Yet she "maintains the unmaintainable",
>does she not?  Curious.

Indeed, she does maintain the unmaintainable, things like "all sex is
rape" and the "victims of pornography compensation act," not to
mention her assault on the First Amendment. But she's not on the net,
and hence doesn't receive the kind of "peer review" we give each other,
and probably wouldn't care even if she did.

But the *funniest* thing about this is her claim that such things as "snuff
films" actually exist,

and MUCH funnier still is the claim that the nasty Snuff-makers are
constantly threatening and harassing the learned Prof. Mackinnon, that
scourge of patriarchs everywhere. Wonderful humor here: the
woman who invented "sex harassment" is now claiming "snuff harassment"!!!!!

I have added "alt.folklore.urban" to this thread, as that is
where the REAL expertise on dastardly Snuff Films can be found!!


-- 
  
        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"
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: haineskb@cs.aston.ac.uk (KB HAINES,,,,universe(ucb))
Subject: It's a pointless argument
Reply-To: haineskb@cs.aston.ac.uk
Organization: Aston University (Comp Sci)
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:52:40 GMT


I'm fed up to my anus with WOMEN AND MEN arguing a completly inane subject of sexual equality. As far as I'm concerned, I love women, I have no problem taking orders from women in authority and act no differently towards women than to men - if a bloke pisses me off, I call him an asshole. If a woman does it, I call her an asshole too!

The main problem seems to stem from a hard core of people who do not allow women to progress in industry or whatever because of their own personal hangups.  Also there is a contrary hard core of people who think that women should be given positions of authority or whatever just for a pro-rata quota system.  This is , and I'm speaking my mind here BOLLOCKS.  If anyone individual is right for a position then they should be given it, gender should play no part in the process.

Also, I'm sure I'm not the only bloke who despises these farty old judges who go easy on rapists - any real man would be appalled by the crime, and I for one am a firm beleiver in castrating the bastards who commit it. I have a girlfriend and I dread the thought of some phsyco raping her because she looks at him in a way that he mis-interprets. So to all you "men hating" feminists out there, we ARE NOT ALL THE SAME, and to suggest we are is being as sexist as you make us out to be.


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: the demonization of Muffy (was Re: Clinton Gore position on women)
Date: 5 Nov 92 08:42:28 GMT
Distribution: inet
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov1.231258.4400@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>Considering a lot of the posts I see up on this board, I would not blame Ms.
>>Barkocy for putting some posters in her kill file.  If she does not wish to be
>>a masochist why blame her?  If I put some of you in my kill file (I don't have
>>one), would you be as outraged?  No, women should sit and listen to your abuse
>>because the thought of it turns you on.  Damnable misogynists.
>
>
>This would be riotously funny if it wasn't so darn *sad*...

If I can laugh, why can't you?  (I put up a lot of stupid stuff, didn't I?)

-dave