HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 11 Oct 92 17:14:50 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct5.220146.17938@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>| 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,
>
>gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
>| Thanks for demonstrating a much better style...
>
>You're welcome.  Always glad to help out.
>
>gf:
>| >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?
>
>You have two categories of outcome here, I think.  One is
>the production of predictions and the other is advocacy of a
>social program.  They're related, but distinct.  Which are
>you talking about?
>
>In order to discuss whether someone is "for censorship"
>or "against censorship" one has to define one's terms
>a bit.  For example, _Playboy_ is "against censorship"
>when it comes to suppression of certain kinds of sexual
>material, but is probably "for censorship" when it comes
>to libel

libel n.  1. A written, printed, oral, or pictoral statement that damages
             by defaming a persons character or reputation.

Hmmm, don't see anything here about censorship. Libel is about reputations.
I'd like to point out that as far as I know, to win a lawsuit for libel, the
statements, etc... must be false. You can libel all day long. But you may
have to explain to some judge why you should not pay damages and print
some sort of retraction.

>copyright infringement

copyright n.  The sole right to sell, publish, or distribute a literary
              or artistic work. adj - protected by copyright. -v To protect
              by copyright.

No censorship here either, copyright is about theft of intellectual or
artistic property.

>and some forms of harassment.  

What does harrasment have to do with playboy or censorship?

>It may be that _Playboy_, MacKinnon,
>you, and I mean four different things by "censorship."
>So again, we want to define it pretty precisely before
>we start slagging one another about it, right?

Why not tell the world what censorship means to you? You use the word
also, and you have yet to define it.

> )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:26:20 GMT
	<1992Oct4.180718.2914@netcom.com> <1992Oct4.234046.10128@panix.com>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

In article <1992Oct4.234046.10128@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
   barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
   |                                        ... Sorry, I remain amused by
   | the image of Playboy using nekkid women to sell guys on the virtues of
   | a free press. Or was it using libertarian ideals to sell guys on the
   | virtues of pictures of nekkid women? I get so confused.

   Well, you're amused by what's supposed to be one of the
   fundamental principles of modern psychology; you must find
   the more substantial texts hilarious.  We await your
   further critiques of the science with bated breath.
   -- 
    )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
   ( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )


This is a pretty weak critique of Kenn's argument.  Is something to be
held sacred just because psychologists say it's so?  Many feminists
are angry at the (now defunct (I hope)) practice of using mental
hospitals as a means of controlling women.  It was reputable
pyschologists who got them locked up.  Some of us, myself included,
are not convinced that psychology is close to being a science.  In
fact- much like the other social sciences- it tends to resemble a
religion (or a groups of religions).
-David "ZZYZX" Steinberg
**********************************************************************
*"There's a dog in the station  *"I can't believe I'm a junior and a *
* With a bad reputation         * film major, when all I really      *
* That's a sign of the nation's * wanted in this life was to marry a *
* Decay"                        * lobsterman and cook fish."         *
* -Phish                        * -a letter from Christie Searing    *
**********************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.men
From: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Originator: elf@halcyon.com
Reply-To: elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg)
Organization: Pendor, UnLtd.
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 07:15:37 GMT

In article <718385606@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>#(1) *Special Findings on Pornography:  The council finds that pornography
>#is central in creating and maintaining the civil inequality of the sexes.

   "Having worked in a magazine newsstand for seval months, I've had a
wonderful opportunity to watch men buying pornographic magazines.  To a
man, these men were pathetic, weak, simpering men afraid to look me, a
woman, in the eye when they made their purchases.

   "If pornography hurts anyone, it hurts the men who buy it, who use
it to avoid learning how to deal with a real woman and cope with a real
society.

   "To the feminists who hate pornography, I've just got one thing to
say: GET A LIFE, SISTER!"

    - Editorial in _The Stranger_, Seattle's alternative newspaper.

>That was very nice, now please tell us if you, *personally* see
>see MacKinnon's anti-porno legislation as censorship.

   I do.

         Elf !!!
-- 
Elf Sternberg    __   |     I have looked into the abyss, and the abyss
elf@halcyon.com  \/   | has looked into me.  Neither liked what we saw.
elf@polari.online.com |                              - Brother Theodore
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:04:47 GMT

mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:

>biesel@javelin.sim.es.com writes:

>>Please recall, your original comment referred to the behavior of a
>>mob, the unplanned collective action of a group of people, presumably
>>an innate response. 

>It was my impression that mob behavior is most often explained by
>"group psychology."  I have not seen this literature presuppose 
>"innate responses," though I have limited exposure to it.

Group psychology is IMHO an oxymoron. About all we can say is that sometimes
people behave in a group in ways one would not expect from their individual
values. This seems to be true regardless of the culture. Since there is no
planned action it would seem to arise from innate responses that over-ride
the social conscience created by the environment. But I'm no expert.

>I think your difference with Muffy here is boiling down to the
>old nature/nurture morass ^H^H^H^H^H^H distinction. (?)

Yup. As I get older my views change more toward the nature side of this
balance.

Regards,
       Heiner
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 14 Oct 92 02:01:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsk.1992Oct14.020108.27318
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories

In article <1bfsf1INNdsq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>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

Michal, you make it sound as though he and his dick were alone with
some inanimate object during this dreaded event, that all choices were
entirely his, that he was completely responsible for *everything*.

My ex2b told me that she *couldn't* get pregnant - that her gynecologist
had assured her it would never happen.  She told me that we didn't need
any form of birth control.  Seriously.  Like some kind of fool, I
believed her.

The "first" time, she did the seducing - it was completely her idea, she
had to do all the convincing.  I just laid there. 8v)

The fourth time, she moved in.  About six weeks later, she was
pregnant.

Aaron ($1038 net per month child support) Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Date: 9 Oct 92 17:43:06 GMT
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Oct8.235516.20982@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
|> I have yet to see (or hear about) a woman orgasm in anything less than 
|> hard-core. (Though I'm no expert on this...)
...
|> I guess one exception would be the Betty Dodson vibratorama 
|> instructional video on masturbation for women.

Or maybe the deli scene from Harry met Sally. But actually the act of orgasm
has been portrayed in at least a few mainstream Hollywood hits. Bette
Midler has an extraordianry one in Down and Out in Beverly Hills. I remember
others visually and aurally but can't put the name to them for you right
now.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: Censorship (was : Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:29:00 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
| Gorden Fitch's point seems to rest on the fact that he refuses to
| figure out what censorship is, and therefore he feels that it is
| an inappropriate topic for alt.feminism. ....

I regret that I am having some difficulty getting to my
newsfeed, so it may take me more time than you would expect
for me to reply to articles and questions.  In fact, if
things get much worse, it'll take forever.

My objection to the term "censorship" has been detailed in
another article.  It's not an inappropriate subject except 
when it's used as a rock to throw at somebody.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Re :Female "Wiring"
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:14:15 GMT

In article <22825@galaxy.ucr.edu> starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
>
>Do you think that being a lesbian dosn't effect the theories and opinions
>of many feminist writers?  Is how a lesbian women views being a women
>much different than how a hetrosexual women sees herself?  Is how lesbian
>women would view realtionships with men from a perspective different
>than stright women?  Is lesbian feminist theory is universal, that is
>the sexual orientation of the writer is irrevelent? 
>
>  I love it when feminist women
>and especally lesbian women try to lay the hate, anger and fear of men
>on the "traditional women", like she is a disease.  I think they do it
>for fear that their own motivations will be uncoverd.
>
>Maybe some lesbian feminists are friendly to men but most are hostile.  And

I had a chuckle from the interview with "Sister Souljah" in the October
issue of Playboy. As most of you know, she's a black radical who is not
exactly a "traditionalist" on *any* issue! :) 

She was asked a question about her relations with white feminists, and
does she see eye-to-eye with them? She replied that she doesn't get
along with them too well. She has met with them, she said, but all they 
cared about was lesbianism, and spent all their efforts trying to convert her
to their orientation!

(*I* didn't say this, she did!)

-- 
  
        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: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:05:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.160838.9739@ils.nwu.edu> 
 
>*I* think the real problem is the preponderence of pornography showing 
>women. The real issue (for me, I can't speak for MacKinnon) is that 
>there is something wrong with our society and its views when there 
>is so much pornography showing women, and so little showing men.  

Just a side bar on this.

In my life, I have noticed that the softer the porn, the more likely it
involves [36-24-36] women only.  Take a look at the swimsuit issue of SI,
for example.  Then Playboy.  Then maybe Hustler (more likely to have
a male at least in the background.)  Then hard-core porn mags or
movies.  Once you get into hard-core, the % of men in the scene
jumps *way* up.  And then of course you get classic titles like "Fat
Mommas and Their Machines ."  The airbrushed Sex Symbol is missing.

Anybody else notice this?  What's the deal?  Theories?

rini
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Playboy/Men/Femin
Date: 10 Oct 92 03:27:12 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct09.150053.18030@rose.com> greg.grainger@rose.com (greg grainger) writes:
>
>Date Entered: 10-09-92 10:57
>On Oct 7, baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich) writes:
>
>B(H>In the new movie _Sneakers_ the sound man is introduced to the audience
>B(H>while reading a Braille Playboy during a stakeout. Don't know if it's
>B(H>authentic, but it made me chuckle.
>
>One of the political science professors at my alma mater was totally blind;
>he read Playboy regularly (I assume in Braille) for the interviews with
>prominant politicians.

Aha, -this- must be the context. They do say politicians make strange 
bedfellows. It all makes sense now. (about as much as before anyway)
 
>Just thought I'd throw that in . . .
>
>                                                Cheers,
>                                                Greg.
>
>Greg Grainger in Toronto, Ontario.
>greg.grainger@rose.com
>greg.grainger@bville.gts.org

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:08:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.030151.28156@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.234214.13990@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>#_Playboy_ as a standard means that to use a woman sexually
>>>#does not violate her nature because it expresses her nature; it is what
>>>#she is *for*.  [MacKinnon]
>>>
>>>Some women (and men) view their sexuality as part of themselves.
>>
>>[minor flame on]
>>MacKinnon complains that Playboy reduces women to JUST their sexuality.
>>She says this is bad.
>>You say that people view their sexuality as part of themselves.
>>I don't see a disagreement here.

[Long argument that basically said that to outlaw porno was to NEVER allow
women to express themselves sexually, whereas anybody who is getting all their
info about women from girly mags has problems that will not be addressed by
the removal of said mags.]
[Sorry if I mangled it too badly.]

I agree with you...BUT...

*I* think the real problem is the preponderence of pornography showing women.

The real issue (for me, I can't speak for MacKinnon) is that there is something
wrong with our society and its views when there is so much pornography showing
women, and so little showing men.  It *does* indicate that women are considered
*more* as sex objects than men are.  I certainly don't think there's any
natural imbalance, on average, in sexual drive between men and women.

But the pornography is a symptom, not the illness itself.  And it's not just
a symptom of an illness in a few people who are going to be sick with or
without porno.  It's a symptom of an illness in society as a whole.  Please
note that I am still talking about the INEQUALITY of porno, not the existence.
I enjoy a good porno flick as much as the next guy, but there IS something
wrong when there are *way* more girly mags than there are Playgirl-type mags.
                                                          ^[Note the irony.]

Extremists like MacKinnon and that D-chic* are quite possibly taking a
political stance they know they are going to lose in order to wake people up to
this problem.  [Similar to haggling over a price/raise.]  They have to take
such a stance just to wake people up.

I do think things are improving, and I don't think censoring porno is the
answer.  I would like to think that the exteremists know this also, but I can't
speak for them.

