HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: ERA
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
Distribution: alt.feminism
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 00:32:46 GMT

Re: who claimed that the ERA implied unisex bathrooms.

My source for my claim was a book called Why We Lost the ERA, that I
read 5 years ago, so I might be mis-recalling the facts.  (Since I am
too young to remember the debate myself, I have to rely on books like
this.)  Since I don't remember clearly, the argument might have been
that Phyllis Schaffly (sp) and her crowd would argue that the ERA
would cause x,y, and z.  Then, instead of a direct counterargument
(e.g. show me where the ammendment says that) alleged supporters would
say things like, "Well, what's wrong with unisex bathrooms anyway."
Again, I'm not saying everybody said this, but some of the more
radical proponents did, and they got press.

On a similar note, I'd like to ask a question of ERA supporters.  What
difference would be created by passing the ammendment?  If the bill
effects as little as some people say that it would, why bother having
it anyway?  Or is it just symbolic? 
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
***********************************
*  "There's a dog in the station  *
*   With a bad reputation         *
*   That's a sign of the nation's *
*   Decay"                        *
***********************************
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 27 Sep 92 19:41:29 GMT
	<yv8n__g.sheaffer@netcom.com> <1992Sep24.000713.14719@s1.gov>
	<SK73171.92Sep26113656@korppi.cs.tut.fi>
Organization: The Cultural Elite

sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:

>I have heared that if astronauts and submarine crews would be selected
>by physical reasons, all they will be women. That is based on that
>women are generally smaller and their power/volume/weight factors can
>become better than men with proper training. Since there are more men
>in those areas, it would suggest that there are other reasons than
>physical ( like mental capacity ?) that are considered more important.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

There.  Thank you for letting me share.  I feel much better now.

--- Julie

p.s.  Do you think they teach any logic courses in Finland...?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 92 03:28:22 GMT

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:


>Seriously, I have never met anyone who admitted to masturbating with a copy
>of Playboy.  I hear this "argument" from self-proclaimed feminists all the

You must have missed out on the entire genre of "pages stuck together" jokes.

>Fortunately, for the blind, the edition of Playboy that the library of
>Congress re-publishes contains no pictures to get the whole "chain" started.

For those who became blind by masturbating too much, it's too late.

(For those getting steamed about that last crack-- is it any less stupid
or ludicrous than MacKinnon's version of "masturbation is evil"?)

--
Paul Ciszek, pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu | No nation was ever drunk when wine was
                                   | cheap.   -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 07:09:04 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.214715.26119@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>[referring to Hillel's quote from Catherine MacKinnon]
>The statement seems to me to be cogent and relatively well-thought-out.
>It certainly has some flaws, but as it's rather long and complex I wish
>you had expressed your (sort of) labeling it as garbage.

	I suspect that Hillel, like myself, is forever amazed that any
response beyond "garbage" to such hilarious tripe is needed. Mackinnon
is simply espousing that most ancient of human superstitions, animism,
the belief that objects (magazines and photographs, in this instance)
contain a _geist_, an animating spirit of their own. "Playboy" cannot
objectify women; every issue I've ever seen just sat there, on table or
shelf, thoroughly inanimate. Objectification is done by the
viewer/reader.

	MacKinnon's second elementary pitfall is demonizing the
abstraction process as "objectification". The human mind is quite
incapable of containing anything as simple as a rock or a stick, much
less another human being. Rather, it contains symbols, abstractions,
associations with the objects.

	Once these two fundamental errors are noted, little remains to
be said. The source of MacKinnon's bile is revealed as nothing more
than Victorian prudery, dressed in modern garb. What she objects to is
the presentation of a woman, any woman, in a sexual context, with
primarily sexual associations. The rest is gibberish. No one seems to
object to women presented as lawyers, doctors, or candlemakers, which
are equally "objectifying" presentations. Some _do_ object to women
presented as housewives, but at least they're honest about it,
objecting forthrightly to the _particular_ association, rather than
hiding their objections in murky and senseless insinuations that the
simple making of associations of any sort is itself suspect. But
condemning sex _qua_ sex is out of fashion, you see. Such
straightforward objections to men's magazines are left to the
evangelical types, who at least have the virtue of not being
embarrassed at their own priggishness.

	Speaking of hilarious, I simply must repeat a small piece of
that MacKinnon quote, just to savor it:

	"Masturbating over the positions taken by the women's bodies
associates male orgasm with the positions expressed in the articles."

	And people actually take this woman seriously?

-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen Bunjiovianna)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: The Original Estrogen-Crazed Lust Bunnies
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:29:23 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.004930.16563@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>From the National Enquirer, Sept. 26 (approx), 1992:

From _The Skeptical Inquirer_ to the _National Enquirer_...really, Robert!

I guess I'll keep my SI subscription for now, though; Martin Gardner's
columns are still worth reading.

Charleen
--
I was walking down the street wearing a leather jacket when the woman steps
up to me and says, "Did you know a cow was brutally MURDERED to make that
jacket?"  I said, "Yes, but I didn't think there were any witnesses, so I
guess I'm going to have to KILL YOU TOO!"  -- Jake Johansen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: bena@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Ben Aveling)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 11:29:07 GMT

Mr. Mike Passaretti (mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com) wrote:
: 
: NB: The rates are usually quoted for barier[sic] methods when
: used _as recommended_, which includes spermicides in many
: cases.

When used _as recommended_ is the catch.  Even the rhythm
method is 100% effective, when used _as recommended_.  It's
just bloody difficult to get it perfect, which is why it's
such an awfully good way to get pregnant.

The only methods I'd recommend are the pill, or condoms.
Everything else available at the moment is too messy, too
risky or too permanent.

	Ben
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:34:22 GMT

> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) 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).
> 
> That is very funny, I must say.  I have been looking at the pictures in
> Playboy since I was about 8-9 years old; my stepfather subscribed and my
> mother would let us look at the cartoons.  Are you, by any chance,
> exhibiting some assumptions about feminists here?  I don't find the
> pictures particularly enthralling or exciting, but I have never been
> offended by them.
Yes, he assumed that SOME feminists are offended. So to allow for the
possibility that you might be, he told you where you can read the mag.
without having to deal with the pictures.

> Here's a question: Who do *you* contribute to, and why?

Christchurch Womens Refuge. Because they need the money and it's something
I feel strongly about.

The local Bisexual Group - I'm in it.

Wellington Womens Bisexual group. Magazine Subscription only.

various musical and drama groups - I'm in them.

The Nelson Environment Center - indirectly, because I disagree with
Greenpeace (and any other ecofacists), but NZ Forest and Bird Soc. etc
are brilliant.


*love* & *hugs*
 ____MOZ___     (moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz)
/\  _______\    "and is not peace basically a matter of human rights?
\ \ \____The right to live out our lives without fear of devastation?
 \ \ \/ / /          the right to breathe air, as nature provided it?
  \ \/ / /    the right of future generations to a healthy existance?
   \  / /         let us if we can, step back from the shadow of war,
    \/_/                              and seek out the way of peace."
President Kennedy, as quoted by Shona Liang in the song
"Glad I'm not a Kennedy".
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:40:41 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <MUFFY.92Sep28135532@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <6420@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep28110417@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>> In article <6403@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) 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).
>
>>> That is very funny, I must say.  I have been looking at the pictures in
>>> Playboy since I was about 8-9 years old; my stepfather subscribed and my
>>> mother would let us look at the cartoons.  Are you, by any chance,
>>> exhibiting some assumptions about feminists here?  I don't find the
>>> pictures particularly enthralling or exciting, but I have never been
>>> offended by them.
>
>>Funny?  Muffy, it's a riot!  Some feminists are down right rabid about
>>nudity and sexuality.
>
>I see it's those logic classes again.  Since "some feminists" are this
>way, you think that I must be this way, regardless of what I say or do
>in the matter.  Well, it seems pointless to respond to this sort of
>distorted vision, so I will stop.  If you're ever inclined to find out
>what my views about pornography *actually* are, as opposed to what you
>would like to *claim* that they are, feel free to ask.
>

Come on Muffy, it wasn't *that* bone-headed to suggest that you might be
offended by Playboy.  A majority of women (as far as I can tell from the
surveys I've seen) seem to find Playboy and its ilk offensive.  This is not to
say that they'd be for censoring it, mind you, they just don't want to look at
it nor have somebody reading it in their personal space (home).

Now, granted, from previous posts where you discussed your activity on a.s.b,
maybe he should have figured that you weren't going to go apeshit over the idea
of looking at Playboy.

In the final analysis, you're jumping on him for what seems like a polite
suggestion to solve a possible problem.  Indeed, he seems to have gone above
and beyond the call of duty to suggest this, and I didn't see it as a slam.
*Maybe* you're over-sensitive? (and rightly so, considering the abuse you've
taken).
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: MacKinnon Legislation Based on Urban Legends?
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:57:30 GMT

The following posts were on "alt.folklore.urban". What they claim is that
an alleged film of a supposed rape, allegedly being offered in commerical
release, is "a centerpiece" of MacKinnon's legal assault against the
First Amendment. The longtime folklore-watchers immediately recognized
this claim as a variant of the ever-recurring "snuff film" legend,
frequently asserted but never proven.  Can anyone confirm whether or
not the supposed travesty of the "rape film" is indeed one of the
"evils" from which MacKinnon and her pals are promising deliverance?
("Just hand over all your rights under the First Amendment, and we'll
see to it that nobody can EVER make a commerical film of a woman being
raped!")
                           - - - - - - - - -



Article 51234 of alt.folklore.urban:
Xref: netcom.com alt.sex.movies:3952 alt.folklore.urban:51234
Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies,alt.folklore.urban
Subject: Re: Rape movie? (was: "Gang Bang" series)
From: silvers3@husc8.harvard.edu (Jolyon Silversmith)
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:47:46 EDT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

>> I heard of a story recently
>>of a woman in New Hampshire who was raped and a video made of it.  She found
>>the video in the amateur adult section of the video rental store and rents it 
>>out each week so no one else can see it and get off on her pain.  
>>
>  Do you have any citations for this. Statments that start "I heard..." are
>not very authoritative. There is a debate about this going on in talk.rape
>right now.

I actually saw/read this story last year; unfortunately, it has been so long I
cannot remember where. However, when I think about my TV viewing habits last
year, it was quite possibly "Hard Copy" or "A Current Affair" or a similar
show, which tends to make me believe it was exaggerated at best.

However, the story does sound very much like an urban myth that "scholars" like
Catherine MacKinnon perpetuate. She and like-minded pornography bashers are
regular treasure troves of horror stories that just aren't true (ie, that child
pornography is a $500 million industry).

-- 
Jolyon A. Silversmith __________________________________________________________
silvers3@husc.harvard.edu            President             "Eternal Vigilance is
Mather House 100              ACLU of Harvard College      the Price of Liberty"
Cambridge, MA 02138 ____________________________________________________________


Article 51319 of alt.folklore.urban:
Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies,alt.folklore.urban
From: allen@iastate.edu (Kenneth R Allen)
Subject: Re: "Gang Bang" series
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 17:43:32 GMT

In <1600@seqp4.sequoia.com> ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison) writes:




>This is a story that is way garbaled in transmission.  Here's the actual
>facts.

>a. The woman from NH appears in an amateur video in a vanilla sex act.
>b. She did not know she was being taped when it was made.  Nor did she consent
>   to it being made publically available.
>c. The man also proceeded to abuse the woman, physically, verbally, and
>   finally sexually, that is, the logical extreme.  The rape was not recorded
>   on tape.
>d. The woman, reeling from this experience, discovers to her horror, that a
>   recording of her in a sex act with this guy has been distributed more or
>   less nationally, and a copy of it is available in one of the local video
>   rental stores.  Her feelings about this particular sex act are equivalent
>   to rape, though it was not at the time.  She rents/rented the tape to keep
>   other people from seeing it.
>e. This woman, with little or no direct legal recourse, has little influence
>   on the status of this tape as well as the continuing trama it brings her.
>   This situation is one of the centerpieces of the recent anti-pornography
>   legislation under consideration in the US Congress, and the
>   McKinnon-Dworkin legislation here in Massachusetts.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

An interesting bit of urban legend, nothing more despite what Dworkin and
company would like to make of it according to the above post.  It is 
illegal to distribute porn without age records, signed consent forms,
etc. of all participants on file.  A-C above are entirely possible
D is unlikely but possible, E is complete bullshit.  Contrary to the
statement of "little or no legal recourse", rather lengthy prison 
terms could be involved in this sort of situation.  Pick up a swinger
magazine or a skin mag with an "amatuer" section or something similar
sometime and look at the rules for submitting photos.  There is no
way that this film would stay on the shelves if she went to the authorities,
which apparently she has done if the above bit about legislation is true.


Article 51246 of alt.folklore.urban:
Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies,alt.folklore.urban
From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: "Gang Bang" series
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:42:15 GMT

ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison) writes:
: In article <1afo2vINNm7q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:
: 
: This is a story that is way garbaled in transmission.  Here's the actual
: facts.
: 
: a. The woman from NH appears in an amateur video in a vanilla sex act.
: b. She did not know she was being taped when it was made.  Nor did she consent
:    to it being made publically available.
: c. The man also proceeded to abuse the woman, physically, verbally, and
:    finally sexually, that is, the logical extreme.  The rape was not recorded
:    on tape.
: d. The woman, reeling from this experience, discovers to her horror, that a
:    recording of her in a sex act with this guy has been distributed more or
:    less nationally, and a copy of it is available in one of the local video
:    rental stores.  Her feelings about this particular sex act are equivalent
:    to rape, though it was not at the time.  She rents/rented the tape to keep
:    other people from seeing it.
: e. This woman, with little or no direct legal recourse, has little influence
:    on the status of this tape as well as the continuing trama it brings her.
:    This situation is one of the centerpieces of the recent anti-pornography
:    legislation under consideration in the US Congress, and the
:    McKinnon-Dworkin legislation here in Massachusetts.

Sorry, the story does not hold.  Even if it was an amateur production. It
cannot be sold or even shown to other people without a signed model release.

She would have plenty of legal ground for suing the people who made the film,
as well as any store that made it available for viewing.

It is an example of the stupidity of the current anti-porn legislation that
has been (and is being) considered by several legislative bodies.

Bill


Article 51260 of alt.folklore.urban:
Newsgroups: alt.sex.movies,alt.folklore.urban,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Citecheck Hell)
Subject: Re: "Gang Bang" series
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 18:53:28 GMT

In article <1600@seqp4.sequoia.com> ajm@seqp4.sequoia.com (A.J.Madison) writes:
>In article <1afo2vINNm7q@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bz269@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (James D. Del Vecchio) writes:
>> 	A silly story.  That tale is an urban ledgend if anything is.
>
>This is a story that is way garbaled in transmission.  Here's the actual
>facts.
>
>a. The woman from NH appears in an amateur video in a vanilla sex act.
>b. She did not know she was being taped when it was made.  Nor did she consent
>   to it being made publically available.
>c. The man also proceeded to abuse the woman, physically, verbally, and
>   finally sexually, that is, the logical extreme.  The rape was not recorded
>   on tape.
>d. The woman, reeling from this experience, discovers to her horror, that a
>   recording of her in a sex act with this guy has been distributed more or
>   less nationally, and a copy of it is available in one of the local video
>   rental stores.  Her feelings about this particular sex act are equivalent
>   to rape, though it was not at the time.  She rents/rented the tape to keep
>   other people from seeing it.
>e. This woman, with little or no direct legal recourse, has little influence
>   on the status of this tape as well as the continuing trama it brings her.
>   This situation is one of the centerpieces of the recent anti-pornography
>   legislation under consideration in the US Congress, and the
>   McKinnon-Dworkin legislation here in Massachusetts.

This still sounds UL'ish.  Especially the part about "no legal recourse,"
which is completely untrue.  Del Vechhio's original observations re part
d of the story still hold true (that it's a wee overdramatic that the
woman rents the tape rather than buys/steals it.)
-- 
           .. . . .  .  .   .    .     .     .    .   .  .  . . . ..
          ted frank | thf2@midway.uchicago.edu | standard disclaimers
         the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637


-- 
  
        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
Subject: Re: Victims of False "Memories" Form Organization
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:20:56 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

In article <1992Oct1.161805.24806@ils.nwu.edu>, lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
> In article <BvDEo6.4nC@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley]) writes:
> >> Check out the October 1992 issue of Playboy.  There's an article on this
> >> subject by Debbie Nathan called "Cry Incest".  Debbie goes "undercover"
> >> at a retreat for suvivors of abuse.  It's certainly intersting reading.
> >
> >does anyone out there have a scanner and a copy - I would love to 
> >read it but balk at paying $15 for a copy of a magazine I would
> >not otherwise buy. (email it to me if you prefer)
> 
> A single copy costs $15?!!!!
> Jeez, how could one afford that on a regular basis?

I don't image that many do, in NZ. Autralian Penthouse is probably
more popular, along with english ones, at about $8-10 NZ (Womens
Weekly is abouit $3, glossy peple type mags are about $5 - $6 (ie
Cosmo)). This is from what is on display in service staions etc,
can't claim to have done a survey on buying patterns or pricing.

moz 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism