HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:42:15 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

# It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
# today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
# of males! 

%But what about hatred of Men? ;-)  Some "Men" hate to lumped in with male
%dogs, cats, etc.

%It's time to overcome the "sexism" of the use of "males" when people mean MEN!

In article <carol.719014805@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au 
(Carol Gibson) writes:

>Anyway how nit picking can you be - men, males .. big deal.... at least if
>I use males I don't get some other dickhead like you saying "but don't you
>know that 'men' means 'humans'?"

>I think in future I will refer to all males as boys.. ;)

Thanks for demonstrating once again how "moderate" feminists behave.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2535 soc.men:17691
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 14 Oct 1992 01:17:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: chairie.caltech.edu

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

>But if their child was born after 1973, they (and not a single man) 
>had the right to choose whether to assume that duty after a 
>birth-control failure.

Yep.  That's right.  He made that choice *before* the birth
control failure when he decided to take his dick out of his 
pants and stick it into a woman.

						--  Michal
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:20:05 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>In article <carol.718844010@ee.uts.EDU.AU>, carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>> It's been said 10,000 times before, and after reading some posts
>> today I feel the need to say it again - feminism is NOT about hatred
>> of males! 

>But what about hatred of Men? ;-)  Some "Men" hate to lumped in with male
>dogs, cats, etc.

>It's time to overcome the "sexism" of the use of "males" when people mean MEN!

Oh it's "Men" is it? Capitalised and all... how arrogant. I did not once write
"Women" in my post so I don't see why I should be expected to write "Men" like
it was "God" or something.

Anyway how nit picking can you be - men, males .. big deal.... at least if
I use males I don't get some other dickhead like you saying "but don't you
know that 'men' means 'humans'?"

I think in future I will refer to all males as boys.. ;)


	Carol

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Women as Victims etc. (LONG)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 09:13:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.203249.1@cc.curtin.edu.au> nmurrayr@cc.curtin.edu.au (Ron Murray) writes:
>In article <1992Oct12.023158.4100@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>   Again (I'll only say it ONE more time!), I think preferential treatment
>for men is wrong as well. The alternative I propose is equality, pure and
>simple. The best person for the best job. Why do you seem to have a problem
>with that?

But who is doing the selecting?  If you were to hear of a study which
showed that resumes with male names are usually rated higher than the
same resumes but with female names, what would you think?  A bogus
study, right?

>>If you're ten steps ahead of me because of past preferential treatment
>>and then you suddenly yell, "Now everyone is equal and we will all be
>>judged the same," pardon me if I don't see you as anything more than a
>>protector of your privilege.
>
>   Of course, if you have more ability than I do, you should soon pass me. Or
>are you afraid to be tested on your abilities alone? Has it become easier to
>claim "discrimination" and get everything for nothing, rather than get off
>your arse and do something on your own?

This, to me, sums up what you're saying.  Any claims by people who
aren't white, male, and hetero that they aren't doing well because
they are being discriminated against are automatically assumed to be
untrue.  The people who aren't doing well don't do well because they
don't work hard or they're inferior.  Case closed.

Let's say I'm much better than you and we both want a post-doc, but
the prof with the post-doc is a white, hetero man who only feels good
working with other white, hetero men.  Who gets the post doc?  Who
gets ahead?

Let's say that I'm marginally better than you and we both want a
post-doc, but the prof is a white, hetero man who only feels good
working with other white, hetero men.  Who gets the post doc?  Who
gets ahead?

How much better than you do I have to be to overcome those extra 10
steps that you already have by virtue of being a white, hetero man in
a racist, sexist, homophobic world?

Why do I think your answer is that I should shut the hell up, work
hard, and hope for the best?
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:54:21 GMT
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA

tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood) writes:
>> If you are encountering "bad luck", could it be life's way of trying
>> to tell you something?
>I'm not quite sure what you mean.

Okay...I'll try and use your example.

>If you go into a McDonalds and a crazed gun-man comes in behind you and
>starts shooting (which is very, very BAD LUCK) I'm not sure that LIFE is
>telling you much.  

