HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: quilty@titan.ucc.umass.edu (Humberto Humbertoldi)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:24:58 GMT

In article <13562@hans> hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:
>billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>>hans@Software.Mitel.COM (Hans Johnsen) writes:

>>Why? Is there any concrete evidence that they do exist? If so, how about
>>providing some [i.e. "snuff-film distributors"]
>
>You are missing the point. What I am saying is that we shouldn't draw
>conclusions one way or the other until concrete evidence is provided.
>Believing that snuff films don't exist without concrete evidence is
>just as closed minded and non scientific as believing that they do
>exist.

Oh, give me a break! Please.  How can you find CONCRETE evidence that
something does NOT exitst!? I bet you can't provide any concrete
evidence that Santa Clause doesn't exist (actually, I'm probably going
out on a limb on this one, since it's less than evident that you've
reached this conclusion based on your willingness to make wild
speculative leaps).  If fifty years of intense effort, with no result,
to locate snuff films by the FBI, Congress, Dept. Justice, etc. -- not
to mention "feminists" like McK doesn't give a rather convincing piece
of NEGATIVE evidence, then I'm sure you'll NEVER be convinced they
don't exist.
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/
From: rodin@acs.bu.edu (luis del)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Dating
Keywords: Dating with me
Date: 22 Nov 92 02:57:03 GMT
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: rodin@acs.bu.edu



HELLO,
	I HAVE NEVER DATED A FEMMINIST, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IS LIKE. THIS IS NOT A SEX WITH NO STRINGS KIND OF MESSAGE. IN FACT SEX IS NOT NECESSARY, SPECIALLY IF IT GETS INTHE WAY OF FINDING THE ESSENCE OF A FEMINIST. TO MALES THAT CONSIDERED THEMSELVES FEMINIST--I'M MALE...I'M HETEROSEXUAL. THEREFORE PLEASE IF IN THE BOSTON AREA PLEASE, MAKE ARANGEMENTS THROUGH E-MAIL. THIS IS SERIUOS I WANT TO SEE FIRST HAND WEATHER A)FEMINIST CARRY SUCH A BIG RESENTMENT OF THE PATRIACHAL SOCIETY THAT THEY CAN NOT CONNECT



 WITH INDIVIDUAL MALES. B) ARE FEMINIST WOMEN BASICALLY AESTHETICALLY UGLY THAT RATIONALIZE THIS FACT BY DENIGRATING THE MALE LIBIDO AND THE DOINGS OF OTHER WOMEN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO WERE THE CLOTHING, AND MAKE UP THEY DESIRE C) ARE THEY SO IMBUED WITH THIS IDEOLOGY THAT THEY CAN NOT VIEW THE NUANSES OF LIFE WITHOUT IT, AND D)CAN THEY LAUGH AT THEMSELVES AS A PERSON WITHOUT FEELING THAT THEY MUST CONSTANTLY BE SERIOUS FOR THEIR CAUSE. TO THOSE I HAVE OFFENDED, I APOLOGIZE STILL I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY? I



 REALLY WANT TO BREAK WHAT EVER UNOTICED PREDIJUCE I MAY CARRY. NEVERTHELESS I HOPE SOME OUT THERE HAVE THE TEMERITY TO ANSWER, FOR I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT IT IS LIKE FIRST HAND. I REALIZE THAT NO PERSON BECAUSE THEY SHARE ONE BELIEF, ARE TO BE ALL THE SAME, BUT I HAVE BEEN AMAZED AT THE CONSISTENCY OF THIS IDELOGY WITH RESPECTS TO ITS RHETORIC, HISTORICAL INTERPRATIONS, AND ANGER. 



				WITH REGARDS,

				RODIN






					


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:54:54 GMT

In article <1992Nov19.061717.27204@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

>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.

IMHO:  I'd hope you'd tell him anyway, since it's not really
for "no reason."  Life has its pains, and it shows more respect
for someone to let them deal with their pains (even unavoidable ones)
than to assume a burden unilaterally out of compassion.

(Where's the Hallmark store when you need it?)

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Choice?
Keywords: abortion, pornography
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 02:51:21 GMT

From uchinews!quads!mec6 Fri Oct 30 12:03:34 CST 1992
jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:

>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.?

This is an interesting question.  

The only time I have seen this sort of juxtaposition before was in
a tract from Feminists For Life (who argue that abortion is just 
another form of control of the female body that must be rejected).

I haven't seen it put forth by the pro-choice/pro-porn/pro-prostitution
camps before, but maybe I'm missing something.


This reminds me... pardon the tangent here....  This weekend I saw 
Annie Sprinkle's recent movie.  (For those who don't know, she's been 
a porn star, prostitute etc. for decades, and is now a "post-porn 
performance artist.")  I was happy to see that at the end of 
_The Sluts and Goddesses Video Workshop_, she gratefully
acknowledged the funding of two organizations:  PONY (Prostitutes 
of New York), and Labia: An Organization of Pro-Sex Feminists.

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Are Whites Worse Off in the Deep South?
Originator: hillyard@tiger.msc.cornell.edu
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 07:55:23 GMT

From article <1ehoq5INNksp@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>, by teri off is less@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey):
> In article <1ec9ovINNi1d@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>>
>>Gordon Fitch:
>>>I'm well aware of such
>>>studies, and in general I don't trust them.
>>
>>Do you mean to imply here that your own casual assessment that white 
>>people are worse off is less biased and more valid than the independent 
>>consensus of over 20 research labs across the continent, and over 100 
>>professional psychologists and sociologists, in careful peer-reviewed 
>>research?
> 
> The media does a great job of disseminating this so-called "careful
> research" from well-paid scientists around the world that directly
> contradicts itself every few years or so.  Look at the medical community, 
> which publishes lots of contradictory research.  High cholesterol causes 
> heart attacks, so low cholesterol is better.  Oh, no, low cholesterol 
> patients have just as many heart attacks.  See below article.  Increase 
> your intake of oat bran, it lowers your cholesterol.  No, fiber does nothing 
> for your cholesterol.   Careful research, perhaps, but not totally 
> infallible.  Gotta take it with a grain of salt.  Seems to me a while
> back everyone thought the earth was flat, too.

Sure, you've got to weigh the data.  The cholesterol research is
relatively recent and probably wasn't duplicated by others before being
trumpeted by the media.  I've seen two new theories on how to lower heart
attack risk in the last couple months:  red wine and periodically
donating blood (This one was actually somewhat interesting.  The theory
is that excess iron increases risk of heart attacks.  Explaining why women's
risk suddenly increases after menopause, why daily asprin decreases risk--
tends to cause slight intestinal bleeding, why high meat intake increases
risk--lots of iron, etc).  Of course you take these theories with a grain
of salt, even when backed up by a study or two.  However, things like
smoking and a high fat diet have been shown again and again to be detrimental
to your heart, so should certainly be taken seriously.

Its up to you to decide whether 20 research labs and over a hundred 
professionals are good evidence.  If there is not any substantial evidence
against I'd be inclined to believe 'em.  (And hey, quit ridiculing the
Flat Earth Society, the evidence is not in, the world actually is flat.)

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 23:49:40 GMT

In article <carol.721259026@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>
>I won't try and get into an argument on Marxism and feminism with Robert,
>but I do want to address one point...
>
>>    Almost half of all women, by contrast, are raped or victims of
>>    attempted rape at least once in their lives. Almost 40 percent 
>>    are victims of sexual abuse in childhood. [!!!!!!!] (p. 174)
>
>Obviously Robert finds this statistic outrageous. But perhaps he is
>falling prey to the exact male view of rape and sexual abuse that
>MacKinnon referred to - that it must involve penetration. Children may
>be sexually abused without even being touched. Sexual abuse on children
>may take the form of being shown pornography by adults, or having adults
>perform sexual acts in front of them. It may be through adults talking
>sexually to them, or telling them all they will ever be good for is sex.
>Child sexual abuse can occur at the hands of the teacher who touches you
>in odd places as he leans over your desk, or the brother who uses you for
>his own experimentation, or the man who masturbates in front of you on
>a train, or the doctor who pokes and prods unneccessarily while your
>mother waits on the other side of the curtain...... None of these
>scenarios are the father rape type thing that many people who don't know
>better think of when they think of child sexual abuse. But these 
>situations must NOT be belittled - they are sexual abuse and they do
>cause enormous amounts of damage to a child's growing sexual awareness
>and sense of self. Personally I suspect that figure of 40% to be on the
>conservative side.
 
According to John Bradshaw, the one defining characteristic of child sexual
abuse is that the parent (or adult) is sexually aroused. If this condition
is not met, then sexual abuse has not occurred. I am not condoning
child sexual abuse, but I do not support overbroad all encompassing 
re-definitions either. 

Why do you figure that the 40% figure is too low?
 
>	Carol


Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: heterosexuality and feminism
Date: 21 Nov 92 16:12:52 GMT
Organization: New Mexico State University

In article <1992Nov18.043254.24606@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu> mkagalen@lynx.dac.northeastern.edu (michael kagalenko) writes:
            (stuff deleted)
>Well , I'd agree that the whole story is more complicated. Originally
>feminists (after too complicated for me reasoning :-) ) decided, that 
>2+2=5 . Now they're saying : " Well, 2+2=4.5, but we'd be lenient to
>those nasty males (who think that 2+2=4). Let's tell'em, that 2+2=4.1  "
>*sarcasm off*
> Major failure of any leftist ideology is the reluctance to admit that 
>truth DO exist and do not depend on anybody's opinion.

Wait a second.  As a math graduate student, I would argue that 2+2=4 is not a
truth; rather it is a rule to a game that we choose to play.  If we
all though that addition in Z4 was better, then 2+2=0.  That's how I
feel about most "truths", mainly that they are true given a certain
set of assumptions.  Abortion is wrong, IF you accept that life begins
at conception and murder is wrong.  Pornography oppresses women, IF
you accept axioms about the socialization of women.

Most arguments tend to fall into three groups:
1) Your arguments don't make much sense given my axioms.
This is what most of the pro-choice/pro-life, abortion is murder/a
women's right to choose is made up of.  Pointless shouting at each
other.
2) Your axioms do not model the real world as well as mine.
This seems to be a better form of argument.  However, trying to mess
with one's primal beliefs is not easy; after all as the above shows
most people don't think of their beliefs as axioms, they think of them
as THE TRUTH.  That makes it harder to argue with them.
3) Your argument does not follow logically from your stated axioms.
Personal favorite.  Good example is "Women have aright to control
their own body" implies "Drugs should be legalized (at least for women)".

Anyway, I, for one, do not assume that I have stumbled upon a mountain
of enlightenment.  Therefore I assume that my beliefs are just that:
my beliefs.  Other people's are equally valid.  If only our so called
sceptic could come to the same conclusion...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg- King of the ellipses
       (dsteinbe@emmy.nmsu.edu)
**********************************************************************
*"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: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Criticizing Good Intentions (Re: Child Support)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 01:52:22 GMT

In article <Bxo17n.A61@cs.psu.edu>, beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
wrote:
> 
> In article <misdeva-111192175853@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
> 
> >  What I'm
> >criticizing is what I believe is an excessive worry on the part of the
> >anti-choicers on protecting fetuses from abortion-happy women, only to
> >leave the children they think they're saving to a fate that is usually much
> >uglier than the DeMoss Foundation commercials.  Unless we have safe homes,
> >safe schools and safe streets, we are not ensuring the _already born_ safe
> >childhoods.
> 
> Would you also criticize efforts to improve education, especially
> when there aren't any jobs available?  Would you say that people who 
> make commercials telling kids to get a good education are hypocritical
> or intend to cause suffering?
> 
> Don

No.  If drawing the correct analogy, I would criticize the lack of effort
in both the public and private sectors to create jobs for those who are
already educated but are un- or underemployed.

Unless you're going to focus on both parts of a problem, your efforts at a
solution can have only limited solvency.  I can't keep an individual from
being "pro-life", but I can ask him or her to join with me in worrying
about the already-born.  I think that's a "good intention", too, but you
don't seem to agree.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:08:53 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>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.

Perhaps these 'many women' are who you should be arguing with.  I have
not seen anyone on this thread support this view.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 04:44:58 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
 
>Hey, rini, here is a chance for another childish dig. Go or it! 

Uh, okay.  You're a twirp, Rich.  

Did I do good?

rini

:-)

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: sex in the good ol' days
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:53:19 GMT

Hey, rini, that advice to a bride was *so* wild I gotta wonder if it wasn't
"A Modest Propsal"?
OTOH, maybe it was a sincere letter of advice given to every bride in that
church in those days...whaddu I know?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     Rich lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Why are there only men on
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 92 08:30:43 GMT

In article <jay.2.722124443@uuserv.cc.utah.edu> jay@uuserv.cc.utah.edu (Jay Deuel) writes:
>	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

There's the problem, "put their hat in the ring."  Female politicians
are succeeding now because they're getting the support and financial
backing of political parties.  Rarely does anyone, male or female,
annouce her/his candidacy and get very far without party support.
(Perot did, but he spent millions of his own money.)  Even Barbara
Boxer, who looked like a shoo-in for the Senate, eventually had to
rely on the Democratic party machine to come through for her.

The good news is that as more women run, more women will be encouraged
to run.  

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: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:26:24 GMT

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:
>>>>>On these grounds, I think one could also argue that a Chippendale's 
>>>>>calendar also means a very different thing in our society than
>>>>>a swimsuit calendar.  I'm pretty sure they do mean different things
>>>>>to your average Joe and Jane Doe.  (Note that I'm not interested in 
>>>>>debating if one is harmful and the other is not -- it's not real clear
>>>>>cut to me.  I'm no semi-nude calendar expert!  I don't really have
>>>>>much of a clue as to what the two types of calendar "mean".)
>>> 
>>>>>Does that make any sense?
>>> 
>>>>Yes, the old "oppressed people cannot be x-ist" argument.
>>>
>>>No it isn't.  
>>>
>>>Apparently, you tried very hard to read something into what I wrote
>>>that was clearly not there.
>>>
>>>What I'm saying is that it may not be very meaningful to compare
>>>a bikini calendar of women to a Chippendale's calendar of men.  
>>
>>Why or why not. 
>>
>>>Maybe it would be *more* useful to compare a bikini calendar 
>>>of women to a calendar of bachelor men which listed their 
>>>incomes, assets, and number of credit cards.  
>>
>>Maybe it would be more useful to compare a bikini calender to a can 
>>of motor oil, but I doubt it.
>> 
>>>*That's* what I mean when I say that sexism is a two-way street, but
>>>it necessarily doesn't operate in the same way to the different people.
>>
>>Is that not what feminists here claim is the problem with society?
>>
>>>Indeed, the very existence of "sexism" implies that there are double-
>>>standards.  
>>
>>So you defend the ones which might be to your advantage, even with
>>similar to identical situations. 
>> 
>>>If the world was as full of Chippendale's calendars as it is full 
>>>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?
 
>>>                                            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


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 02:34:49 GMT


Since this thing has gone around enough times to make anyone dizzy,
why not just start at the beginning?

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>And I said that "Reading posts here gives one the impression that the only
>things men do deserving consideration is to rape, sexually harrass, have sex 
>with their children, etc..." 

Okay.  Prove it.  

Be careful this time to show how it is that your evidence supports your
claim.

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:56:51 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
  
>>So if you're intelligent, you automatically assume that there is no
>>such thing as a snuff-film?
 
>Some thoughtless person deleted the "alt.folklore.urban" newsgroup
>from this thread. We wouldn't want to keep this erudition all
>to ourselves, would we?

What's interesting about this debate is that Robert Sheaffer writes
for the _Skeptical Inquirer_.  I thought those folks *liked* to
investigate things they suspected were false and *welcomed*
any evidence to the contrary.  (??)

(Of course, the reason I dropped my subscription to SI was that the 
rag shows the bias Sheaffer here illustrates.  It's easy, fun,
intellectually "pretty", and, most importantly, *effective* (IMO) 
to debunk paranormal (and other mythological) claims respectfully 
and scientifically. It was mildly irritating (IMO) to see them 
stoop to condescension and sneers.) 

rini

Newsgroups: alt.feminism