HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Dear Rich (was: Dear Starbuck)
Date: 5 Nov 92 06:29:25 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck) writes:
misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
  
>>Fine.  All I was saying on this point is that anti-feminists do not for the
>>most part restrict their opposition to only the feminists who have such
>>views.  For example, Starbuck is not just anti-feminist a la MacK. and D.,
>>but also anti-me, although he and I actually share a lot of common ground. 
>>Anti-feminists, at least in my experience, are anti-all feminists.
 
>Devjani Mishra, I am not anti-you.  I respect your right to your opinion and
>thoughts and feel they are as valid as mine. I can also say we share a lot of
>common ground. I am aware that when I post that I may say 
>things that can be taken the wrong way.  This has to do with anger at radical
>feminism as well as my not being willing to make statements to excuse my
>anger.  But to tell you the truth I am getting a little tired of being angry
>at feminists.   Too much anger is not good for the soul, it clouds ones
>vision, twists ones thoughts, and makes meaningful discussion wiht others
>impossible.  In many ways I am guilty of the same things I accuse the radical
>feminists of. 

Starbuck -- that's a great post.  I hope it gives us all pause for thought.
Thanks.

rini
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Polygamy
Date: 8 Nov 92 00:55:03 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <B1VSB064@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.011516.27332@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <T4SSB5HJ@cc.swarthmore.edu> auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer) writes:
>>[...]
>>Ah, but that is only one of *your* reasons for entering in a marriage.  Others
>>may work out their own, and still have something that could only be called
>>marriage.  [...]
>
>I never claimed that my reasons should be coerced upon others.  (Neither am I
>taking it that you implied those were my claims.)  If alternative arrangements
>work for you, than more power to you.

Oh, they're not my reasons either.  I'm not making my reasons up until I *get*
married.

But you *did* make a claim that polygamy was emotionally unhealthy which
started this whole thang!
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 20:47:10 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.175617.17310@netcom.com> 
sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 
>Indeed, the notion of a "hot liberal man" seems to be at least a
>little self-contradictory. If a man is always oh-so-considerate of a
>woman's feminist sensitivities (under which male sexual advances are
>more or less criminal :)  ), it's difficult to see how he can possibly
>be "hot". 

Wowsa!  

Once again, Sheaffer demonstrates how little he knows about good sex!!!
It's scary!!

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 01:29:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.052611.7055@news.Hawaii.Edu> cravener@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Patty Cravener) writes:
>You're Not particularly adept at logical thinking, I note.. 

> It is possible, given the discrimination that tends to keep 
>women from decent education, that there are somewhat more women
>reading romance novels. Probably a combination of low ability levels
>and limited exposure to literature...

I *knew* it! Somebody was bound to make the claim that it's MENS' fault
that women are reading this trashy stuff!

And here it is.

(Oh, by the way, women tend to score higher than men in tests measuring
reading ability and comprehension. This, of course, is proof that the
tests are biased against men!!!!!!! :)   )
-- 
  
        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: teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Self Appreciation (was: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?)
Date: 12 Nov 1992 12:54:40 -0800
Organization: Hell's Little Breakfast Nook
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: hp-sdd.sdd.hp.com

schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
>
>You seem to be saying that how well-off a person is in society has 
>nothing to do with their overall psychological well-being, not even 
>probabilistically, which seems absurd to me.  Am I misreading you?

If you are saying that women and men are equally well-off in society,
I have to disagree.  I think it's fairly well accepted that women have
been disadvantaged and considered inferior for quite a long time.
I also think this is something you disagree with.  

Teri
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 6 Nov 1992 15:02:17 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Nov6.042112.17527@panix.com>
gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>
>Men, whether feminist or not, can make some real
>contributions to the problem of homelessness, but not by
>"educating" other people or pointing out their errors.
>There's been plenty of that and is hasn't done a bit of
>good.

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
From: pjz2@jaguar.uofs.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: FEMINISM AND MODERN WOMEN
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:34:22 GMT
Organization: University of Scranton



TO ALL FEMINISTS,

   MY GRANDFATHER ONCE SAID THE ONLY THING A WOMEN IS GOOD FOR IS FUCKING, AND
SOME ARE NOT EVEN GOOD FOR THAT. BASED ON WHAT I HAVE READ ON ALT.FEMINISM,
THIS APPEARS TO BE TRUE. LETS GET SOME DOCUMENTATION AND CITE STUDIES AND
PEROIDICALS TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION.

                                        MAX MAN
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: auer@cs.swarthmore.edu (David S. Auer)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:59:34 GMT
Organization: Swarthmore College, PA

In article <1992Nov5.231113.1703@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
MEC> Gordon, I think you have indeed missed something.  Stewart has
MEC> posted a number of ideas that are not critical of feminism, 
MEC> and indeed are very supportive.

MEC> He has more than once argued/agreed that women face barriers
MEC> to acting assertive and ambitious (just as men face barriers
MEC> to acting passive and demure).  He has argued that these sex
MEC> roles are unjust.  How can that be critical of feminism?

MEC> That seems to be at the very heart of it, if you ask me.  
MEC> I think his input is valuable, and that you have missed the
MEC> point.

GCF>Could be.  But a "balanced viewpoint" is often the preface
GCF>of an attack.  I find the whole thread on homelessness
GCF>pretty curious, with the recurrent idea that the reason
GCF>men are on the street is due to prejudice against them.
GCF>As I've tried to show, this is a fairly speculative 
GCF>idea.

GCF>Since it's posted in alt.feminism, and as there is a fairly
GCF>constant complaint that feminists are prejudiced against
GCF>men, the connection being set up seems fairly obvious.
GCF>There's no question that some of the people pursusing
GCF>the thread have exactly that outcome in mind.  And if so,
GCF>we might as well get it out in the open now.

Comment:  It is a shame that those holding feminist views are coerced into
scenting out venues of attack even on a board that is supposed to be about
feminism.  I hate being so wary.  This wariness is a large part of what
prompted my unthinking attack upon Rich before.

-dave
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk)
Subject: Re: Elle MacPherson causes rape?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:08:09 GMT

misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

>In article <BxGI8H.BMt@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>,
>mmstahl@cayley.uwaterloo.ca (michael m. stahl) wrote:
>> 
>>    Try reading "The Beauty Myth" by Naomi Campbell.  I do
>> 
>> michael m. stahl

>This is not at all a flame, just a correction:  the author of TBM is Naomi
>Wolf.  I believe Naomi Campbell is a supermodel.

This irony of this is great.  Thanks for the smile Devjani 
     

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 13 Nov 92 03:11:10 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BxKz4M.5J7@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In article <1drm22INNgjk@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>In what state does a woman not have the right to an abortion?

The state of Utah has passed a law which makes having an abortion
illegal.

A group (I think NARAL and/or ACLU) immediately challenged the law.
In addition, they got an injunction against the law being implemented
until the case is settled.

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:08:19 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.185031@cs.man.ac.uk>, peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake)
wrote:
> 
> 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?
> --

I think that if the father requests termination and the mother refuses, she
has to be willing to support the child without the help of the father.  Of
course, if the parents are married, this is rather problematic.  (Then
again, there may be other problems with such a marriage that also need to
be addressed.)  But termination of pregnancy is a procedure invasive of
bodily integrity, and I don't think an individual should be able to require
another to undergo such a procedure.  Good Samaritan law supports this.

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Please explain this quote
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 21:32:19 GMT

In article <1992Oct30.221344.20072@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct29.155656.9555@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>
>[...]
> 
>>They had already insisted on documentation for the claim that it was the way
>>things *really* were.  Since I didn't have it, I intentionally used just
>>belief.  If you've got Kinsey reports or their equivalent, fine.  If not, just
>>stick with belief, or you'll spend 10 posts just arguing over undocumented
>>history with these people, and they'll never be convinced without some holy
>>writ from a pencil-counter.
>
>Those who demand studies, details of other persons lives, and evidence would
>do well to have similar evidence to back their claims. 

Yes.  That's why I've made the claims I did.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Date: 11 Nov 92 20:35:41 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <BxJ6or.HnC@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>[...]
>If a woman is presumed able to make a responsible, considered decision
>regarding abortion, then she should be presumed able to consider
>economic factors in her decision.
>
>If she knows she will become a single parent without taxpayer support,
>she should take this into account before a child is created.  Don't
>forget the "pro-choice" convention that there is no child before birth.
>
>It is her power; it is her right; it is her responsibility.

What else is new?

This is what my mother has drummed into me for years. If a woman
has children, she must provide for them. If he wants to help, he's
sweet; she *HAS* to support the children or else she's inhuman.

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: Feminists, Radical and Otherwise (was: the Male Gaze)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 21:21:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.173104.7296@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
Sheaffer) wrote:
> 
> In article <1992Nov2.210604.16395@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> >
> >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?
> 
> One *big* factor is that on the net, you GET criticism and, shall we say,
> "peer review" of a sort, whether you want it or not. Hence, in an
> unmoderated forum, it is impossible to maintain the unmaintainable, a

Catherine MacKinnon travels under a variety of aliases and must change
hotel rooms several times a night as a result of the death threats she has
received, especially during her recent research into snuff.  It may not be
the sort of enlightened "peer review" we have here in alt.fem, but it seems
like unmoderated criticism to me.  Yet she "maintains the unmaintainable",
does she not?  Curious.
 
       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women,soc.men
From: johnston@fys.ruu.nl (Helen Johnston)
Subject: Re: *Mother* MacDunaugh?! *FAINT*
Organization: Physics Department, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:13:22 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.164932.25011@cbfsb.cb.att.com> kevinc@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (kevin.j.coulter) writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.055712.26556@netcom.com> tyger@netcom.com (Kristen Kohlbecker) writes:
>>Apparently His Holiness, the Pope, who has heretofore been against women
>>priests because of the Biblical precedent of Jesus selecting all male
>>apostles to spread His word, has indicated that he would be receptive to 
>>a well-reasoned plan to begin introducing women to the priesthood, and letting
>>current clergy marry or not as is their choice. American bishops and their
>>European counterparts are meeting to come up with a proposal...
>
Has anyone else heard this? The only reported reaction from the
Catholic Church that I have heard so far is a statement from Rome that
the synod's decision is a "serious barrier" to talks of reconcilliation
between the Catholic and Anglican churches.

>Haven't heard this, but it sounds like they're starting to wake up and
>smell the coffee.  Lets face it, there is a declining number of men who
>are willing to take the vows. So the part about women priests sounds
>reasonable to me. However, I don't know about everywhere else, but
>around here, there hasn't exactly been a rush of women becoming nuns
>lately. So while I think having women priests will help, having married
>(men and women) priests will help significantly more....
>
In fact, I think it highly unlikely that the present Pope will ever
allow women anywhere near the priesthood; he's likely to go for married
(male) priests several aeons before he'll even think of women, no
matter what the priest shortage. And I recently heard a Jesuit saying
that, what with all the current growth in the church coming from Latin
America and Africa lately, the likelihood of women advancing in the
church is getting smaller, not larger. I don't think the coffee aroma
has reached Rome yet :-)

-- 
Helen Johnston       | Astronomye is an harde thynge and yvel forto knowe.
johnston@fys.ruu.nl  |      -- William Langland, Piers the Plowman
From: petersm@jacobs.CS.ORST.EDU (Marguerite Petersen)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Farewell
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:43:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Outreach Services - Oregon State University

I realize it is not necessary for me to bid a formal farewell to you all
as it is in the nature of newsgroups for readers (and posters) to come
and go like the proverbial wind.  However, I just want to say a few words.

For most of you, thank you.  It has been interesting and sometimes very
informative.  When I first discovered this newsgroup I was intrigued 
and curious to discover just what other netters thought about the subject
of feminism.  I considered myself a woman first, a feminist for many
years, and a humanist for as many.  

I have felt very discouraged at times reading some of the posts from
certain individuals (who shall remain nameless) but I can't say they
haven't been productive, perhaps not in the way they would prefer.  I
find myself realizing that instead of having been successful in the
past 30 years we are instead involved in an ongoing process that had
its beginnings even before 1920 when women were given the vote.

My reaction to all of this has been to reinvolve myself in the ongoing
struggle for equality.  I am no longer *just* a feminist but a *rabid*
feminist.  I don't feel I owe anyone any explanations but I'll give
them anyway.  I am in my late 40's, I am married to a wonderful man
whom I love with a passion I never thought possible when I was 20, I
am a mother of 2 grown young men and an almost grown woman, I have never
been unfaithful to him and don't plan to be and we have been married 
for 27 years.  I fit the stereotype (in some people's minds) of the
traditional woman/wife/mother.  I do not hold myself up as a model to
be followed as the aforementioned were all my own choices.   I am also
a woman who abhors inequality, sexism, racism, and homophobia and am
pro abortion.  

I will no longer be reading this group or posting as I feel my efforts
are better served in the larger arena.  

Live long and prosper.

Marg

-- 
*************************************************************************
"Insufficient facts always invites danger, Captain."- Spock in Space Seed
	Marg Petersen	petersm@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
*************************************************************************
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3693 soc.men:18645 soc.women:18815
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:57:46 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1d9mnpINN8bc@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
>>"in, out. repeat as necessary."
>
>Gee, I always heard it a "in. out. repeat *if* necessary"	:-)

Maybe I'm confused at this point, but necessary for whom?

paul
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Repression Resurfaces (Was: MacKinnon )
Date: 11 Nov 92 11:42:27 GMT
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

In article <1992Nov10.030916.22991@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>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.)
>
>Yes, women in general have long been associated with "prudery and
>repression."  Paragons of virtue and all that.  

What little I've read about women in the Prohibition movement struck
me as to how they blamed the ills of society on alcohol.  Most of the
women seemed convinved that Prohibition would solve the problems of
child abuse by drunken parents, wife beating, too little money (since
the money was going for drink instead of food, clothing, shelter).  

I hear a similar argument when I go home to Tennessee and hear some of
the people vote for dry counties because of drunk drivers and child
abuse by drunken parents.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra)
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Yale University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 03:58:07 GMT

In article <1drs1lINNjv2@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart
Schultz) wrote:
> 
> In article <MUFFY.92Nov10105034@remarque.berkeley.edu>
> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> 
> >However, I find them
> >extremely hot...particularly the androgynous seriously-feminist types.
> 
> According to the literature, you're in a small minority.  The 
> most attractive profile is closer to the traditionally 'masculine' than 
> 'androgynous,' both physically and psychologically.

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

       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
 /  /   /   | /  /  /
/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
Newsgroups: alt.feminism