HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kevinc@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (kevin.j.coulter)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:49:32 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.055712.26556@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>I heard that both the American and European congress of Bishops are trying 
>to come up with an acceptable proposal to:
>
>1) Let women deliver the Holy Sacraments (handle priests duties)

Well, they can already give Communion........

>2) Let clergy of either sex marry.
>3) Some other goodies I can't remember...
>
>Apparently His Holiness, the Pope, who has heretofore been against women
>priests because of the Biblical precedent of Jesus selecting all male
>apostles to spread His word, has indicated that he would be receptive to 
>a well-reasoned plan to begin introducing women to the priesthood, and letting
>current clergy marry or not as is their choice. American bishops and their
>European counterparts are meeting to come up with a proposal...

Haven't heard this, but it sounds like they're starting to wake up and
smell the coffee.  Lets face it, there is a declining number of men who
are willing to take the vows. So the part about women priests sounds
reasonable to me. However, I don't know about everywhere else, but
around here, there hasn't exactly been a rush of women becoming nuns
lately. So while I think having women priests will help, having married
(men and women) priests will help significantly more....

>Looks like interesting times ahead for the Roman Catholic Church...I just
>hope that his Holiness stays healthy until the reforms are in place. A
>new pontiff might put a wrench in things.

Very true. 

Something to keep in mind however. There are going to be many people who
are going to be reluctant to support this. We currently have 3 priests
at my Church who are against using girls as altar servers, and I am
attempting without success for us to start using women Ushers (I'm head
of the Ushers). The old fogies just are refusing to accept any change,
even what I consider to be minor. Imagine something like this. I doubt
it will pass first time around......  

			Kevin

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: Camille (was: Re: Califia on Paglia)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:38:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov4.221131.15333@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
wrote:
> 
> Gordon Fitch:
> | >I take it you're excited because I capitalized "Lesbian",
> | >as a careful inspection of your suggested respelling would
> | >indicate.  I'm sorry to disappoint you: I capitalized only
> | >because the word is derived from Lesbos, the Greek island
> | >where Sappho lived, wrote, and (ahem) loved.  It is the
> | >custom in English to capitalize the derivations of words
> | >normally capitalized, for example "American" from "America"
> | >(in constrast to Spanish _americano_.)
> 
> garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
> | Strictly Correct (of course), but hardly common usage.
> | That'll teach me to be literal-minded. :-)
> 
> "Correct", on the other hand, is almost _never_ specially
> capitalized.  Something you like about _correction_, Garry?
> Hmmm?

As in "C" without the "P" ?
 
> As to common usage -- I first began to see "lesbian"
> uncapitalized only a few years ago; the prior common usage
> was always to capitalize.  Guess I'm just an old-fashioned
> kind of guy.

No surprise.	:-)

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sfjr@wam.umd.edu (Steve Russell)
Subject: Appoved Bodies
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 17:23:46 GMT

Article 2226 of alt.feminism:
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Date: 6 Nov 92 10:52:27



In article <lflbvlINNh6j@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> williamt@athena.Eng.Sun.COM (Dances with Drums) writes:
>In article  891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>>The fact is we see *one-type* of women portrayed everywhere as the idealized
>>women and even this isn't a real type for she is subjected to hours of makeup
>>and airbrushing before she goes in front of the camera. The majority of women
>>don't see themselves reflected in society at all. How many models have you  
>>seen with crooked teeth?

>I had to take issue with this.  When was the last time you saw
>a car in a car add anywhere that was dented and/or scratched, paint
>bleached out, seats torn, tires flat or worn, windshield cracked, rag
>top torn, etc etc etc...  The fact is when advertisers are selling somethink,
>they want to use 'perfect' models.

I'll leave the old "how do you define perfect?" alone since many others
will pick it up.  There is a big differnce between cars and women.
Women are thinking, feeling creatures that HURT from bad head trips
inspired by the advertising industry.  Im not a feminist nor have I
read all that much related material AND it seems apparent to me this is
so.  Indeed, anyone who doesnt have the "ONE" body that is considered
attractive for their sex learns this early in life.

Aside from star trek I stopped watching TV years ago.  I read few magazines.
Since then I've been amazed how many GOOD looking women I meet think
little of themselves because they are under 5'11'' and weigh more then
an ounce.  Every now and then when I buy a magazine Im usually shocked
to see how abnormally thin....to the point of looking sick the models are.

From a purely physical standpoint, I think one of the sadder things
about the kind of "media approved body images deal" ( Elle Calenders for-
example) is that few men ever come to appreciate the wide range of
beautiful female body types.  I guess to a certain extent the media does
this to other areas of our lives as well.  We only want what is good and
they tell us what is good if we dont watch ourselves.


Steve R













Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: tracer@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Roger M. Wilcox)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Feminist Jokes
Date: 7 Nov 92 22:21:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Nov7.222110.24687
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <1992Nov2.043610.1545@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>Deal with it.

HA!  Ha, I say!  HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!
PTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise (was: the Male Gaze)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:31:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.210604.16395@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> (Rich:)
>>For all I know, the feminists posting here are the only ones who have
>>no extreme views. ( not that this is my expectation )
>
>(This is not specifically directed at Rich:)
>
>It has been suggested a number of times that the feminists who post
>to the net appear to be a non-representative bunch (e.g. no one here 
>has really supported Dworkin/McKinnon, no has argued that men
>worship death, that intercourse implies rape, etc.). 
>
>So this makes me curious: any hypotheses out there as to what mechanism 
>would link computer literacy and net access to a certain subset of
>feminist views?  In other words:  are there a priori reasons why we 
>should suspect that the views we hear expressed on the net are not 
>representative of the feminist population in general?

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
situation different than, say, a "Womens Studies" class; I have read
accounts of incidents where male students took too strong issue with
what the feminist professor was saying, and were not merely booted out
of class, but charged with Thought Crimes under P.C. statutes, and
forced to perform Revolutionary Self-Criticism if they wanted to stay
in school.

Nobody on the net (except perhaps the moderators of prissy little
newsgroups :) ) has that kind of tyrannical power. Hence, no one
dares attempt to defend the extremists. 

And, unfortunately, many extremists masquerade as moderates UNTIL they
gain such power.

-- 
  
        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: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:11:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.060917.25221@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov5.185031@cs.man.ac.uk> peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes:
>>
>>How many feminists would support the change of abortion laws so that the father could request termination of pregnancy (regardless of wedlock)?
>
>*request*, yes. *force*, no.
>
>>I assume practically none, what alternatives are favoured?
>
>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
>both people know what's up, either an abortion will occur or 
>they will file a "parenting plan" with the state.

What happens if they disagree -- ie., the default occurs?

Should the man be forced to pay child support if he requested
(but was clearly unable to force) an abortion?

Can a man be trusted to make responsible and well-thought-out
decisions about his ability (or desire) to raise or support children?

When birth control failures occur, is that a right 
only to be reserved for women?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:27:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.163908.6342@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>[Hypothetical new world, where pre-birth 'parenting plans' would spell
>out custody/support arrangements.  If no 'parenting plan' filed, we could 
>assume the following defaults:]
>
>>>if married - 2 parents, joint household. 
>>>if not married - 1 parent, her.  (I'm open to suggestions here, 
>>>particularily from the men.)
> 
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>The latter is a bit sexist, coming from a feminist for equality.
>
>Well, it is sexist in the fairly benign sense of the term.

(Is there really a benign sense when it comes to deciding
rights and responsibilities?)


>Specifically, it certainly doesn't make sense that the father would 
>be the default, since we have no idea if he has an interest in parenting.

We don't?  Why should the default be that he has *no* interest in parenting?
That reflects some deep-rooted sexism, in my opinion.

In my circle of friends, which is probably neither representative
nor unrepresentative of all men, a large majority of the men are
quite interested in parenting.  Some are (surprise!) +more+ involved
with the children, despite not having given birth.


>For the mother, on the other hand, we can assume that her choice
>to bring the pregnancy to term *is* an expressed interest in
>parenting.

No, we can't.  She may be against or afraid of abortion, 
she may want to give the child up for adoption, she may
want to continue her genes without shouldering the responsibilities --
we simply cannot automatically assume we know her choice any
more than we know the man's.


>>If not married, flip a coin (assuming both are fit).
>
>Again, however, you are making the assumption that the father
>wants to be a parent.  

If he doesn't, nobody is stopping him from transferring custody
to the woman, if she does.

Why should the woman automatically be held responsible for the
duties of child care?


>If he wants to be a parent, why not make him express that choice
>before the birth, just as the mother does?

Again, in your model, she doesn't.  If you want *both* parents
to sign a statement saying they want to be parents, with knowledgeable
omissions indicating the opposite by default, that's fine.

I just really don't see the advantages in assigning the 
responsibilities and the rights to the mother by default.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3753 rec.humor:33064
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Date: 5 Nov 92 23:50:53 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
    
>>>No, of course not. But it is still a valid question to ask exactly what
>>>it does mean. These novels must be fullfilling some need of the women
>>>who read them.
  
>>Yea, I suppose in some tautologous sense Payne's comment is probably
>>true.  
 
>A nice snobbish, condesending point.

But, yet, appropriate.  :)
 

[T2, Clint Eastwood movies...]

>>                       I myself have enjoyed similar films from time
>>to time.  I don't think that one need necessarily say that the whole
>>audience must have murderous urges which are expressed by the
>>characters in these films.  
 
>Good for you. There is a difference however, watching a film is a passive
>experience, all the work has been done for you. Reading requires a more
>active participation. Perhaps, just perhaps, this might be applied to
>reading posts as well (wink-wink-nudge-nudge).

How about reading Stephen King?  Would that be a better example for you?
I don't think Stephen King readers have murderous urges any more than
I do (though I could be wrong).

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: porn consumption
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:47:04 GMT

I just ran across this statistic.

Question:  Have you seen an X-rated movie in the last year?

% saying YES:

age            men  women
   18-24      59.3   34.7
   25-34      44.7   32.1
   35-44      40.2   28.0
   45-64      24.5   12.3
   65+         8.5    3.9


It's not quite as large a difference as I might've thought,
though frequency of viewing is not accounted for.

rini
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Polygamy
Date: 8 Nov 1992 20:28:43 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:

>>Ah, but that is only one of *your* reasons for entering in a marriage.  Others
>>may work out their own, and still have something that could only be called
>>marriage.  [...]

>If alternative arrangements
>work for you, than more power to you.

I have no "problem" with polygamy in principle, but it seems rather 
unstable.  It's hard enough keeping two spouses together in the same
city....

Comments anyone?

						--  Michal
From: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:34:02 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rice University

In article <1duoeoINNona@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart
Schultz) wrote:
 
> I'm just wondering what the yardstick is.  It apparently isn't
> psychological well-being, because you say you wouldn't be impressed
> with this sort of information, no matter how extensive.  If being 'worse
> off' by your intuitive assessment has no psychological significance,
> why should anybody be concerned about it?


A small addition to Stewart's argument, and Kenn Barry's later post, since
I think that some general measure of psychological well-being is a
reasonable yardstick of "oppression".

Being exposed to the supposed cream of American adolescence, I see a much
greater frequency of "stressed-out" behaviour (nervous speech, shaking
limbs, personal problems etc.) amongst male students here.  Of course, most
students don't display these traits, but the vast majority of those who do
are male.

At the upper levels of achievement, it seems that the *necessity* to do
well drives a small, but significant number of males overboard. 
Ironically, the generally, slightly (add any other modifiers you like)
reduced expectations for the "oppressed" gender permit a high level of
achievement without the level of stress associated with *having* to make
it.

If this point has any validity, it is probably culture-specific.  An ideal
comparison case would be Australia, a similar society in many ways, but one
in which *no-one* gives a shit :-).

I imagine that Teri Tracey wouldn't be impressed by this either.


Garry.
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Date: 5 Nov 92 01:21:35 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada

In <ZEN.92Nov3224602@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:


>In article <Bx6D0A.MtJ@ccu.umanitoba.ca> kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>>As long as I have to compete with women who are candidates for, and
>>recipients of, women only awards, the 'nobel' goals of feminists are suspect.

>  What?  There's a new nobel prize for women/feminists only?  Kind of
>like the peace prize or something?  I nominate muffy and rini!

There are many women only awards and scholarships given out.  NSERC being the
predominant bee in my bonnet.  I also know that in a recent search for a
new faculty member for our department, NSERC would kick in a significant 
portion of the salary for a female in a tenure track position.
	The NRC also has a bad reputation for this type of favoritism.  In
Ellen Spertus's report 'Why are There so Few Female Computer Scientists?',
she describes some of the advantages women gain from these opportunities.

Ken
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:4136 alt.folklore.urban:28073
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: MacKinnon Suffers Snuff Harassment (was: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise)
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:07:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <misdeva-101192162448@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>> >
>> >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.  
>> 
>> 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 don't find death threats funny, on any level, regardless of what I may
>think about the target's ideology.  But I can say that I think belittling
>such threats is disgusting, even morally repellent.
>

The humor has nothing to do with anyone's ideology. Rather, it is the
claim that one has received death threats from nonexistent parties.

Sort of like, as if I had said, "I was getting the inside scoop on the story
of Snow White, but I had to stop. I kept getting threatening phone calls
from the Seven Dwarfs."

When someone claims to be menaced by nonexistent parties, it tends to
force people to consider that they just might be making it up.

-- 
  
        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: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: children and divorce
Originator: mackenzi@quetzalcoatl.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 16:20:04 GMT


mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

|> There is an interesting footnote here however.  Apparently, boy 
|> children "hold marriages together" better than girl children.
|> 
|> If the first child is a girl, the probability of divorce is .43.
|> If the first child is a boy, the probability of divorce is .39.
|> 
|> If the marriage stays together long enough to have two kiddies:
|> 
|> If they are both girls, the probability of divorce is .31.
|> If they are both boys, the probability of divorce is .27.
|> 
|> It has been argued that this differential may be explained by the
|> fact that fathers take a larger role in raising boys and thus
|> releive the mother of over-reponsibility and frustration.  
|> 
|> (see Morgan, Lye and Condran, American Journal of Sociology 94: 
|> 110-129.)

Before we all start making grandiose conclusions, look at the numbers
here.  In both cases the probabilities listed are within 4% of each
other.  Now, if the people who had done this research had used divorce
stats on many thousands of couples, then the 4% could be considered
relatively accurate for the general population.  If not, then the 
margin of error could easily be 4% or higher (just look at most
government and media polls these days).  At any rate, I don't think
a result of 4% difference is too significant.

So what am I really saying?  We shouldn't conclude too much from
these stats - they are close enough to be considered effectively 
equal in the general population.

Paul

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Why I Am a Feminist
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:32:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.022135.24065@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

[...]
 
>gk:
>| You diverted the point here.  What about dam-building, provision of
>| electricity, pharmaceutical development etc, etc, etc.  How are they "least
>| constructive".
>
>Are you saying you have to have a penis and a hierarchical
>society to build a dam?

I think a valid point that is usually missing in most feminist postings
is that most of the things men do most of the time are productive and/or
constructive.

The tendency is to compare the vices of men to the virtues of women. Oddly
enough, this tends to put the women in a favorable light, comparison wise.

Men and women both have good points and bad points, strengths and
weaknesses. 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... In this regard, most feminists seem
to go along with macho standards. It is expected that men work and
support their families or spouses (if they have them). It can be ignored.
In contrast, feminsts complain loudly when women recieve no recognition
for the things they both do, as it should not be expected.

I think that both men and women deserve equal recognition for their
efforts. 
 
[Bit Bucket overflow]
 
> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
>( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism