HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 00:33:30 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

>%But what about hatred of Men? ;-)  Some "Men" hate to lumped in with male
>%dogs, cats, etc.

>%It's time to overcome the "sexism" of the use of "males" when people mean MEN!

>>Anyway how nit picking can you be - men, males .. big deal.... at least if
>>I use males I don't get some other dickhead like you saying "but don't you
>>know that 'men' means 'humans'?"

>>I think in future I will refer to all males as boys.. ;)

>Thanks for demonstrating once again how "moderate" feminists behave.

Pardon me? How did I deserve these  quotation marks - ever heard of 
a smily? Sometimes they look like this  ;)


	Carol
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 10 Oct 1992 19:51:25 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct10.173809.25862@midway.uchicago.edu>
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>I think Muffy's point was that all the Bunnies look similar and this is
>consistent with the general opinion in our society that women have to
>look like a Bunny to feel good about their sexuality.  
>
>That's not the best message, IMO.  

Let me point out in passing that this is subsidiary to
the main objections of MacKinnon (and the Canadian government)
to pornography, which are its 'objectification' and 'degradation'
of women, both of which occur independently of what the model
looks like.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2614 soc.men:17788 alt.sex:33105
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:51:30 GMT
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.

In article <1992Oct10.060627.23366@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>A minute to get in, perhaps.  But you have to leave it in a little while
>afterwards, no ?  And it's not the most romantic practise.  Plus, so far
>as I know of, (correct me if I'm wrong) the flavour of available
>spermacide leaves a bit to be desired.  Of course, that's not an issue
>for everyone.

To make a diaphragm romantic, you have to incorporate it into your
lovemaking.  Try this (for the men), while YOU are preparing the
diaphragm (you do know how to prepare one don't you ?) have your
SO perform oral sex on you.  Believe me, this makes getting the
diaphragm ready DAMN sexy.

I agree that spermicide tastes pretty lousy, so you should perform
oral sex on the woman before she inserts it.  But, if she has an orgasm
or two that way, it makes putting the diaphragm in a lot easier and
quicker.

All in all, its not perfect.  But I have yet to hear of any form of
birth control that is.

Guido
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Oct8.074719.23829@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<DSTEINBE.92Oct10202644@emmy.nmsu.edu>
	<1992Oct12.172216.29460@ils.nwu.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 02:20:08 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.172216.29460@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu
(Richard Lynch)  writes:

   >In article <DSTEINBE.92Oct10202644@emmy.nmsu.edu
   >dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David  Steinberg) writes:
   >In article <1992Oct8.074719.23829@leland.Stanford.EDU
   >farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU  (ljf) writes:
   >
   >   Is it reasonable to expect a Jewish worker to share an office with
   >   someone who puts up Hitler posters?  How uncomfortable can you make
   >   someone until your actions and/or speech become harassment?
   >
   >Are these two things really compatable?  I don't think that there is
   >the same level of offensiveness perceived by most women to a pin-up
   >calendar as there is with a Hitler poster.  Of course, when was the
   >last time that you went to an office and saw a picture of gool ol'
   >Adolph anyway? 
   (and his reply is)
   *Does it have to be compatable?  If it's offensive enough for
   *someone to ask  you
   *to take it down, isn't that enough?
   (agreement deleted)
Well, that depends.  If someone asks me to take down a poster and I
feel that they are legitimately offended, I probabally would.  For
that matter I can't picture putting up either a pin-up calendar or a
picture of Aldolph in my office.  (Right now I just have up a promo
from a Phish album.)  I can even see it being o.k. for my boss to say,
"Look Dave.  A fellow employee is so offended by your pin-up calendar
that she's having trouble working with you.  This is affecting the
math department, so I'd like for you to take it down."

HOWEVER, I draw the line at my co-worker being able to sue the
department for sexual harrasment because I have a pin-up in my office.
It just seems to be an inappropriate response to the problem.  
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:16:30 GMT

In article <719034179@lear.cs.duke.edu> 
>In article <1992Oct13.161508.17097@panix.com> 
>

>gf:
>>| >There's no credible movement to 
>>| >liberate them -- except feminism, of course.
 
>hg:
>| In what ways feminism "liberates" men?
 
>gf:
>>What feminism might do for men comes from the third point I
>>mentioned: the freeing and revaluation of the feminine.  

(Hillel gives an example about SAT scores and the "feminine".)

The problem that I have with your example is that you are turning it
back into the conquest for the "masculine" (work/jobs) by women.
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.  (Ick, "conquest" is a bad word
in both places, but I can't think of another right now... Sorry.)

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.

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

rini
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:03:18 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu (Al) writes:

>>Yes I can see how the Binary Thinking work.  Since I bitched against your
>>*tactic* you assume that I disagree with your position.  Too bad.  Well,
>>at least you're having a good time.
 
>OK Rini!  But you missed your chance.  I figured you would take the opportunity
>to do more than "bitch" (your word).  Tell me about your position.  In fact,
>why don't you take the original posting and take it line by line.  You
>can tell all of us (since you will not use e-mail) exactly where you stand!

