HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk (Jakob G}rdsted)
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 12:33:36 GMT

<ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>I rule out the violence thing, and we all know he can't be eliminated
>on the morals thing, its just too difficult. After a long talk with the
>Yearbook editor, she fails to see what I'm driving at. She can't understand
>why he's a problem since he doesn't bother her. I keep telling her about
>the old creepy guy who used to harrass her. I tell her repeatedly to think
>what it would be like if I was on her shit. "Imagine what it would be like
>for you if I decided to make life hell for you, with my office downstairs
>to use as a base for my activities."

No violence, just cut his D*ck off. I cannot see, he has any justifiable use
for it anyway. It shouldn't kill him, allthough, as it seems to be what he
is thinking with, it might be dangerous.
    Just kidding. Really, I have no better suggestions. I guess I ought
to keep my mouth shut.

Hi.
--
      Jakob Gaardsted   .    .  | Black Rainbow(TM)     .         .      .
  Computer Science Department . |. Invaporated      .        .        .    .
University of Aarhus, Jylland(!)|   .            .      . Cordless Life  .  .
 .  pilgrim@daimi.aau.dk   .    |          .    .    .     Pointless Mouse .
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 18:05:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.104910.8186@ac.dal.ca> isar@ac.dal.ca writes:

-[*****:*****]-
 
>  Continuing on this FOWL theme, here's another quack gem.  Somehow, whenever
>a person makes the perfectly valid and very germaine point that feminism
>does NOT equal hatred of or contempt for men (whoever started that rumour knew
>what he was doing) someone else issues a few inflammatory comments, provoking
>a well deserved flame and ...PRESTO!  There! See that!  She got angry at me!
>she got angry at my asinine comments! There, SEE!! Feminists are bitches!

And when someone mentions or posts leglislation by MacKinnon, or says anything 
not a glowing testomonial to feminism they are accused of attacking feminism 
in general. It's exactly the same thing. 

Feminists do it as well, on a regular basis if this netgroup is in
any way representative (is it?).

My point, if feminists must do it, they have not right to complain about
it. It's just another double standard.
 
>  Get a clue, people.  

Yes, me point exactly. Look at who does this, hint, several femininsts
(at least they claim to be) do it on a regular basis. 

>                       I have the right to be assertive about my views and
>to flame inanities w/out being considered a belicose psychoslut from hell.

Note, your are not asserting your right to express your views here,
but attempting to censor those with differing views, or at least this
is what I see. That is, if I do not like what you say, I sould be quiet about
it. Opposing views generate heated debate (or flame wars). In my experience
that is just the way things are.

Posters learn though experience, or not. But they will not learn
unless they express themselves and get feedback in a form that they
can accept.

>If you want us to be nice, start by showing some respect for our views.
>Sheesh... and they wonder why there is so much racial tension in America...
 
My comment is that this is a two way street. Is feminism a two-way
street? 
 
>Isabel R.

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 21:42:47 GMT

payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>mec6@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'm having trouble figuring what this means. Do you think that the SI
>swimsuit models should be having orgasms? 

Err -- not exactly, though that might be interesting to see.  :)  

>Since the actual sex starts
>at hardcore, is this not where one should find the orgasms? 

Good point, though of the movies that feature sex, it is my impression
that the "softer" ones tend to focus on the cum shot and that is what 
terminates the sex.  Like I said, however, I'm no expert on this.  
I could be wrong...  Does anyone else know?  

(thinking..) Maybe I am wrong, because Emmanuelle is sort porn, and 
she does masturbate in an early scene, orgasming.

I guess I had in mind the genre of movie whose *focus* is the female
orgasm...  Those aren't the ones that you tend to find and your ma and
pa video store (with a small porn section) down the street.  You have to 
go to "adult" video store, where the kinkier stuff is.  Again, however, 
I could be completely wrong.  It's just an impression I have.

>And if you
>want to read about them, try the Penthouse letters column.

Thanks for the advice, but -- nah -- Penthouse is not done to my taste.  
I'll read about them elsewhere though.

rini
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 08:00:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.180559.10555@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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?

This seems simple enough to me.  Once you get into the hard-core, you
start seeing sucking, fucking, etc.  To see these acts, you need more
than one person; ergo, you get men (except for the "lesbian" scenes).

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2461 soc.men:17631
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:44:03 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism,soc.men
Organization: The Piranha Club

#One more example of what feminists mean by choice - crack down on 
#deadbeat dads, no matter why they don't pay.   

In article <1992Oct12.200851.11943@midway.uchicago.edu> 
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.

>But sure, yes, I'll give it to you:  *most* of the deadbeat 
>parents are men. :) 

Do you know about even a single example of a woman who became a 
parent because of a birth control failure and was required to 
hand out 25% of her income for the next 18 years?

Will demanding no abortion for men and women will be equality,
or a nice way to write women's oppression in a "cleaner" way?

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.

>rini

Hillel                                           gazit@cs.duke.edu

"Recently there were some statistics posted in alt.child-support about how 
good fathers who got joint custody were at paying their support.  I don't 
know if anybody else noticed What's Wrong with This Picture."
                                               --  Eric Pepke
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:56:26 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <1992Oct11.151548.28112@panix.com>gcf@panix.com(Gordon Fitch) writes:

>I don't know what to do about the condition of men.  

Of course not.

You can't understand men who have life experiences which are *different*
than yours, and you will not change your theory so it will fit reality.

>There's no credible movement to 
>liberate them -- except feminism, of course.

In what ways feminism "liberates" men?

Please tell me about actions.  (And leave the long stories
about your good intentions to some other time.)
From: sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: feminism is NOT hatred!!
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:39:25
Organization: Tampere Univ. of Technology, Finland.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: peippo.cs.tut.fi
In-reply-to: carol@ee.uts.edu.au's message of 11 Oct 92 22:53:30 GMT


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! It is NOT about reducing the fundamental human rights of

Of course not. Hate is waste of capacity to a feeling, which doesn't
serve any useful purpose. It is more correct to assume that the
unnecessary objects should be deleted, like the dustballs are wiped
off the floors. There isn't any 'hate' against 'em, they are just
unpleaseant and unnecessry.     

> men and it is NOT about making women the "dominant" sex. It IS about

If there isn't but one sex left, then there cannot be any 'dominant' or
'oppressed' sex. 

> reducing those so-called "rights" of men that have infringed on
> the human rights of women (the "right" to rape your wife, the "right"

These rights doesn't exist anywhere else, but in some peoples mind.
Surely anything like this hasn't ever been included in any law or
other official policy.
  
> to be promoted ahead of child bearers....) - but a desire to make 
> things fair is not, I think, to be equated with *hatred*!

> I feel the need to be a feminist - not through any hatred of the male
> sex, but through a desire to see my own sex treated fairly. And if in
> doing this I take a job that once a man would have had, or even just
> tell a man to go to hell for harrassing me, is this a sign of hatred?

Nope. If more women act like this, in time there propably won't be any sexual  
discrimination left.

> Or is it just me sticking up for my personal rights as anyone should be
> encouraged to do?

There is difference between sticking up for personal rights and being
selfish.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: Money isn't everything, : Sami Kiiskil{  ( The { means 'ae' ) :   Nothing   :
: . . . there is also     : e-mail : sk73171@ee.tut.fi          :     is      :
:  H i g h - T e c h  ! ! : phone : 931-180690 or 934-428254    : impossible. :
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: solnorda@dmpe.csiro.au (Chris Solnordal)
Subject: Re: Who's responsible in rape? (Was Re: Observations from male studentnt)
Organization: CSIRO. Div of Mineral and Process Engineering.
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:40:12 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.231733.28544@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>>>I'll remember that next time it rains.  (I guess accepting responsibility
>>>for the rain is the first step in making it stop, right?)
> 
>>Part of accepting responsibility for the rain is using an umbrella...
>
>Do you really mean to say that?
>
>Dave -- you and I -- we share absolutely *no* responsilibity for the
>rain.  Snow either.  Not even tornados.  It's true.  Really.
>
>If you choose to believe/argue otherwise, you have no place in rational
>debate.
>
>rini

Hey I think you're being a little harsh on Dave.  I mean, if you choose to have
a big party outside, you should be taking responsibility for the possibility
of it raining.  Therefore, you have it in Summer, and/or organise a marquee,
or give everyone umbrellas at the door ;-)  Part of accepting responsibility
for the rain IS using an umbrella !

(Bet you didn't think anyone would stick up for you, did you Dave ? :-) )

However, this sort of reasoning becomes a little irrational sometimes.  I
mean, part of accepting responsibility for rape is maybe to not walk down
a dark alley at 3 am.  However, it doesn't mean `s/he was asking for it' if 
they do it and then get raped.  You could argue that it was not a very wise 
move.
 
The eventual conclusion from Dave's (*)  standpoint is that if you don't want
to be raped, then you should do everything in your power to make sure it
doesn't happen.  Like locking yourself in an isolated room for the rest of
your life and telling no-one.  Not very practical !  However, if you don't
do this, you are increasing your risk of being raped (or run over by a car,
or murdered, or awarded a random door prize or ....) 

Therefore, while I believe everyone is reponsible for everything that happens
to them, it does not mean that everyone has *complete control* over evrything
that happens to them.  And it certainly DOES NOT mean that a rape victim
has to put up with *anyone* telling them that `its your own fault - you should
not have been wearing that <insert favourite provocative clothing item here>',
or similarly rediculous statement.

Chris
_________________________________________
(*) When i refer to Dave's standpoint, I am really referring to my
understanding of what Dave's standpoint is.  i would be more than happy
Dave, if i have misrepresented you, to discuss what your standpoint actually
IS !

C.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:44:17 GMT

In article <MUFFY.92Oct8104958@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.142924.14462@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct7.214506.10583@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>>_Playboy_ exists in a context.  
>
>>Everything exists in some context, this is another distinction where
>>there is no difference.
>
>Yes, everything exists in a context.

	Gee, thanks for clearing that up :-).

>Gordon was not trying to say that
>Playboy was unique in this, but that the context had to be considered,
>as the context that anything exists in does.

	Gordon doesn't consider much _except_ "context". His manner of
discussing Playboy and MacKinnon is to bring in every social generality
he can think of, and hope no one will notice he has changed the subject.

>>Please put some flesh on this claim (:^), Playboy is readily available, 
>>show me what context you claim is "hatred and contempt for sexuality".
>
>He is talking about the context here, not about Playboy itself.  I'll
>give you some examples from Playboy, just to make you happy, though.
>All the women in Playboy look very much alike.  They ignore and,
>indeed, seem to wish to deny, the fact that women who don't look like
>that can still be sexy, interested in sex, etc.  In many of the stories
>in Playboy women are portrayed as pretty much constantly ready for sex -
>there is no need to do anything to arouse them.  Certainly, I think that
>what people find arousing is a major part of their sexuality, and it is,
>again, denigrated or ignored.  By the way, the same thing tends to be
>done to men - the assumption in the stories is that they are
>sufficiently excited by someone's looks to be ready for sex.  This,
>then, is an example of the general contempt for sexuality, but at least
>the men are given some *slight* motivation (huge breasts, short skirts,
>whatever).

	Yeah, here it is again, Playboy as Rorshach test. Your
"examples" don't describe Playboy at all, Muffy. All your "examples"
show is that you must never have read the magazine. It's still all
"context": your own attitudes, and those of our culture, toward sex.
Which are no doubt worth discussing, but your obvious belief that you
are still talking about a magazine called "Playboy" shows that Gordon
was successful in leading you down the garden path.

	I still think "red herring" is a pretty good synonym for these
vague generalities offered as supposed "discussion" of far more specific
topics: Playboy, MacKinnon and censorship. Redefining "Playboy" to mean
"everything that's wrong with American sexual attitudes" is not a game I
care to play. What do you get out of it?

-  Nothing fails like success  -             Kenn Barry
----------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE:                             barry@netcom.com
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Shibboleth (was: Re: Censorship)
Summary: ritual denunciation and exorcism
Date: 7 Oct 92 11:52:00 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

In article <718431472@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| Gordon, if you really want to discuss censorship *your* way 
| (fat chance...) then please define your terms first.  OK?

This is the third time:  I think the word "censorship" is
nearly meaningless without a context for both the subject
and the object(s).  That's why I called it a "shibboleth."  

gf:
| >Otherwise, there would have been an equally long
| >discussion of free-expression feminists and even feminist
| >pornographers.  But there ain't, surprise, surprise.

hg:
| If feminists who have the guts to fight against censorship (e.g
| Pat Califia or Joanna Russ) were the majority in the feminist
| movement then I'd like it much more.  Since they are a small 
| minority, I don't think that too many feminists are going (on the 
| net and off the net) to say anything against MacKinnon in public.

Please tell us how you know that feminists who are
opposed to "censorship" are a small minority.  Did you
take a census or an opinion poll?  You have the names and
the addresses of all those feminists?  

What does saying something "against" MacKinnon mean?  I
said I probably didn't agree with her position.  Do I
also have to say that she has fangs and eats babies?
Think we ought to get a stake and some kindling together?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 23:47:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.235815.20803@ads.com> charleen@ADS.COM (Charleen
Bunjiovianna) writes:

>Q:  What's the difference between men and U.S. Savings Bonds?
>A:  Savings bonds mature.

Q: What's the difference between women and options?
A: An option can have intrinsic value.


The first joke is usually told about bonds vs. bond traders, the
second about options and option traders.  They both make more sense
that way.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Date: 11 Oct 92 19:54:33 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

In article <92279.022349ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <ROWHC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:

>Now there is a lot of hostility, direspect and disgust directed at this girl.
>She really thinks she can take care of herself, but she obviously cannot.

Has she ever asked you to take care of her?

>Talk rages on for hours at end, and while I disdain gossip, what can I do?
>I recall the hospital story, and countless other tales this man has
>bragged to me about, then this invasion of my own staff, and I'm perfectly
>livid. The girl has to go, nobody can stand her sight anymore. Nothing
>personal, it is simply unforgivable to stoop so low as to fuck this guy,

Please spell it out for me why the girl has to go.

Why is it your fucking business who she fucks?

>Nothing can get through to her...not even the semen stains on her editor's
>chair, bragged about by Fernando. It dawns on me that this woman represents
>a leadership vacuum. She might have to go too, replaced by a strong person
>who can stand up to injustice and recognize abberrant behavior.

Even if that "strong person" will be a white male...?

>campus. Hut it really has nothing to do with WHY we want him out. We
>want to protect the women. Stains on the chair indicate unprotected sex.

Do you want to protect the women against their will?

What you miss is that trying to protect people who don't want your
protection is a great way to enslave them.  Please be careful.

Hillel                                        gazit@cs.duke.edu

Nobody needs "friends" who are doing the friendship to rack up
gold stars in heaven or anywhere else.  --  Mara Chibnik
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2476 soc.men:17642
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:54:36 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: The Piranha Club

#Do you know about even a single example of a woman who became a 
#parent because of a birth control failure and was required to 
#hand out 25% of her income for the next 18 years?

In article<1bd7luINN361@hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com>teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>Yes; every woman who becomes a parent spends much more than
>25% of her income on her children, especially if there is no other
>financial support.

Because she *chose* to be a parent.

Here we see once again the equality feminists' style:

It is OK to bill him for *her* choice because she is also billed
for *her* choice.
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 14 Oct 92 16:58:02 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >
| >But those issues of _Ms_ that I have seen
| >have generally contained diverse viewpoints.  That sort of
| >thing seems to confound anti-feminists,

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
| And why does it not confound pro-feminists?  If the 'good'
| viewpoints are arguments in favor of feminism, then aren't
| the 'bad' viewpoints arguments against it?
| 
| Saying the glass is half-full seems a pretty left-handed way
| to defend feminism.

[ sigh ]  Feminism is not a boilerplated, monolithic ideology
or political movement.  It is what St. Augustine called a
community of affections.  That is, most people who would
describe themselves as feminist would tend to be interested
in similar things and have similar outlooks.   But there is
no set dogma or creed or membership requirement or central
authority.  I would think this would be obvious.

If you look in this newsgroup (or others) at anti-
feminist articles, you will find a consistent attempt to
treat feminism as monolithic, as a method of attack.  That
way, marginal material can be used against the whole project,
quoted out of context if necessary.  Just look around.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 00:38:01 GMT

In article <718404069@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:

>According to Dworkin and MacKinnon even all men gay porno is an
>exploitation of women.  (And Gordon, if you'll ask then I'll 
>quote the appropriate paragraph, so be careful.)  

Yes, please post it.  I'm not Gordon, and I don't know what being
careful has to do with it, but this I would be really interested
in seeing.  (How dey do dat?)

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men