Perhaps it's telling you to stop eating at McDonalds. <grin>

Consider this...there are literally thousands of McDonalds that are
in the world. How many of them have had this happen to them? One?
Now what are the odds (statistically) that you would choose to walk 
into a McDonalds that was about to be shot up at the precise moment 
before it happened that would make you a part of it?

>There are times when, no matter what reasonable choices you make, 
>you are going to run into "bad luck".  

It's all a matter of definition. If I run into bad luck, then perhaps
the choice I made was not reasonable and I failed to see why...

Doesn't it take just as much timing to be in the wrong place at the
wrong time as it does to be in the right place at the right time?
The need for timing is just as great, it's just the polarity of the
intent that is reversed...
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

    If it works...use it. If it doesn't, find out why and use THAT. 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: The Ohio State University
 (Heiner Biesel) writes:
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:26:35 GMT

PMS? Is that Perpetual Menstral Syndrome?
:)

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: fedrick@tigger.cs.Colorado.EDU (Kelvin W. Fedrick)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:45:59 GMT

In article <1bl1alINNhqp@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>Angel:
>>>the diaphragm and jell or the
>>>sponge as not being messy or dangerous....
>>>No, but they are a total nuisance....
>>>turning a pleasant experience into a painful
>>>nightmare 
>>>But all the above is just my experience
>
>Kevin:
>>My ex and I used it successfully for 2 1/2 years with no problems. No
>>messes from jell dropped on the sheet or any of the other problems you
>>sight. Furthermore, why are condoms fun and not diaprhams? Why can't
>>insertion of the diaphragm be worked into forplay? Why are diaphragms
>>a nuisance and condoms not? 
>> We did not find it to be a nuisance, any messier, or any
>>more of a distraction from forplay or less fun than doning a condom.
>
>Why is it always (OK, maybe not always, but at least often) women
>telling us that diaphrams are a problem, and men insisting that 
>they are not?

Michal, what the fuck is your problem? You post this garbage in response
to an excerpt from my posting taken out of context. Perhaps you'd like to
explain why you left the part out where I clearly stated that because some
individuals have problems with diaphragms or dont like them does not make
that universal?

>And why are these men always (OK, maybe just sometimes)
>telling us about what their *ex* used to think?
>
>Kinda makes you wonder....

Ok, I'll bite. Kinda makes you wonder what?

-kelvin

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 05:42:04 GMT

In article <1bi1r6INN811@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In my experience, neither pro nor anti-feminists explicitly
>state that feminism is a monolith, because that would be
>absurd.  Usually it's only implied, by the use of terms such as
>'whole project.'

I'm confused by this.  When I see some "anti-feminists" make
statements to the effect that they can't be feminists because of the
likes of Dworkin and MacKinnon, isn't this saying that two people
represent a whole movement?  Isn't that implying a monolithness that
feminism doesn't have?

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie)
Subject: Re: The word 'woman'
Originator: mackenzi@fangorn.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
Organization: McGill Research Centre for  Intelligent Machines
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 14:21:08 GMT


greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger) writes:
|> 
|> From 'The Concise Oxford Dictionary' - the word 'woman' derives from 'Old
|> English "wif-mon" (as wife, man) a formation peculiar to English, the
|> ancient word being "wife"'.
|> 
|> It's even worse than we thought - according to this, it seems that there
|> has never been a word in English for the human female as an entity in
|> itself, but always as an adjunct to the human male.
|> 
|>                                                 Cheers,
|>                                                 Greg.
|> 

It's even worse in French - une femme = woman or wife, depending on context.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 12:54:21 GMT

lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:


>3.  You pointed out some physical differences and hypothesized that there may
>be psychological differences in men and women that accounted for these
>differences.  This is quite possibly true, but it's also quite possible that 
>our society is in a selfsustaining cyclic relationship with these differences.
[Both physical and psychological and whatever other labels one wants to use are
>encompassed by the previous statement.]  The question then is, should the
>humans work to break these cycles?
>Depending on whom one asks, one can get all sorts of answers and programs to
>do just that as well as arguments that it shouldn't be done.
>-- 
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

I guess agreeing doesn't really get us further, but I couldn't agree more.
This a recurring thought/concern/belief of mine, and it depresses me.
(That it is so hard to figure out, what is milieu/tradition(and thus
can be changed for the better), and what is intrinsic to human nature).

Though I have no scruples about working to break 'cycles', whenever they
are(like, if some mens attitude to women is induced).

Buah.
--
      Jakob Gaardsted   .    .  | Black Rainbow(TM)     .         .      .
  Computer Science Department . |. Invaporated      .        .        .    .
University of Aarhus, Jylland(!)|   .            .      . Cordless Life  .  .
 .  pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk   .    |          .    .    .     Pointless Mouse .
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:07:34 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

|> >>   50 years ago: "Woman needs man, and man must have his mate, that
|> >>                  no one can deny .... the world will always welcome
|> >>                  lovers, as time goes by." (From "Casablanca")
|> >
|> >	A throwaway line in a script. What is that supposed to prove.

Quote's right. Comment's wrong.

The quote comes from the song "As Time Goes By" which was the one that
Sam played only by request ;^). And it was definitely NOT a throw-away.
The song has taken on a life of its own. As has the movie, which was just
one of dozens made that year.

	"The fundamental things apply,
	 As Time Goes By."

Ahhhhh. Right up there with _Stardust_.

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:42:39 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct10.031657.18182@netcom.com>, payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>> Funny how everyone here keeps telling me what I think.  What I *think*

>>Perhaps it appears that "everyone" does this because you are mistaken.
>>He didn't say that YOU THOUGHT this, he said "you SEEM to think".  This
>>means that HE believes that you think this.  It is an invitation for you
>>to clarify the situation.

> Wait a minute, in a previous (err) discussion, -someone- already expressed
> doubt that the word "seemed" is much of a qualification.

C'est la vie, Monkeyboy.  That's French for EXCUUUUUUUSE-ME! ;-)

When I got blasted by Muffy for pointing out to that one could get a blind
edition of Playboy, she seemed to think that I was telling her that she
was offended by the pictures in Playboy.  When I told her that some feminists
are offended by the pictures in Playboy, she seemed to think that I was
saying that she was offended by the pictures in Playboy.  All of this
surprised me.  Now I see that "everyone here" keeps telling her what she
thinks.  Not one, two or three people, but "everyone".

I'm just trying to point out that "It Ain't Necessarily So"*.

When I get e-mail pointing out that "SHE ISN'T LISTENING TO YOU!!! WHY
DO YOU KEEP POSTING?!?!", I have to point out that even though someone
may have their fingers so deep inside their ears that they touch and a
blindfold wrapped around their eyes, whenever I see they walking off
a cliff, I still yell "LOOK OUT"!.  It's not my problem that they've
chosen to be deaf and blind.  They certainly aren't dumb!

>>Terry "Or so I think" Wood

> And this ain't much better, sorry Terry.

Hey, wadda ya want fer free?

Terry "Excuuuuuuuse-moi" Wood

* "It Ain't Necessarily So" is from the Musical "Porgy and Bess".
-- 
        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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:04:22 GMT

In article <SK73171.92Oct16182339@peippo.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
>Because we naively believed that women also have some use for
>companionship and emotional attraction ( love ) or being able to care
>about something else than themselves, instead of understanding that
>they are extreme shelfish and everything they want is money and power.
                  ^^^^^^^^

	Well, some women are kinda crabby :-).

						Kayembee
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 00:00:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Oct13.000039.19835
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>I trust that you didn't miss that this said deadbeat PARENTS.  
>
>Here we see the feminist solution for men's oppression:
>change the name or the oppression, but leave the situation as is.
>MacKinnon and Rini are pretty good in using the technique....

...while, Hillel, on the other hand, specializes in misrepresentation.

Hillel -- you are totally unfair here, and I'm really restraining
myself from typing all kinds of nasty expletives.  You just tell
me, why don't you, where I even remotely suggested that we should
leave the situation as is.  You just tell me where I have ever
vaguely implied that men should always give child support and that women 
should always get custody.  If you can tell me where you could get such
a warped and blatantly false impression of me, I might be able to
understand.  You're lumping me in a basket I don't belong in, and
I resent it.

>Demanding choice for women is feminists' way to demand equality,
>and demand no choice for men is just another feminists' way to 
>demand equality.  You saw these two in the same article and it 
>did not bother you, but my response did bother you.

Seeing those two in the same article certainly did not *suprise* me, no.

I noted your response because you want off on the phrase "dead beat dads".
Then I looked at the original post and saw "dead beat parents".  I 
thought it was worth getting straight.   (In fact, I was expecting some
diatribe about how dead beat 'parents' was a thin viel covering a
sexist and unjust reality -- when it was missing, *that* surprised me.)

rini
From: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Your views on Catholic Church or Sinead O'Connor
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:47:50 GMT
Reply-To: blchapma@eos.ncsu.edu (BEKKI LYN)
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Originator: blchapma@c00011-118dan.eos.ncsu.edu


In article <Bw2swo.H0C@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu>, curdm@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Richard Mancuso) writes:
|> Can I get a feminist view of the impact of the Catholic Church on women. 
|> Also, does anybody have any thoughts about Sinead O'Connor ripping up a
|> picture of the pope and proclaiming "Fight your real enemy" ?
|> 
|> Thanks!

Writer Mary Daly has a feminist perspective of the Catholic Church's
impact on women.  Her book _When God Was a Woman_ goes into her
reasons for why she no longer follows the Catholic faith and why
she chose the Goddess religion she now follows.  Her views may shed
some light on Sinead O'Connor's actions.  Since I don't know much
about O'Connor, I don't know her exact reason, but if she does
have similar thoughts as Daly, I can understand her motive for
those actions.  A thought provoking book in any case.

-- 

Bekki Lyn

************************************************************
"Today is within my reach, and tomorrow is so illusive
 But I'm still chasing time through increasing disillusion
 Forever living for the future of an illusion."

 -- FATES WARNING-- "Perfect Symmetry"
************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 09 Oct 92 03:49:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Oct7.153917.6250@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <718442825@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>>>Did you notice, btw, that the committee that drafted the PVCA are all
>>>men, mostly conservative republicans, and already on feminists' 
>>>shitlists after the Anita Hill spectacle?  
>
>...not all feminists 
k>and feminist organizations are anti-porn, and furthermore, Hillel, that
>much of the pro-censorship fight is coming directly from conservative
>republicans. 
>
>I do not deny that some feminists work for censorship.  IMO, they are full
>of shit.  I would hope that you do not deny that the republican party has
>written support of the PVCA into their platform.  IMO, they are also full
>of shit.  
>
>rini

I would go one further rini; IMO the so-called "feminists" who 
are pro-censorship are doing those of us who fight for women and
men to have equal standing in looking for jobs, school admissions,
etc a major disservice. A) They not only look like the shitheads 
they are, but by calling themselves "feminists" they make feminists 
look like shitheads; B) they give the same men who won't let women
in the military have the same jobs as the men in the military pass
a stupid, anti-constitutional bill and then talk about "how they
support women"; C) they paint women as stupid. Read the bill before
the Mass. legislature?  Women who were involved in creating 
pornography can sue the Men involved. *OBVIOUSLY* Women are Victims;
*OBVIOUSLY* Men are predators; *OBVIOUSLY* Women don't KNOW ANY BETTER;
*OBVIOUSLY* pornography could not be created in a company run by a
Woman which featuring gay males; *OBVIOUSLY* a Woman-only company could
not create pornography (or a Man-only company, either)....

yuck.

-jen

Microsoft doesn't even know I *HAVE* opinions.....


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:22:42 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.111106.6702@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| stewart@geophysics.harvard.edu writes:
>| [ apparently advertsiting desirability of Mr. Clinton: ]
>| >*  Crack down on deadbeat parents ....
>
>gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>| One more example of what feminists mean by choice - crack down on 
>| deadbeat dads, no matter why they don't pay.  Men just should have 
>| *no* choice in a case of a birth control failure, and they certainly 
>| should have no privacy.  That's *equality*, feminists' style.
>
>Says "parents."

Interestingly, some feminists complain about false gender-neutrality.
(I do, too.)

I think this is a case in point.

Saying "parents" still doesn't give men any choice after a 
birth control failure.  Saying "parents" still doesn't give
men equal custody of their children.  Saying "parents" still
doesn't make women the majority of victims of child custody law.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism