HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Value of white het-boys lives
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 01:49:23 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Sep28113316@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep28.143459.14143@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>I thought "white het-boy" was equivalent to the term feminazi,
>>shorthand to express one's disgust and contempt for a certain mindset.
>>I know many white hetero men who are never white het-boys.
>
>  I was using it in the context of power in the US of A.  White
>christian het-boys might have been more apropos.  Since the whites moved
>in, that's been the case -- white, *apparently* heterosexual (regardless
>if they were or not, they were, in effect, hets; no one declared
>otherwise) men have been the ruling class here.  I certainly don't
>equate it with feminazi; instead, it's a statement of fact -- these are
>the people that make the rules.  The boy part, to me, at least, refers
>to the "old-boy" network, and could perhaps be modified to "males" or
>something less charged, even though that's what the men call it
>themselves.  Feminazi and other labels (like "white bigots and pigs" or
>something) are emotionally charged, and contain value or judgement
>driven concepts.  I don't think too much of people in general; if women
>had been in power all this time, I'm not sure that there would have been
>much of a difference in history, in some very real sense.  I'd like to
>see *people* in power, or no one having power over others at all.

I disagree with several things here.

I do think white het-boy is an emotional term.  That's why I only use
it when I'm expressing contempt for someone (similarly to when I use
the word breeder).  I will not call all white hetero American men
white het-boys because I don't think they are.  In fact, I think most
aren't.

I also think using white hetero men instead of white het-boy says
something entirely different.  I think some men (and some women)
choose to be white het-boys by that clueless mentality that never sees
any discrimination or prejudice unless it's affecting white hetero
men.  To lump all white hetero men in that group doesn't make sense in
my view of the world.

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.

>  I don't bash men or white-het-boys because they are men -- I bash
>people who abuse power or people.

I agree that within a given class, men usually have more power than
women.  However, saying something bad is true of all white hetero men
appears very near to verbal bashing to me.

An obvious question is, "Do all white, Christian, hetero men abuse
power?"  I think not.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:13:19 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.200059.1@vms.cis.pitt.edu> tjw+@pitt.edu writes:
>I only included the line "Check out the copies for the blind at the local
>library if the pictures offend you)" to answer those who would dismiss my
>source.  The "you" used is the English plural "you".

The fact that you intended "you" to be the plural "you" is not obvious
to me.  I figured it was another slap at Muffy, a continuation of the
hostility you've shown for her in several posts.

Now if you had written "People can check out the copies for the blind
at the local library if the pictures offend you," you obviously would
had been speaking to others besides Muffy.  But you didn't.

IMO, you've done more than your fair share to lead this discussion
into the Twilight Zone.

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2124 alt.censorship:7887 alt.sex:32028 soc.men:17373
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Sexy Clothing, Sexy Pictures, and Rape.
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:45:12 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

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?
> 
> 						--  Michal

Coming soon to a legislature near you - the McKinnon-Dworkin "Anti-
Sexy Clothes" ordinance.....

:-(

[I really *do* think the sexy pictures == sexy clothes anology holds
up, and thus I think the absurdity of the above legislation, and its
bizarre shift of responsibility for crime from criminals to clothes,
shows up the problem with the proposed "Anti-pornography" ordinance, rather
than a problem with the anology.]

If the idea that allegedly 'pornographic' pictures should be regulated aka
the 'Anti Pornography Ordinance' does take hold, though, I wouldn't be all
that surprised if some sort of 'decency' clothing law follows, even if it
doesn't take quite this direct a form.

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<CINDY.92Sep20171742@meshugge.media.mit.edu>
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<MUFFY.92Sep28180535@remarque.berkeley.edu> <D
	<ZEN.92Sep30122752@death.corp.sun.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 17:38:43 GMT

In article <ZEN.92Sep30122752@death.corp.sun.com> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
ds > In other words, calling someone responsible is not always blaming the
ds > victim.  

zen>    Dictionary time; first definition of blame:

zen>   "To hold responsible; accuse."

zen>     I don't know what you mean by being responsible when you're the victim
zen>   and something bad happens, but that this definition is exactly what it
zen>   means to me and what people think of in general, I'd suspect.  To blame
zen>   someone.

  This is why I wish people would stop using the dictionary as some
sort of ulitmate source.  By blaming the victim, I meant it in the
context that Muffy brought up- e.g. blaming the victim = excusing the
actions of the agressor. (Note: this is MY interpatation of what Muffy
said.   This might not be what she meant by blaming the victim, but it
seemed to follow from her post.)  If you re-read my example, what I
was saying is that if my car gets stolen because I left my keys in the
ignition, I was stupid.  (Yes, to some extent I could be blamed.)  But
if I catch the thief, her/his sentence should not be reduced because
of my stupidity.

I hope that makes things clear...
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
***********************************
*  "There's a dog in the station  *
*   With a bad reputation         *
*   That's a sign of the nation's *
*   Decay"                        *
***********************************
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1831 soc.men:17156
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 92 14:35:25
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1acnngINN2fr@gap.caltech.edu> <1ad4j5INN8da@bigboote.WPI.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU's message of 30 Sep 1992 21:01:25 GMT

In article <1ad4j5INN8da@bigboote.WPI.EDU> walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker) writes:
[is not using condoms sexist?]
> views, but its not like its "her" boss, its "her" lover, which does not
> neciessaraly have to be a man.

If her lover isn't a man, they don't need birth control, do they?  By
the way, what's the difference between "her" boss and "her" lover, in
this context?  I would think the issue of condoms would not come up at
all with a person's boss.

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: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:48:29 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| 
| >barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
| >| > 	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?
| 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >This seems like elementary stuff to me.  Not that it's
| >proven -- one would have to run some kind of psychological
| >tests to show whether or not it was true -- but as a
| >proposition it's fairly reasonable.  Goes right back to
| >Pavlov and his slavering dogs.  Masturbation gives
| >intense pleasure, pleasure is associated with magazine,
| >magazine contains articles.  Could be the chain breaks,
| >but the idea isn't absurd.

pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
| So, men can't even WACK OFF without commiting some sort of thought crime?
| ...

That's not what was said, is it?  Why post a follow-up if
you're not going to read the material you're commenting
on?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Daycare (was Re: Bias in Academia?)
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:15:43 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

>chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>>Daycare is about giving adults more free time.

In the referenced article, cookc@aix.rpi.edu (rocker) writes:
>WHAT THE HELL DO YOU PEOPLE THINK KIDS _DO_ IN DAYCARE?????
>WATCH TV?????

I've now seen a few posts about latchkey children in the
US.  If it is a common problem that both parents must work
and can't provide home care for their children, then some
state support is necessary.  If the children are learning
something, then I am in favour of it.

>In daycare, my kid:
	[educational aspects deleted]
>Would it help your attitude toward funding if it wasn't called
>"daycare", but instead "expanded early education"?

Yes.  It should be called that, if it is.  However parents
are the best people to teach a young child and they should
if they can.

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
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 4 Oct 92 20:10:54 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <1992Oct3.143835.17249@panix.com> 
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:

>Surely you guys can come up with better stuff than this.
>Maybe Hillel can't, because his thing is knock-off points,

Thanks for demonstrating a much better style...

>but McKinnon does have a theory and in order to trash it
>properly you're going to have to understand what it is.

Ha?

Do you have to read every line in a program in order to show that
there is a bug there?

Can't you decide that there is a bug in a theory by looking in its
conclusions?  (Have you ever heard about "counter example?)

Don't you know that censorship is the result of MacKinnon's theories?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: Sexy clothing encourage rape?
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 22:50:56 GMT

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:

> Besides, the whole concept of "I couldn't help myself, she was wearing 
> tight clothes" is pretty demeaning to *men*.  Are they seriously trying
> to gain sympathy from claiming to be all id and have no control over
> their own penises?

(humour on)

yep. What we need is a penis control ordinance, so that no one
can claim `it just ran away and...', because if they do their
penis gets impounded by the city penis control officer.

(I have a picture in my head of a garfield cartoon, but with
a penis hiding behind a fence watching a truck with a wire cage
on the back, full of penii driving past. And a guy with a big
net, and the truck's sign saying `city penis control')

moz
From: lblanken@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Laura Blankenship)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Daycare
Date: 2 Oct 92 23:03:42 GMT
Organization: Indiana University
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]

I'm very upset about the discussion of the daycare issue going on here.
I see myself having children at some point in my life and having a career.
My career is self-fulfilling, but the main importance of day care is not
so much to make it possible for me to go back to work, but because I
couldn't afford to not do so.  Thus, some people argue, I shouldn't have
children.  Just because the world is such that it makes it impossible for
most people to live solely on one income, I (and many other people), can't
have a child.  This sounds to me like only the rich people can have children--
which is an elitest and unfair attitude.  In this country, you can't even
take off enough time to give birth and expect to have your job waiting for
you.  Everyone seems to think there's a whole bunch of poor people out there
waiting to have children so they can put them into a subsidized day care.
Well, I'm not exactly poor, but I know right now I can't afford to have a
child (just the basics of hospital care even) and in the future, it's going
to be a real squeeze to afford day care--with two incomes.  One income would
barely provide the basic necessities for three people.  I didn't get three
degrees so that I could live on welfare or starve.  Some kind of assistance
is necessary.  I don't know if we need fully subsidized day care, but cheaper
day care would certainly help.  It's just a financial fact of life that two
incomes are necessary to support two people, so those incomes would definitely
be needed to support three people.

Okay, done blowing off steam.

--Laura Blankenship
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 28 Sep 92 16:45:31 GMT
 <1992Sep26.233238.24140@leland.Stanford.EDU> 
 <1992Sep27.233345.6600@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Sep28.055950.20128@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep28.055950.20128@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> Hmmm...  where did I present any of this as fact?  My speculations
> were exactly that [...]

Yours is a very disingenuous reply.  If I were to respond:

"I'm not sure what you mean.  Did your uneducated mother write this for
you?"

then you would hardly be satisfied with my later claim that I did not
intend to imply you had an uneducated mother.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,alt.sex
From: julie@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Julie Wright)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: The Cultural Elite
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:43:28 GMT

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>rogue@cellar.org (Rachel McGregor) writes:

>>Diaphragms ARE intrauterine devices, and your cited prevention rates are too
>>high.

>Are you sure you want to claim that diaphragms are intrauterine devices?

Geez, and I already thought they were uncomfortable used in the conventional
way...!

Ouch!

:)
---Julie 
-- 
| "Come here, I want to show you something," he murmured...  "This is     |
| our baby; I had it yesterday," he said.  "My," I said hoarsely, "you're |
| full of surprises," and fall forward into his arms, arms, arms.         |
|             --- from "Sylvia", by Nicole Hollander                      |
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:00:05 GMT

JerkfaceJeffy  wrote:
(he WANTS to be called that? wierd, man, truly wierd)

> Wait a second, I thought the basis for the objection to words like 'freshman'
> is that they are not generic.  On the other hand, I consider racial slurs far 
> from 'generic terms'.  Talk about arguing in circles.

What?

freshmen distinguishes by sex, `spic' by race. Both are perceived negatively
by some people when used by some other people. Seems consistent to me.

moz
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:12:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <oneil.717530535@cwis>, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

> She was still able to make her own decision
> and did so quite clearly when she said she didn't want the cesarean to 
> take place.  Her family was still able to make the decision and they said
> no as well.  The decision was made with NO consideration for her life --
> only in consideration of the fetus inside of her.  

Did she or her family call the police?  What these "doctors" did to her was
(at a minumum) assult.  When you enter the hospital, you do not give up your
civil or constitutional rights.  Doctors can not decide that you need this
or that and legally act against your will.

The description you give does sound like the reasoning of the "new" right
(many of whom are members of the current Republican party of the United
States).  This woman sounds like a victim of their reasoning.

They have this idea that the life of a child is worth more than the life
of an adult.  They never take into consideration that the adult may be
responsible for many more children at home, for instance.  This view also
seems to held by the Catholic church.  This is one of the many areas where
the Jews differ in reasoning from the Catholics, for the Jews consider the
life of the adult to be more important than the child.

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: rda753x@nella16.cc.monash.edu.au (Richard Jones)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 01:51:17 GMT

>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.

   Actually, the entire space race started (and probably still is) as one big
propoganda stunt. The entire thing was staged.

  Richard.
ps. Read 'Space' by Michener.
-- 
Richard Jones, Robotics and Digital Technology, Monash University.
     "SOD YOU THEN", Death, The Colour of Magic.

email at rda753x@nellads.cc.monash.edu.au        [ AI: "Find food, Eat food" ]
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: statistics and questions
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 17:17:58 GMT

kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts) writes:
>In <lc6li5INNoea@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> zen@death.Sun.COM (d) writes:
>
>
>>If American women are so equal, why....

(much deleted)

>	I think you could have made a much more effective contribution by
>discussing why girls and women are steered away from technical fields.  


As I read d's list, I think he was asking for answer somewhere along those
lines, not refuting one....

>	Why drag in bogus issues that hurt your credability?

Yes, Ken, why?

rini
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 17:30:15 GMT

In article <1992Oct3.143835.17249@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>In article <1992Oct3.070904.26820@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>| 	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. ...
>
>Do you mean to say that one cannot use the term _Playboy_ 
>to mean the whole system of composing, publishing, selling,
>buying, and reading _Playboy_, as McKinnon is clearly doing,
>and be understood?

	Gosh, Gordon, if I'd meant to say that, I would have said it,
wouldn't I? And my article would have stopped where your quote of it
did. If you can't comprehend the entire argument, don't bother
responding to just the 1st paragraph.

>Surely you guys can come up with better stuff than this.

	I despise the practise of writing down to the reader; it's
patronizing. If you find sense in the nonsense she writes, perhaps you
can do better? You could hardly be worse :-).

						Kayembee
From:  (kamchar@ibm.cl.msu.edu (SunCat))
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Johnson and Nixon (Was Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and ...)
Date: 6 Oct 92 18:47:45 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Money Sucking University

In article <718348441@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel
Gazit) wrote:
[...]
> 
> "I'll take the GOPs over the liberals who would try to tell me how
> I may and may not live anyday."  --  Clay Bond
By any sincere conservative or libertarian standard I would have to take
*anything* over the GOP for just the reasons described.  Even if I was
limited to binary thinking--which I am not.  Do I despise the Democratic
National Convention?  Hell Yes.  Their greatest crime is that they appease,
sell out to, collaberate with, play Nevill Chamberlain to, are Finlandized
by the enemy--the Right wing.  

Strangely enough the Dems have forgotten their mission of mediocrity and
actually nominated someone who can actually speak, campaign, think (non of
which would be necessary if they were on the Right).  If the Dems keep this
up, they may actually win.  


What the bloody hell?
-S C