Sorry, Al, I don't draw up 'stands' by command.  I didn't originally post 
a comment for the same reason I won't post a comment now:  I don't have
a strong opinion and I can see many valid perspectives to take. 

(I always think it's good to refrain from posting if you don't have anything 
worthwhile to say.  Perhaps that's something you could pick up on.)

rini
From: muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 8 Oct 92 15:50:22
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct8.223052.21389@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: anableps.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.223052.21389@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>[ bunch of reasons why women make less money than men  ]

>U.S. Labor stats show that women with equal educations and equal time 
>on the job (i.e. no breaks for family raising) make $1.01 for every $1.00 
>men make (in the same profession).

Do you have the figures on what number and percentage of working women
this is?

Thanks...

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
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2254 soc.men:17492
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: 8 Oct 92 21:57:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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


>>I also want to say that there definitely are anti-male jokes that get
>>a big laugh from a lot of women -- including feminists like me.  There
>>are jokes that stereotype men as being insensitive, unintuitive,
>>overly involved in things like sports, etc.

> "I also want to say that there definitely are anti-female jokes that get
> a big laugh from a lot of men -- including men like me.  There
> are jokes that stereotype women as being premenstrual, idiotic,
> overly involved in things like hair care, etc."

There's a difference.  Men make jokes about what women *are*
(eg, being premenstrual).  Women make jokes about what men *do*
(eg, behaving in an insensitive fashion).

							--  Michal
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:20:25 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Oct9094209@anableps.berkeley.edu>, muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> waiting in line to pay for something.  One of the employees came over
> and said "you shouldn't be doing that - there are *children* present."

Is this how you get them to open up the express lines at the grocery store? ;-)

I can see we have a different definition of "kissing"!
                        

> PS: By the way, Terry, you are in my kill file, so there's no point
> asking me any questions, as I will not see them unless someone else
> happens to follow up to them.

That's very kind of you, Muffy, but you really don't understand why I'm asking
quesions.  I can see that now!

> Besides, you were never actually interested in *my* answers, anyway.

If I was really interesting in getting just *YOUR* response to a question,
I'd use e-mail.  So in a way, you are right.  It's not that I'm not
interested in your answers.  I'm not interested in JUST YOUR answers.

So I'll continue to ask questions where I see them.  I'm sure you'll not mind!
Actually, this gives me much more license, since you're guaranteed not to care!

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:12:18 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.094759.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.021155.26304@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>   Note the words "preferences" and "quotas". They're not just space-fillers
>in the sentence. It appears to be that Robert is suggesting that women not get
>preferential treatment.
>
>   Secondly, don't you see the innate hypocrisy in your (implied) approval of:
>
>> The women almost certainly got their jobs at least partly as
>> a result of this corporation's being busted severely several
>> years ago for never giving women managerial or engineering
>> jobs.

>   What's the basic difference between hiring them because they're women, and
>firing them because they're women? IMHO, both actions are equally reprehensible
>because they're based on selective treatment dependent on a person's gender.

Read what Fitch wrote:  "...this corporation's being busted severely
several years ago for never giving women..."  Doesn't this seem that
selective treatment dependent on a person's gender had indeed been
going on before the women received the jobs--that men were receiving
preferential treatment? 

That's what AA is all about, imo.  After years of white men receiving
preferential treatment (and damn little outcry by middle-class white
men about it), now we're all supposed to have a level playing ground
and AA is preferential treatment.  It only matters if white men are
being hurt?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Date: 15 Oct 1992 04:23:26 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

>Given that 

>1) there exists a class of people who cry "rape" after consenting to sex

>2) the prevailing wisdom says that anyone who continues after saying no
>is a rapist

>then from 1, one cannot always determine when someone is really saying "no"
>since the "no" can be retroactive. Therefore no one should have sex for fear
>of raping someone.
>----

>Comments?

Sounds like a creative justification for masturbation.  Unless, of course,
you change your mind....

							--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 19:25:54 GMT

muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

...[referring to more open sexual displays]...

>>Different societies could respond in different ways, from censorship
>>to the shadora. Or the society could collectively decide that the cost
>>of increased sexual violence is worth the benefit of a more open
>>society. The one thing it could *not* do, given the putative link
>>between exposure and sexual response, is to accept the one without
>>expecting the other.

>That really isn't true, though.  We do, in fact, expect people to
>control all sorts of impulses.  

Yes, we do; we also expect them to succumb to temptation occasionally.
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.

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.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: A feminist who supports male reproductive rights
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:47:26 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct15.201322.117609@zeus.calpoly.edu>, dgross@zeus.calpoly.edu (Dave Gross) writes:

> Karen DeCrow is exceptional among feminists for her integrity.  This isn't
> the only issue on which she has taken a controversial stand putting feminist
> principles ahead of pro-woman selfishness.  If NOW today were like Karen
> DeCrow, I might join.

Me too!

Terry
-- 
        INTERNET: tjw+@pitt.edu         BITNET: TJW@PITTVMS
"Laugh while you can, Monkey Boy!"                        - Lord "John" Warfin
"There can be only one!"                                  - The Highlander
"There should have been only one. I want my money back!"  - Terry
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Rights and Responsibilities
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:25:45 GMT

In article <1bfd4hINNq8d@uwm.edu> litow@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (bruce e litow) writes:

>1. I am opposed to laws that would impede a woman from having an
>abortion at any time during term, prior to onset of actual delivery.

>2. Given (note the word) that women may safely obtain abortions as
>in 1., then there are certain repsonsibilities attaching.
>
> a. Outside of marriage, where the father has expressly disavowed
>    support, and the woman elects not to abort pregnancy, then the
>    the child will be her responsibility, solely.

Sounds good.

> b. Within marriage, if a woman has an abortion without consulting her
>    husband, then this constitutes grounds for divorce with prejudice.

This fits into current marriage laws (eg. re sterility).

> c. On abortion, the fetus is a ward of the state/county, etc. That is
>    all rights and perquisites attached to the fetus revert to
>    the trust of the state and abortion is understood to imply
>    complete renunciation of such rights, etc. by the woman. Thus
>    disposition of the fetus is a matter of law.

Does this mean that, for example, a woman who wants an abortion 
in Week 38 might have to, according to law, have a cesarian,
and the state could award the surviving "fetus" to the man?

Or would a cesarian be too great an impediment to "abortion" before 
onset of delivery?

A very interesting proposal.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:02:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct10.060627.23366@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling) writes:
>: >The only methods I'd recommend are the pill, or condoms.
>: >Everything else available at the moment is too messy, too
>: >risky or too permanent.
>: 
>:  Diaphram+spermicidal jell? Sponge? Not too permanent, risky or messy and
>:  takes only a minute once you get the hang of it.
>: 
>: -kelvin
>
>A minute to get in, perhaps.  But you have to leave it in a little while
>afterwards, no ?

 You have to leave it in *after* sex for about 6 hours. Once it is inserted
 you can begin intercourse right away. In fact its kind of nice since you dont
 have to worry about disposing of the condom and getting another one if you
 want to have seconds. I would recommend using diaphram in conjunction with
 a rythm method though. That is, use the diaphram alone only when you are
 reasonably sure she is not ovulating or will not be within the next few
 days. During the more risky period also use a condom.

 Also, because of AIDS and other stuff though, this only works with a steady,
 monogomous, disease-free partner. Otherwise alway use a condom.

>And it's not the most romantic practise.

  No less romantic than putting on a condom in my opinion.

>Plus, so far as I know of, (correct me if I'm wrong) the flavour of available
>spermacide leaves a bit to be desired.  Of course, that's not an issue
>for everyone.

 Not a problem. The jell goes around the rim and in the bottom of the cup
 where it makes contact with the cervix. If some gets wiped off outside as
 it is being inserted, just wipe it off.

-kelvin
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 18:47:26 GMT

In article <13201@hans> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

[flasher joke told by Women's Studies professor]

>I would like to make another comment about the context in which the
>flasher joke was told. This was a WS course, and what the professor
>may have been trying to do is turn the tables and make people
>think about the anti-woman jokes they hear all the time. If she hoped
>to convince men that these stereotypes could hurt when the tables are
>turned (she seems to have convinced you, if you needed convincing), she
>was speaking to the wrong group (ie: a mostly female class).

I didn't need convincing (I also wasn't there).  I think one
implication of Dave Gross's story is that the professor herself
needed convincing.

>Most likely what she was doing was a little childish pay-back to the
>professors who told anti-woman jokes to her classes when she was a
>student. Again she was addressing the wrong audience, but hey, we're
>all childish sometimes right? (I'm not, are too, am not, are too, am not,
>are too)

Most of us are childish sometimes, and most of us show poor judgement
sometimes.  I wouldn't fire the professor for her jokes (unless she
continued), but I would object to her accusing others of making
insensitive jokes (pot/kettle/black).

I teach; and one thing I never do is to make off-color or
even-slightly-possibly-offensive jokes.  Sometimes I might
tell a joke that isn't funny, but that's another story... :-(

My guess about this unknown professor is that she probably 
wanted to get the class interested and energized (as well as
have their admiration or solidarity), and a joke is a good technique.
I would guess she probably fell into the same trap that everybody
else can fall into: not realizing that something you say could
be offensive.

I always thought that was the point of sensitivity...

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:53:13 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
 
>Action taken after the fact is not censorship. To censor if to filter
>and allow only PC material through. If porno was censored, then it would
>not be legally printed or sold. That is, to sue for libel is not to
>censor, because the libelous <whatever> has already gone into the
>public domain. It's the difference between a while loop and an until
>loop.

So are you saying that it is *legal* to print and sell libelous material?
*Legal* to print and sell copyright infringments?  

(I know for sure it isn't legal to print and sell child porn in the US, 
so there is *some* censorship in our country, right?)

>>>>and some forms of harassment.  
>>>
>>>What does harrasment have to do with playboy or censorship?
>>
>>Some forms of harassment, which could be considered forms of
>>expression, are illegal.
>
>These still happen after the fact.

This distinction seems slightly weird to me.  Things have to *exist*
before they can be censored.  You could never censor porn until *after*
the possibly offended item was produced, right?

You might be on the right track...  convince me...

rini