HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 23:38:48 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.230744.595@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Nov18.003136.1182@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov16.000417.13647@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov13.221449.12257@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Nov10.015616.4142@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>[redundant attributes gone]
>>>>>>>>>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>>>          [men required "forced sex" of wives more often than the reverse]
>>>
>>>Actually, Carol did not say "forced sex". She is partially quoted below.
>>
>>Actually, that's why I put it in quotes.  
>
>But putting it in quotes implies quoted material, something she -did- say.
>You could have delineated with dashes or commas, the quotes have a very
>specific meaning.

Quotes have more than one meaning.  You wanna get back to the real topic, or
have a grammar flame war?

>>                                       I was looking for a short term that
>>would imply one spouse accomodating the other, and used "forced sex".  Simply
>>do a global replace of "forced sex" with "one spouse accomodating the other" if
>>the term offends you.
>
>Would you think it unreasonable to consider that rape is forced sex? Hey
>rini, here is a chance for another childish dig. Go or it! 

Of course rape is forced sex.

[gone]

-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 00:21:06 GMT

In article <1992Nov20.011347.5929@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>In article <1992Nov17.054314.4673@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>>	The following quotes are from _What A Young Man Ought To Know_,
>>by Sylvanus Stall, D.D., a 1904 edition of a book copyrighted 1897. ...
>
>	I wonder if this doctor considered syphilis a punishment for
>the sins of those afflicted with it. I know that there are some who
>view AIDS in that same light.

	Indeed he did, Loren, indeed he did. Repetitively. At length.
By the way, note the "doctor" is a Doctor of Divinity (DD), i.e., a
preacher.

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Sexist and 50/50 (Was: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:38:24 GMT

hillyard@lynx.msc.cornell.edu.UUCP (Sean Edward Hillyard) writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini):

>> To the point, are there situations you can think of that exist today
>> where men and women participate in something equally and where the very 
>> fact of 50/50 participation is evidence of sexism?  (For clarity, let's set
>> aside the whole idea of "forced quotas" etc.)  I must admit that I'm
>> having a hard time coming up with examples to prove your point.
 
>How about professional tennis, golf and the olympics.  

Interesting.  How do you consider 50/50 participation in these things 
sexist?  

I guess as I think about it, you could that sports are in general "sexist",
(in the more benign sense of the term, at least) but that's not because 
of 50/50 participation, but because each event is barred from 
the one sex.... so it's more like 100/0 participation...  ?

Do you think that the practice of having same sex competitions has a
bad side effect?  Is it unjust?

>Or even
>college athletics where the courts have begun requiring (a Univ. of 
>Washington ruling comes to mind) that a certain percentage of participants
>have to be women.  Here we have a clear case of a big advantage for a certain
>sex and the solution is not to have open tryouts with the best, regardless
>of sex, making the team, but instead a fixed percentage required to be women.

I believe it could be argued that this called "forced quotas".  (See my text 
above.)  You could argue otherwise, though, since the men and women are
not trying out for the same team.  (That is, a good female athlete cannot
"bump" a male from his team, right?)

Do you think it a non-sex-prejudiced society that differentiated men's and 
women's sports would cease to exist?  Do you think that different 
percentages of participants would be men and women?

rini  
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
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 04:29:15 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.054314.4673@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>	This first is an anecdote of an anxious father taking a young
>son to a physician:
>
>	which the father replied in the negative. The other question was,
>	'Does your child pray?' The father replied that the child could
>	not pray, for he did not speak. To illustrate his meaning the
>	physician said, 'When you have prayers at home, or when in
>	Sunday-school or church, does your child kneel down, clasp his
>	hands, raise his face toward heaven or in any other way place
>	himself in an attitude of prayer?' The reply was in the negative.

>	question of grave doubt. [...] to pray is as natural to a child
>	as the desire for food.'

Gosh, this guy thinks that the "absence of prayer" is itself proof
of moral depravity. Sounds 19th-century to me!

Rini's "Minister's Wife" somehow forgot to talk about God or prayer.
>
>		Sacred things will first lose their hold upon you,
>	business and daily duties will begin to grow irksome, the
>	enchantment will continue to grow stronger, and before you are
>	aware you will be upon the swift current which rages among the
>	rocks of dissipation, dishonesty, deceit, and then sweeps on to
>	eternal destruction.

Loss of heaven, and going to Hell. Real 19th-century moral texts are
filled with this kind of thing.

-- 
  
        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: jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 17:06:20 GMT

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

I wish to thank the many people who responded to my original question.  I 
can trully say that I've learned some new things about "feminism".  I see 
there is more to this subject than the news reports; but then that doesn't 
surprise me much!

The one thing I've enjoyed about electronic mailing lists, and now USENET, 
is the perspective of people outside of my little sphere.  Being from Utah, 
I sometimes loose perspective of American & world cultual diversity.  This 
is not to say I'm sheltered, just that minorities are more of a minority 
here than other places.  For example: Bush 45%  Perot 29%  Clinton 26% ...

--Jay
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 20:47:57 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.151349.1993@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich
Payne) wrote:
> 
> 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:
> >
> >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...

Sorry, rini.  Tangent time.

> 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.

Rape seed oil is one of the items included in our incipient tariff war with
France, and they are referring to it as such.

       /-                 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
                           
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Sex changes, was (Re: Self Appreciation)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:10:24 GMT

-
-In article <1992Nov16.185735.25510@mr.med.ge.com> wendy@sundown.mil.wi.us writes:
->Rich Payne (payner@netcom.com) wrote:
->> Since you made a public anouncement, I hope you won't mind my asking why?
->> (The sex change that is)
->
->Why???? Because I am a woman. I just happened to get stuck inside of a man's
->body. While I have surpressed these emotions for many years, and tried to
->act as a man, I've always known I was female. The internal conflict is almost
->too much to bear. I doubt that you would understand. Most people don't, 
->although more women seem to then men. 
->
->> Rich
->
->Wendy
-
-Think about what we all experience as real differences between men and women.
-Men and women think, act, react, dream, ... differently.

I would like to point out that Richard Lynch claims that these differences
are a matter of social conditioning. He has (as far as I can tell) denied
that biology plays any significant role.

I have problems reconciling the concept of a "women in a man's body" (or vice
versa) with the concept of sexual identity 100% assigned by social conditioning.
 
-Now, each one of you that strongly identifies with being male or female - take
-your current personality and picture it inside the body of the opposite sex.
-It would be damned awkward, confusing, at times humiliating as you would 
-behave in a manner different from the "norm".  Wouldn't you want to get
-back to a body you're comfortable in?
-
-I don't know about the statistics, but I've not yet heard of somebody 
-changing their sex twice!

I have not heard of any such reverse sex changes either, but I wonder if
this is even medically possible with current medical technology.
 
-Nature/God tries out endless "variations on a theme" all the time.  I don't
-know why people feel so threatened that someone is born gay 

It is still an open question as to whether anyone is born gay. I do not
claim to know one way or another BTW.

-                                                              or that someone
-feels like a woman trapped inside the body of a man.  Since our society 
-has trouble accepting men who act like women, I think it's fine to use
-the technology we have to allow someone to be consistent in their nature and
-their appearance.

If they so desire. But I wonder how such things are funded? 
 
-Take care, Wendy.
-   
- Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall
-
-      Don't Panic!  Clinton will be our *42*nd President.


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: ednclark@kraken.itc.gu.edu.au (Jeffrey Clark)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item
Organization: ITC, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Date: 20 Nov 92 00:56:15 GMT

sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell) writes:

>Article 2609 of alt.feminism:
>Newsgroups: alt.feminism
>Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
>Date: 11 Nov 1992 20:56:21 GMT


>In article <MUFFY.92Nov10105034@remarque.berkeley.edu>
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>However, I find them
>>extremely hot...particularly the androgynous seriously-feminist types.