* Intentional use of D-chic so that my killfile won't kill this, and I'm
feeling an imbalance from all my pro-feminist posting, so I'd thought I'd be
real rude and call her a chic.  :-)
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: "Progress" in the popular Culture (was: A fish w/out a bike)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 14:24:43 GMT

In article <BvyLvt.7oJ@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>Maybe I'm wrong -- but that was my impression of the meaning, anyway: 
>
>   Women have no use for men.
>
>Hence it's a slam.  In either direction.

Yes, that's clearly what it's supposed to mean. Men are (choose: superfluous,
worthless, useless). A one-sided insult; I am unaware of anyone in the
"Mens movement" suggesting that women are superfluous or worthless or
unnecessary.

See what progress we have made in the popular culture (Loren Petrich,
please don't read this, else it will be "First the National Enquirer
and Sistah Souljah, now it's Humphrey Bogart!!!!")::

   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")

   Today:         Woman needs man like a fish needs a bicycle.
                  All (hetero) sex is rape. (etc. etc.)

HOW in the world did we come to this? How did we let the most hate-filled
viragos become the 'recognized authorities' on relations between men and
women?


-- 
  
        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"
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 12 Oct 92 15:02:24 GMT
Organization: QQQCLC

In article <1992Oct11.130355.25207@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>That's not correct.  I said that _Playboy_ exists in a
>context of certain attitudes about sex.  Those attitudes
>could be projected into its contents, unless it explicitly
>challenged them.  Is this too subtle?

	No, just silly. You should hear yourself, Gordon. This paragraph
reads like a quote from von Daniken, or from that "Strange Ooogabooga"
or whatever that is hosted by Leonard Nimoy. "Could be projected",
indeed.  "Could the Ice Ages have been an extraterrestrial logging
operation?" "Could our dreams be Martian attempts at communication?"

	Would it be too radical to suggest you try _reading_ the damn
magazine? It's outspokenly liberal, not only on 1st Amendment questions,
but on abortion rights, and on all varieties of sexual freedom issues.
It _does_ "explicitly challenge" your "certain attitudes" on human
sexuality, regularly. A fact or two might provide the needed traction to
keep you from just spinning your wheels further, and digging yourself in
deeper.

	With friends like you, MacKinnon doesn't _need_ critics like me.

						Kayembee
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: More Hallucinations (was: Women as Victims)
Date: 9 Oct 92 01:37:18 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct8.223052.21389@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>[ bunch of reasons why women make less money than men  ]
>
>U.S. Labor stats show that women with equal educations and equal time 
>on the job (i.e. no breaks for family raising) make $1.01 for every $1.00 
>men make (in the same profession).

Sorry Jeff, this is not a politically correct comment. It seems obvious
that you are just part of the conspiricy spreading disinformation. :^)
 
>Just and observation, not a commentary.
>
>Jeff.

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: A fish w/out a bike ( was: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity)
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 04:16:09 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
> >"A woman without a man is like a fish without bicycle."

> I have never seen this as a slam on men.

> I see this as challenging the assumption that people are only
> valued when they are paired up in neat little boy-girl boy-girl
> boy-girl rows, from here to eternity.

Many of the men I know take it as "a woman with a man is as
ridiculous as a fish with a bicycle". But then, I know a lot
of wierd men. Taken that way, it is definitely anti-men if
said by a woman, and anti-men + anti-strayt if said by a 
lesbian. But then, I don't see it so much as anti-male
as anti-heterosex, which does hurt.

Taking it as a slogan for womens independence from men it is
OK, but I personally feel it is not often used that way,
at least by the women I know. Albeit, it was the catch-phrase
for a separatist dyke I was in contact with for a while, so
I tend to associate the two.

> Do the men in this group see this as a slam? Is 
> "A man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle"
> a slam on women?  

I suspect not, because I see this more as a feminist slogan,
so turning it around makes it loose most of its impact. But
if it became popular as an anti-woman slogan I suspect
we might get some upset feminists.

moz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism