HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Please Tell me about the Male Gaze
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 19:50:07 GMT

In article <1992Nov2.210604.16395@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov2.180541.18725@netcom.com> 
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> 
>>Oddly, while loudly proclaiming that these "extreme feminists" views are
>>not the views of all feminists, I have been unsuccessful in an ongoing
>>attempt to find out what -is- representative of most feminists. The
>>silence is exceeded only by the avoidence of questions.
>
>Let's see.  I know that I have outlined before what I thought was
>representative of most feminists, and I can recall two of three
>other posts that have done the same.  Allow me to recap since you
>must have missed my posting on this subject.
>
>In short, I believe that the vast majority of feminists believe that 
>equality of the sexes is desirable.  I would further this by adding
>that most feminists believe that, in the net balance, women more often
>get the shitty end of the stick (as a result of sex role inequalities
>we experience).  I think we can go one step more and add that most 
>feminists (IMO) believe that through pointing out sexism where it 
>exists and working to change the inequity, we can arrive at a more 
>desirable state of affairs.  I guess we can also add that most
>feminists support the right to an abortion.

OK, I will accept this. But how many reading this group came to this
conclusion by reading the posts? 
 
>If there are any feminists out there who don't think that these are
>representative view, please post.
>
>>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?

Or, conversly, are there any reasons to expect that any clearly defined
subset of feminists (i.e. those with net eccess) would have representative
views? As I posted in another post, same goes for the non-feminists.
 
>rini


Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: 5 Nov 92 18:50:31 GMT

In the UK the government passed a law that makes father's liable to
support their children, regardless of wedlock.  This law was motivated
by the goverment's desire to shift the burden of support of unmarried
mothers away from the taxpayer's as a whole and onto the people
resposible.  Of course it tried to convince feminists that it was
acting out of regard for them, but I doubt it to be true.  The
consequence is that a man can now end up paying for a child that *he*
would rather have seen aborted.  The man has no say in a process that
he can end up paying for.

I am led to believe that the law specifically states that the man's
intention to fertilize the woman is irrelevant.  (Does anyone know better)?
Has there been a test case, regarding this situation, of any sort?

How many feminists would support the change of abortion laws so that the father could request termination of pregnancy (regardless of wedlock)?
I assume practically none, what alternatives are favoured?
--
Peter Wake
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item
Date: 7 Nov 92 18:24:41 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.220646.21050@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>Okay, well, several folks asked me to put my money where my mouth 
>is and put forward the references I offered.  (I claimed that
>less traditional married men were more desired in the marriage market
>than the traditional ones.)  Well, I have looked and I cannot find.
>Sorry.

>Here are some comparisons to show that men are more likely than
>women to favor traditional sex roles:

Where are the statistics from?


>A working mother can be as good a mother as a non-working mother.
>
>                      % men       % women
>-----------------------------------------------
>Agree                  55.3         68.1
>Disagree               44.7         31.9


Now, how do men and women feel about the following?

 A working father can be as good a parent as a non-working mother.


Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Date: 6 Nov 92 08:58:25
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Nov5.235053.15307@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Nov6.054611.23437@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 6 Nov 1992 05:46:11 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.054611.23437@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
> Why do people read Stephen King books? Probably for the same reason many
> women read romance novels, it fullfills some need. Probably not the same
> need though rini. I suspect that the Stephen King books meet some need
> for excitement, somewhat like the T2 movie.

Why *not* the same need?  Many romance novels are essentially
adventure stories with some (often a lot of) sex thrown in (ever see
"Romancing the Stone"?).  These do meet a need for excitement in the
non-sexual sense.  These are the ones where the woman is kidnapped by
the pirate, eventually rescued by him from the *real* "bad guy," etc.
Other romance novels satisfy other needs - the main other theme that I
see is the rich, successful woman who creates her own empire and then
battles the people trying to take it away from her, having sex along the
way.  That is exciting in a different way from the action-adventure type
books, but still exciting, especially to a woman who has little power in
her own life.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 13 Nov 92 15:48:42 GMT

In article <1dudf8INNhda@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>[Don: 
>> Women are presumed to be able to make responsible reproductive decisions.]
>>>>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.
>
>>>[Michal:
>>>In our society (as things currently stand) the woman has neither the 
>>>right nor the responsibility.  A woman is prevented from making a
>>>responsible, considered, unbiased decision regarding abortion.  And
>>>the law is most unclear on the responsibility that will devolve upon
>>>her if she decides to bear the child, as well as on the responsibility 
>>>that will devolve upon the father. ] 
>
>>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?
>
>>In what state is it impossible for a woman to obtain child support
>>from a proven father?
>
>>Where can a father avoid HR 5123, the "Child Support Economic Security
>>Act of 1992"?
>
>>Where does a mother have less than a 90% likelihood of success
>>if she chooses to keep custody?  Where is it illegal for a mother
>>to give her child up for adoption?


>In what state can a woman seeking an abortion be guaranteed that she
>won't be harrassed by Operation Rescue?
>
>Where does the government guarantee that a woman won't be rejected
>by her friends and family, won't be discriminated against by her 
>religious community, won't be abused by her SO if her abortion
>becomes known to them?


Compare the following:

"No state guarantees that you cannot be robbed.  Thus you do not
have a right to keep your property."

"No state permits robbery.  Thus your right to keep your property
is upheld and recognized."

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 03:38:03 GMT

In article <misdeva-091192070158@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>In article <1djsrrINNreg@gap.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal
>Leah Peri) wrote:
>> 
>> The point is *someone* has to pay to raise the children.  It either has
>> to be the parents (how many single parents can afford to raise children
>> without help from the other parent?)  or the taxpayers.

>Too true.  I had a lot of trouble with the DeMoss Foundation commercials
>("Life.  What a Beautiful Choice.") commercials that were shown on CNN this
>summer.  For  many women, child rearing is not automatically
>sunshine-filled and blue-ribboned and Catholic-schooled.  Someone has to
>pay for it, all of it. 
> 
>If a woman wants to have a baby without the father's help, I believe
>society needs to be equally - not more, not less - supportive of that
>choice as of the choice to abort.  We need to stop demonizing "welfare
>queens", and stop looking for quick fixes (forced abortion, Norplant,
>sterilization - it happens).

Speak for yourself.

Are you willing to enact a law that says when a woman has a baby
"without the father's help," that we'll flip a coin to select who
will be the custodial parent?  (I assume, of course, that you have 
no sexist prejudice against the ability of men to parent.)

Are the taxpayers still going to pay?  Are you going to pay?
Are the single mothers going to go to work and pay the single fathers?

I'd be happier with your socialism if it meant I, a man,
could retire to raise my children if I felt like it -- and
you'd foot the bill for my "freedom to choose."


>Until we (people, parents, taxpayers, all) have done our best to ensure the
>safe and healthy upbringing of children *already born*, I will have real
>trouble with extending "protection"'s iron fist into the womb.   

You have no trouble extending "protection"'s iron fist into my wallet.

I'll ask before jumping to conclusions: do you have any trouble
extending "protections"'s iron fist into custody decisions (ie.
providing custody to women who don't want "the father's help")?

Do you have any trouble extending "protections"'s iron fist
into the public treasury to "protect" the womb rather than
what's in it -- ie., to pay for abortions?

>       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Repression Resurfaces (Was: MacKinnon )
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:04:45 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.180416.11026@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
>(Actually, feminism has long been associated with prudery and
>repression. The ultimately-successful Prohibitionist movement of the
>19th and early 20th century was largely feminist-led.)

	While it is certainly true that _some_ feminists seem little
better than prudes (some of the late 19th cy. ones seem suspiciously,
well, Victorian, as in lie back and think of one's homeland), the
"feminists against pornography" movement does have critics with good
feminist credentials. Check out the most recent issue of the
_Atlantic_ for one example of such a critic.

	And there are some women who consider themselves feminists who
are thoroughly raunchy, on this net (they know who they are) and in
the world at large. Robert Sheaffer, why don't you check out Susie
Bright's books some time? They should be found in the "Gay Interest"
sections of bookstores, and you probably won't even have to go to San
Francisco or Berkeley to find it. San Jose looks big enough (at least
to me) to support a bookstore or two with SB's works and other such
writings. You might find lesbian erotica to be an eye-opener (yes,
there is such a thing).

	Some feminists distinguish between "erotica" and "pornography",
with the implication that the former is good and the latter is bad;
however the more prominent antiporn feminists do not give much space
to what they consider "erotica", sad to say. But it is a significant
difference from the Fundies, who seem to consider practically all sex
bad, except perhaps to produce children.

	As to Prohibition being feminist-led, I doubt that it was
essentially all-feminist. Even though it had its Carrie Nations, it
also had lots of Fundies in it (never mind that the Bible mentions the
drinking of wine approvingly in many places). And I don't see how this
would-be Final Solution to the Alcoholism Question can qualify as any
kind of roaring success.

	And my comments in earlier postings about using BART or
CalTrain were to suggest ways of getting to SF or B'kly that do not
tie up all one's attention driving to there and back. But if you enjoy
driving 50 miles each direction, I won't try to deprive you of your fun.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:32:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.044424.14840@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Most of the sexual problems that have come into play in 
>this discussion have been revealed by their possessors: 
>for example, nobody forced Robert Sheaffer to declare 
>that cunnilingus was lesbian sex only, a contention 
>which would be far funnier than anything posted here as 
>humor, were it not for the tragic implications of 
>making it.

Which of course I never said, but that doesn't stop certain people from
claiming I did. I hope people will notice that to "refute" the critics
of feminism, it is necessary to misrepresent what they say.

I objected to the lesbian-inspired notion that the phallus is of *no* 
value for bringing a woman to orgasm. Gordon changes this to have me
claim that cunnilingus is of no value in hetero sex, which of course
does not follow. One *just might* do it both ways!


-- 
  
        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: garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King)
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Rice University
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 00:07:53 GMT

In article <1de1dpINNden@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart
Schultz) wrote: 
Gordon Fitch wrote:  

[ the usual diversion when things look grim for the home team ]

SS: 
> Um, isn't this precisely what you're attempting to do here?
> Educate the net about what the true reason for the bias is,
> and educate them about what should be done to correct it?
> 
> I must say, this sounds a lot like a cheap rhetorical dig
> against Hillel Gazit and Garry King (and probably myself)
> rather than any real concern about the homeless.  I.e., 
> something along the lines of 'shit or get off the pot.'
> 
> If you believe what you're saying, how come you're not
> out there on the front lines?
> 
> -S. Schultz


Gordon, you wouldn't feel quite so paranoic if you weren't so tightly wed
to your all-encompassing "ism".  Face-it guy, it can't provide *all* the
answers, so occasionally someone will bring-up a point or two that leaves
it looking a little bereft.  I appreciate that this is a great era for the
seige mentality and victimism in general, but you can't assume the worst
before someone actually makes a particular argument.  You're the one who
objects to binary categorisations, remember ?  Now go home, force your wife
to bring champagne, caviar and a pornographic movie, and stop being such a
silly boy.

Garry.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:39:08 GMT

[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.  It's
not clear that the woman would have anything significant to gain
from being the 'default' parent (since, hypothetically, simple 
paperwork can undo the default).  And it *does* make some logical
sense as a default.  

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.

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.

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

rini
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 13 Nov 92 08:43:10
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1drs1lINNjv2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<misdeva-121192225927@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>
	<1dvna8INNq1u@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 13 Nov 1992 08:00:08 GMT

In article <1dvna8INNq1u@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>In article <misdeva-121192225927@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>
>misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

>>Sorry.  I'm with Muffy, and the rest of the small minority, on this one.  I
>>don't pick anything "according to the literature".

>And who says you should?  I don't think we should pretend the
>majority doesn't exist, because a few people on the net don't
>conform.

Well, neither of us *has* claimed that the majority don't exist.  We've
simply objected to the suggestion that the minority, which we are part
of, does not exist (i.e. that no one, including feminists, is interested
in liberal men).  If it is the case (as I think it is) that liberal men
are *also* a minority, then it is not necessary for a majority of women
to be interested in liberal men for liberal men to have an abundance of
female partners.  For example, if 30% of women are interested in liberal
men and 15% of men are liberal, then that's approximately two potential
partners for every liberal man (not that it ever distributes this
neatly, of course...*smile*...thus my liberal male friends with a
half-dozen women after them).  Liberal men can be a "hot item" among a
minority of women, can they not?  They certainly seem to be in my area. 

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Camille (was: Re: Califia on Paglia)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1992 22:11:31 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

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 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.
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 12 Nov 92 07:29:08 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation
Keywords: abortion

In article <BxK4ns.2D2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>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.
>
>...
>
>>if married - 2 parents, joint household. 
>>if not married - 1 parent, her.  (I'm open to suggestions here, 
>>particularily from the men.)
>
>The latter is a bit sexist, coming from a feminist for equality.

Of course it is Don, but

A) It is *KNOWN*, for certain, who the mother is during the 1st
   trimester. Amnio isn't possible til the second trimester - 
   5th month, I think - and even it can't always determine who
   the father is.  (This is all 'I think', I am not a doctor,
   this is not medical advice, if you think it is you are a 
   blithering idiot  :-)

B) This is what I've always assumed - that if *I* get pregnant, ultimate
   responsibility is mine. The father involved may choose; I'm stuck,
   either with getting an abortion or giving birth and then giving
   it up for adoption (possibly to the father) or raising the child.
   But I'm *STUCK*. 

-jen

Newsgroups: alt.feminism