Where do I meet a woman like you? Who not only finds androgynous feminist
males a good friend but also HOT. I must admit I've never met on of you face
to face.

>S Shultz writes:

>According to the literature, you're in a small minority.  

>	I think you are correct, but what is the point?

>The 
>most attractive profile is closer to the traditionally 'masculine' than 
>'androgynous,' both physically and psychologically.


>	What is "traditionally masculine"?  I dont consider myself
>	a liberal, feminist, or androgynous.  Im a large white male
>	who likes women who are at least as intelligent, assertive
>	and independant as I am.  However, I dont drink beer, watch
>	football, or spit on the floor.  Im also more comphortable
>	being aggressive in my daily affairs.  Does this make
>	me a crossbread?  *chuckle*  Im not mocking you:)
>	Im just playing devil's advocate with unspoken stereotypes.


>Note that 'androgynous' is not synonymous with 'liberal' in the sense 
>used here; i.e., a generally egalitarian approach to division of labor.  
>But it's worth pointing out that women could have a significant 
>preference for liberal men, all other things being equal, 

>	Makes sense, even without getting highbrowed about it.
>	Women are people.  People get offended when they arent
>	taken seriousley as capable people.  People dont like
>	who offend them.  "Liberal" men are more likely not
>	to commit this offense.  Hence, everything else being
>	equal why wouldnt a woman choose a man who takes her/her life
>	as an adult seriousley over a patrionizing jerk?


Basically, your problem is that you assume that relationships are based on
purely rational grounds. A quick look at the relationships of those around
you will find that this is not the case. Relationships of long-term or
casual fling sort are basically initialised by a visceral reaction of some
sort on behalf of the couple involved. Very rarely does one sit back and
size up the attributes of a person in terms of their beleif structure and
decide that this person is a ideal partner so I'll ask them out somewhere.

Jeff.


>Steve R




Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:41:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.041315.7218@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <Bxo2n5.BIJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>>I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, 

[consequences deleted]

>May I say you've blown my mind? The only assumption we shared
>is that she would have ultimate choice of whether the fetus
>would become a child.  It is interesting to share these types
>of things...shows the cultural differences :-) between us. Gender-
>related, I'm sure, but possibly class-related as well. 

Net-discussion actually accomplished something positive!  :-)


>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.

This is what I've always assumed a responsible woman would do.

It's exactly what I'd like a responsible man to have the opportunity to do.

(If you're a feminist, you're my type!  :-)

(no backlash intended)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: movin
Date: 15 Nov 92 21:27:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bxs0yL.11D

In article <1992Nov14.182949.11005@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:
>tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes...
>TW>In article <BwHn2x.6qJ@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) wri
>TW>:
>
>TW>>>      * proof of your gender (a flame from Don or Sami will
>TW>>>              suffice)
>
>TW>> Sami, you unutterable moronic jerk!
>
>TW>No, no, you're all confused!  He said a flame "FROM", not a flame "OF"!

>No, no, no, no, no!  You're *all* confused - it was Michal who wrote that
>message which angered Don.
>
>(And someone is going to tell me...  <-: )

Yup...  I wasn't angered, I was amused, so I played along...  :-)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4828 alt.folklore.urban:29276
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment
Date: 21 Nov 92 15:45:51 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of California, Riverside

Snuff films do exist indeed.  Although I have never viewed one, I will
none the less tell you were to find them.  They exist in many video
rental stores!

They are hidden in the guise of documentaries.  The titles are "Faces
of Death I, II, .."  On the cover jacket each tells that the video 
contains scenes of actual murders, executions, ect.  Some of the 
film is old Nazi stuff, some taken by hidden video cameras, some
by third world hit squads ect.  

Now this may not meet the strict standards of Snuff films as defined
by some who post to this group, but snuff films none the less.
The victims are not volenteers and the purpose is murder.

So let's say they are documentaries of snuff films, a kind of "The
best of Snuff".  What is "scary" as the some like to say is that
according to the rental clerk these video's have a high turn over
rate.

starbuck
From: garnham@convex.csd.uwm.edu (David C Garnham)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: American Gender Roles
Date: 20 Nov 1992 23:14:28 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Distribution: wi
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.30
Originator: garnham@convex.csd.uwm.edu

"Modern American Gender Roles and 'Family Values': In Historical
Perspective."

A talk by Professor Mary Beth Norton (Mary Donlon Alger Professor
of American History at Cornell University).

Where:
UW-Milwaukee
Alumni House, Garden Room
3230 E. Kenwood Blvd.
Milwaukee

When:
7:30 p.m.
Thursday, 10 December, 1992

Sponsored by the Cornell Club of Wisconsin and the UW-Milwaukee
History Department
-- 
| David Garnham                Internet: garnham@convex.csd.uwm.edu          |
| Political Science Dept.      Bitnet  : garnham%convex.csd.uwm.edu@INTERBIT |
| University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee      (414) 229-4392/4221                 |
| P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201 U.S.A.                                   |
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 15:03:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov15.024901.5868@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1du6ukINNgl5@lily.csv.warwick.ac.uk> maufd@csv.warwick.ac.uk (Mr J S Graley) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.164401.6552@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>>>jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>>>I would expand on "request". I would support requiring that the 
>>>>>woman must notify the man within [some period of time] after becoming
>>>>>pregnant that she is pregnant. Within [some period of time] after
>>>>>they will file a "parenting plan" with the state.
>>> 
>>>>What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?
>
>If they disagree, meditation, possibly court. The default does
>NOT occur if they disagree. The default exists only to save
>paperwork.

Okay -- but I'd still find the paper-saving default dangerous,
because it could somehow justify the conclusion that men don't
want to be involved.  (Eg., the existence of women's shelters
and the lack of men's shelters lends credibilility to saying that
men are not victims of spousal violence.)

The other problem is that a woman could choose to hide the identity 
of the father, so that the default would occur.  I don't think the 
father's parental rights should ever be terminated by default, even 
when no objection is made.

There are already birth-certificates, insurance forms, hospital forms,
social-security applications, etc., to fill out, and IMHO the paper-savings
isn't enough.

I am glad that your default wouldn't occur if there was any debate --
I was a little afraid you were justifying unequal treatment in the name
of generalizations or efficiency.


>>>No, because in the default situtation Jen outlined (when no "parenting
>>>plan" is filed) the woman becomes the sole legal parent.
>>
>>Why?

>We don't have to have a default for unmarried couples. But, yeah,
>I said that the default for unmarried couples would be the woman
>as sole parent. Mainly cause I figure that if I get pregnant, if
>he doesn't want to be involved, that's what'll happen.

It's fine with me if you want to make that assumption for yourself.
I just don't see a need to put it into a law.

I assume, for myself, that if I walk in Philadelphia at night, I stand
a much greater chance of being mugged than when I walk in State College 
(also PA) at night.  But I don't want the law to require a curfew
in Philadelphia.

Similarly, *even* if statistical evidence were to show that most men
don't want to be involved, it would still not be a compelling reason
to treat men and women differently under the law.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel)
Subject: Re: Why are there only men on
Organization: The University of Utah
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 22:07:23 GMT


> It seems like well over half the posts on this board are by men.  I guess 
> it's just a male thing to shoot your mouth off about things you know 
> nothing about!

	This reminds me of the limited logic & statistics presented by news 
reporters on various "feminist issuses" (yes other topics suffer the same 
problem).  Example:  I've lost count of the number of times it's been 
mentioned the low percentage of women in congress, yet I've never once heard 
the percentage of women who have ever put their hat in the ring as opposed 
to the number of men.  Is it possible that a lack of women in congress is 
due to a lack of women running, or just men keeping them down?  Also, is it 
possible that the lack of women posting to this board is due to a lack of 
women with E-Mail accounts, or just a male thing to ...?  --Jay

P.S.	This is not meant as sexist, merely as a reality check! ;-)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Death Threats and Pornography (was: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment)
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:48:50 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

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?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism