HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: <None>
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:32:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct4.171050.27862@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

> Now, does sexuality confer high status?  It doesn't appear to.
> People use terms like "cunt", "prick", "cocksucker", "slut",
> "whore", and so on as terms of abuse.
[etc., There's no sense in quoting it all, you've read Gordon's article!]

Our society does tend to be confused about sexuality.  On the one hand we
have words such as the ones Gordon uses in his example and then we have
people such as Marylin Monroe, who are called "sex-goddeses" or
"sex-symbols" of the silver screen.  Monroe who, after her death in the
60s, is still held in high regard.  Other women, such as Madonna, have made
their fortunes by marketing their sexuality, but are not thought of
negatively.

So on the one hand our society tells us "sex is bad", with the slang words
above and then tells us "sex is good" with images such as Monroe's and
Madonna's.

> That being the case, it seems to me that McKinnon has made 
> a reasonable assertion.  One might dispute it, or call for
> better evidence, but one can hardly say that her argument 
> is ridiculous.  

I don't know.  I think her argument hasn't been extended to it's logical
conclusion as of yet.  I'd call what she proposes a good start.  

> Once again, I think, we are seeing the effects of barricade
> thinking.  

I guess it's time to remove the barricades and examine the ideas totally.

> It would be interesting to have a real discussion of
> McKinnon's ideas some time, but the prospects don't look to
> good at this point.

If I ever run into the "Men Against Rape and Pornography" who study books
by women feminist, (some of them have accounts on this system, but don't
appear to be using them), I'll ask them to post their views on the subject.
I would assume that they have studied Catherine's works as she's a fairly
famous feminist!

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
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Date: Sat,  3 Oct 1992 16:00:06 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape? No way!
	<6762@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP>

All first-level quotes are From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)

My SO speaketh:

>> I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if baggy clothing reduces the
chances
>> of attack, it would be well worth considering as an avoidance mechanism in
>> cases where you don't care what you look like.
> 
>I do not believe that there is any data showing that baggy clothing reduces
>your chance of being raped.  That was the point I was trying to make.

Just for the record, what you are wearing has little or nothing to do with
whether or not you will be raped. You simply need to be in the wrong place
at the wrong time.

Eleven  years ago, I was raped. I was a disc jockey working a late shift. Since
people can't see you when you're on the air in radio, I didn't need to look
good...and that night, I didn't. I was wearing baggy jeans, old tennis shoes,
and a dirty sweatshirt. I had no make-up on, and my hair was down and straight.
None of these factors seemed to make the least bit of difference to the man
who followed me into my house that night.

By the same token, when I regularly used to "hit the town" in Minneapolis,
there were times I dressed in what many would term a "provacative" manner, and
I never had a problem. Of course, I stayed away from dark alleys, and was
usually accompanied by one or more persons. Dress won't get you raped nor
keep you from it, but a little common sense can.

>> PS  Warnings about the legality of Mace (if any) are not needed.  We figure
>> the benefits outweigh the risks there.
> 
>How about a warning about the effectiveness of Mace?  Is your friend carrying
>something that will really help or just a placebo?

And...in regards to those questioning whether or not mace can be an effective
deterrant, according to a former commanding officer on a big city police force
for whom I worked, the answer is a resounding "NO". According to him and his
many years of experience, mace will simply anger most attackers and make it
more likely you'll be hurt badly or killed rather than robbed or raped, neither
of which is pleasant but both of which you'll survive. He recommends a tear
gas concentrate in a dispenser similar to those in which mace is sold. He
also has good things to say about the pepper concentrates. Mace will be
effective on a dog, but, for protection from humans, rely on something else.


Good advice, people.  David.




David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:49:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.181517.28281@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>In the referenced article, mec6@midway.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>
>>You are right in that the power structure often does make a special
>>effort to "protect women", but I think that that has as much to do with
>>the chivalrous idea that women *need* special protection as it does to
>>do with any feminist causes...
>
>I fail to see much distinction between chivalrous 'special
>treatment' and modern feminism, with the single exception
>of abortion rights.

Most odd.  I've heard many complaints that feminists are stupid to try to get
rid of chivalrous practices.  I've never seen a comparison equating modern
feminism and chivalry.
Would you expand on this and list the special treatments side-by-side?
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 92 01:39:15 GMT

teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:

>In article <1ai1l5INN604@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>Besides, if our society really believed that sexy clothing *caused*
>>rape, wouldn't one expect rape victims to be able to turn around and 
>>sue clothing stores for selling and advertising those sexy clothes
>>in the first place?

>Sounds like a plot for LA Law.

The main gist of the Pornography Victims Compensation Act is that erotic
pictures-- they needn't be nude, mind you, just "exploitative"-- have such
an overpowering effect on men that the publishers of said images should be
sued by anyone raped by said men.

Now, if the rapist in instead inspired by a *live* sighting of breasts or
buttocks or whatever, that have been deliberately displayed to best
advantage, why should the displayee be any less suable?  I mean, this
wouldn't be any more rediculous than the PVCA.

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 13:05:11 GMT

[discussion whether disliking contraceptives that impinge is exclusively 
 a male trait; statement that women are free to choose abortion]

[Rachel McGregor]
>>>For how long, O Wise One?  If you're at Penn State, you should know even
>>>better than I the kinds of restrictions that state governments, especially
>>>Pennsylvania's, can place on a woman's access to abortion.

[Don Beaver]
>>You're off topic, O Wise One (a term of endearment or respect, I hope),
>>but you ought to have noticed that most of Pennsylvania's restrictions 
>>were struck down as "undue burden."

[Susan Garvin]
>Fine, she was off-topic.  You're just plain wrong.
>
>One of the restrictions in Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act
>was struck down as an undue burden.  (That was husband notification.)
>All of the others were upheld.


You are right, I misspoke, so let me correct my statement:

The "excessively restrictive" portion of Pennsylvania's law was struck down:
the husband "notification" requirement that was, in essence, "permission."
The decision also rejected the trimester framework, which was a part of
the Roe v Wade decision, not a part of the PA law.

The remaining portion was not found to be an excessive restriction 
["undue burden"] and was upheld.  The vast majority of clauses fell
under this part, and were upheld.

Using the word "most" (or even the plural, given that the 
trimester framework was not part of the PA law) was a clear 
(but unintentional) mistake on my part.


Now, getting back on topic, are you (plural) still interested 
in objecting to the claim that persons of both sexes object to
contraceptives that "impinge"?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1709 soc.men:17008 soc.women:17109
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 28 Sep 92 11:37:15
Organization: savage hackers
	<1992Sep28.170611.2249@unixg.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 28 Sep 92 17:06:11 GMT


In article <1992Sep28.170611.2249@unixg.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
   In article <v=_pqha.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
   >	Test question: which is worse, a male-only draft, or one where
   >both sexes are eligible? Stinking choice, but I prefer the former. At
   >least only half the population gets shat on that way.
   Seems to me the same number of people would be drafted one way or
   the other, pretty much.  Twice as many would have to register, but
   the combat probability is halved for each person.  Not much difference,
   really.

  Which is worse?  They're both awful.  Ideally, you want equality.  So
make it so.  But why worry about such a thing?  Abolish the draft, and
you don't need to answer that question at all.

 -- d
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape? No way!
Date: 2 Oct 92 22:18:42 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <6605@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.124111.15670@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, 
>ebc8v@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Elizabeth Browning Curry) writes:
>
>> To all who feel that one encourages rape by what she chooses to
>> wear: 
>
>They're wrong.  How you are dressed makes no difference.  A friend of mine,

Just to be consistent [are you watching, Rich?:-)], do you have any data about
the dressing habits of victims correlated with rape?
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but if baggy clothing reduces the chances
of attack, it would be well worth considering as an avoidance mechanism in
cases where you don't care what you look like.
This is the ONLY point I am contending here.
Anybody seen any statistics on this?


>back from my days at PSU, used to wear baggy clothing in the mistaken belief
>that this would protect her from rape.  She was wrong.  It didn't.  Rape is
>about power and control and agression, not horny people who can't help
>themselves.  Rape is a form of assult, not a form of sex.
>
>> it's not a close friend who decides that HE can't keep his
>> hormones and self-respect for others, not to mention any
>> concern for others- namely the one he chooses to invade! 
>
>It's rarely a case of hormones.  And not all rapists are men.
>
>> In closing, it really frightens me that in this life I am only as
>> sure of my own protection as I can dictate through my clothing.
>
>Your clothing will not keep you safe.  Learning self defense is a better
>course of action.

One may also wish to consider carrying Mace.  I gave a can to a friend who
moved to a not-so-nice neighborhood recently, and she feels much safer having
it handy.  [Unfortunately, they were out of Mace and I got PepperGuard <tm>
instead.  Is it inferior enough to warrant going back someday and getting "the
real thing"?]

It was an unusual "house-warming" gift, but one much appreciated.

BTW, in the Chicagoland area, Mace and its ilk are avaliable only (far as I
know) at gun stores which exist (far as I can tell) only in the suburbs.
I realize this is for legal reasons, but it must play hell with the marketing
of these products.

PS  Warnings about the legality of Mace (if any) are not needed.  We figure the
benefits outweigh the risks there.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Date: Fri,  2 Oct 1992 16:06:48 -0400 
From: David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
	<BvGszC.3Ft@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz>

From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])

>David O Hunt <bluelobster+@CMU.EDU> writes:
>> The same goes for a tight mini, fishnet stockings, a halter top, and
>> stiletto heeled shoes.  If a woman wants to wear such clothing, then
>> by all means do so.  Yet she should be aware that most men (myself
>> included) find such apparel very..."stimulating" (ahem :) and that
>> they will be looked at.  Just as, when I wear workout clothes which
>> include fairly tight shorts, I expect that women _may_ look at me.
> 
>you may also expect that MEN will look at you. Do you find that offensive? 

Actually, no.  If a male derives pleasure from looking at my behind, then
feel free.  But no free feels!  :)

Seriously, if someone wants to look discretely, I don't see the problem.  It's
when:
      1) There is interpretation of dress as interest
      2) Said looking is NOT done discretely, but with tongue out, drool,
         catcalls, etc.

And I will confess that I enjoy watching a well-build man lifting - but from a
"someday I'll look like that" point-of-view.





David Hunt - Graduate Slave |     My mind is my own.      | Towards both a
Mechanical Engineering      | So are my ideas & opinions. | Palestinian and
Carnegie Mellon University  | <<<Use Golden Rule v2.0>>>  | Jewish homeland!
====T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=========T=H=E=R=E===I=S===N=O===G=O=D=====
Email:  bluelobster+@cmu.edu    Working towards my "Piled Higher and Deeper"

"Out there is a fortune waiting to be had; do you think I'd let it go you're
mad - you got another think coming!" -- Judas Priest
From: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Date: 29 Sep 1992 15:58:43 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu


>I do agree with you that if women were more powerful, the world may be
>different, but not any more kinder or gentler.  I don't buy the idea
>that women are naturally more caring or gentler than men.

	From my observations, women seem to be more underhanded and 
backstabbing than men are.  Men more or less tell it like it is,
but it seems that women will lie to someones face, supposably to keep
from hurting their feelings and then go tell everyone else what they 
couldn't tell this person to their face.  I've also noticed that this 
sort of thing goes away with age.  Now I'm gonna get my head chewed off
for stereotyping, but these are MY OPINIONS so please be gentle.
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Alt.feminism - why it should be shut down.  A sample post!
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:24:38 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <MUFFY.92Sep23183025@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>Perhaps not.  I've read almost everything posted here.  

So perhaps you read the following article and perhaps you have an answer:

########################################################################

From usc!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!gdt!chpetk Sat Sep 19 21:09:24 PDT 1992

 >In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222947@remarque.berkeley.edu> 
 >muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
 >>Once again:  BOTH people have sex, BOTH people have to be responsible.  

 In article <716222608@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
 >And if she acts in a irresponsible way (e.g. tells everyone that she is
 >on the Pill, never used birth control and had 15 abortions), what do
 >you suggest to do *legally* against her?  Why is it OK to use legal
 >sanctions against irresponsible men but not against irresponsible women?
	 [...]
 >>Prove it.  I have certainly consistently urged (even in the excerpt of
 >>mine you quoted originally) responsibility on both sides.
 >
 >You had justified the legal sanctions against men even if the 
 >problem had been a birth control failure, but you have never 
 >suggested any legal sanctions against irresponsible women.  

 That was posted a week ago.  Has anyone seen Muffy's response
 to it?  I may have missed it.

 Toby
 -- 
 Toby Kelsey
 School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
 University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk

########################################################################

Hillel                                     gazit@cs.duke.edu

It's not the break in the condom, it's the man's own stupidity.  If he's
so worried, let him get a vasectomy.  If he's willing to take the risk
of condoms, read CR to find out which ones are less likely to break.
Why should a woman have to go through one of two dangerous procedures
(abortion and pregnancy) because of a *man's* lie or a "break in condom"?  
                                                --  Muffy Barkocy
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1861 soc.men:17193
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Playboy/Men/Feminists
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:45:21 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <717917196@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

> In article <1992Sep28.200059.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
> %If you want examples of men's groups being seen as threatening to women's
> %groups, get a subscription to Playboy.  (Check out the copies for the blind
> %at the local library if the pictures offend you).

> Terry, what offends *good* feminists like MacKinnon is not only the
> pictures, but also the articles.  

I have always suspected that the written word in Playboy was far more
"dangerous" than those "EVIL" pictures.  A few years ago, congress voted*
to remove Playboy from the group of magazines that were available to the
blind.  The blind edition contains no pictures -- just the articles.  So
what is so terrible about Playboy?  Obviously the articles!  Playboy is
one of the most requested publications by the blind.

Terry

* Congress didn't *really* vote to remove Playboy of course.  They voted to
remove exactly the amount of dollars that are used to produce the edition
for the blind.  The Supreme Court made them put the dollars back.
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 29 Sep 92 01:39:57 GMT
	<BvAxuE.K9I@cs.psu.edu>
Organization: The Cultural Elite

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

>Frankly, I believe having a unisex draft (registration) would [...]
>do a lot more for reducing net (potential) casualties.

Are you saying a unisex draft would reduce flame wars?  Only on this group,
or on all of them?
:) :)

---Julie

-- 
| BODY IMAGE GROUP SELF-APPRECIATION DAY.  "uhm... take your legs for    |
| example.  why if it weren't for your legs, your genitals would be down |
| there in the dirt."               ----- cartoon by Diane Germain       |
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: 891406b@ace.acadiau.ca (STEPHEN BENNETT)
Subject: gwen jacobs
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 13:19:55 GMT

just as the title says......i'm looking for any articles/interviews or 
opinions on gwen's court appearance and the ralleys that occurred on her 
and all other womens behalf.....any input would greatly appreciated, thanx 
in advance
steve
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 4 Oct 92 09:09:47
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Sep30.191808.877@netcom.com> <1992Oct1.190112.14711@ils.nwu.edu>
	<1992Oct2.002927.15042@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Oct2120550@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1aknreINNafd@gap.caltech.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: peri@cco.caltech.edu's message of 3 Oct 1992 18:13:02 GMT

In article <1aknreINNafd@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Condoms, used with lubricants and proper care are highly effective,
>and both the man and the woman can be *sure* that they are in use.
>Other barrier methods are also easily verifiable (it's pretty easy
>to tell whether a woman has a sponge or diaphram in -- just check!)

*smile*...yes.  In fact, my usual recommendation would be condoms, but
as we have seen on this group, many men object to using them.  Oddly
enough, these often seem to be the same men who think women are out to
get them.  So, they live in fear that the woman, who is of course
responsible for the birth control, since condoms are unacceptable, will
trick them.  This gets back to the discussion of available methods of
birth control - I'd expect to hear these men clamoring for a "male
pill," but somehow, they don't.  The recommendation of sterilazation or
abstinence (or sex with farm animals, etc...*grin*) is gauged to match
the problem proposed - that women can't be trusted at all by these men.
I also noted, in one of my responses on soc.feminism, that I did not
understand why anyone would *want* to have sex with someone they
mistrusted so much; the answer seems to be that men have no control over
themselves, but I find that hard to believe, no matter how often they
tell me that.

>Also there are lots of rewarding acts one can perform with one's 
>partner that carry little or no risk of pregnancy.  But I get the
>impression that Muffy does not need a lecture from me on this 
>subject.	:-)

*LAUGH*...well, no, but it might be fun to discuss it!  I'm sure there
is lots that I don't know or haven't tried yet...

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
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:18:30 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:

>  I think women, as a class, *are* victims to the male power structure.

Do you think men, as a class, *are* victims of the female power structure?

>what is being a victim?  It's someone who is harmed by some attack or
>action from another(s).  You (generic you) split hairs with this and the

By that definition, almost everyone is a victim of almost everyone else.
I think it is a poor definition.

To talk about somebody 'as a class' often sounds stereotyped.  It is much
better to consider people as individuals, rather than giving 'victimhood'
to a class which doesn't deserve it.

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk