HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Double Standards for Insensitivity
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:48:10 GMT

In article <1b5fkdINNaq6@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>
>>>> "I also want to say that there definitely are anti-female jokes that get
>>>> a big laugh from a lot of men -- including men like me.  There
>>>> are jokes that stereotype women as being premenstrual, idiotic,
>>>> overly involved in things like hair care, etc."
>>>
>>>There's a difference.  Men make jokes about what women *are*
>>>(eg, being premenstrual).  Women make jokes about what men *do*
>>>(eg, behaving in an insensitive fashion).
>
>>I think your generalization is very very suspect.
>
>I never intended my comment to encompass all gender-oriented humor.
>I merely meant that the specific examples given were unequal.

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. But reread the part above
after "There's a difference", and you will indeed find a very clear
generalization, (i.e., "Men make jokes"... and "Women make jokes"...)
 
>>But even if it were not, so what. Does this make one set of jokes
>>sensitive or not anti-male somehow? This distinction really makes no
>>difference that I can see, and I do not accept it anyway. Feel free
>>to demonstrate one way or another, and please explain why it makes
>>one OK?
>
>I never said that it makes one OK.  

I can accept that, but given the context (can I say that?) and lack
of particulars, it seemed a more natural conclusion to draw. 
 
>But I do think that jokes or comments about what a person *is* are more 
>insensitive than jokes or comments about what a person *does*.  Example:
>"you are a slob" is more offensive than "you've made a mess".

I am reminded of Bradshaw on shame and guilt. But jokes do not cause
these things, the best they can do is to refer to them. 
 
>							--  Michal
>
>

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: My School's Sleaziest Scoundrel
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:41:14 GMT

In article <7539@blue.cis.pitt.edu.UUCP> abbst@vms.cis.pitt.edu writes:
>mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
 
>> If you a point (which I doubt), let's hear it.  Otherwise, keep your
>> irrational, misanthropic ad hominems to yourself.
 
>Think about this for a minute and then answer the question:
>
>	"Who is anti-woman, me or you?"

I am not anti-woman, and I don't know jack about you.  (Except that
you have one hell of temper.)

>Assuming that this isn't some posting trying to get flames from the
>"Feminist group":
>
>This "person" comes along and starts dictating who the women on his staff can
>go to bed with.  And then, when she decides that she will bed who she chooses
>he decides that "this girl must go.  Nothing personal...".  Yea, right!  Some
>friend!  Like he really cares.

Listen.  I have no problem with friends giving friends advice,
be they male, female, or Pat.  Yes, the orginal poster did eventually go
beyond the "friendly advice" stage, but your rude commentary followed his
paragraphs on *advice*.  It's a sad fucking world when a friend can't 
tell a friend to stay away from Person X, he or she is bad news. 

>More likely the entire posting is bullshit, pure and simple.

It doesn't really matter to me if it is or if it isn't.  Either way,
it's all rather abstract and hypothetical from my end, now isn't it?

>But if you want to support stuff like this, be my guest.  I think if you
>read what he says, you'll see that my comments aren't really off the mark.

The guy was, IMO, prudent to give advice to his friend.  Futhermore,
and he has a right be to mad and disgusted by whatever behavior 
angers and disgusts him.  

If you think he shouldn't take it any farther than friendly advice
and the sensation of disgust then, SAY SO for chrissake.   Instead
you launch into an ad hominem attack, calling this (perhaps misguided) 
guy a pussy and a wimp and suggesting that he needed to get laid.  
Shit -- what kind of debate is that?  What kind of advice is that? 
Man, I thought I left that behind in Jr. High.  Please.
 
>Al

rini
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Why I Am a Feminist
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 05:11:54 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
| ...
| I've asked this before without result, but what is feminism ?  
| To me, feminism is like a political party - a collection of disparate
| individuals, seeking political influence....

As I see it, feminism is a project with three aspects.

First, it seeks to secure equality for women.  As I share
with classical liberals the ideal of political and social
equality, I am a feminist for this.

Second, it seeks to enhance the choices and opportunities
of women.  As there are many women whom I love, I am a 
feminist for this. 

Third, it seeks to increase the scope and the freedom of
the feminine in both men and women.  As I respect and
delight in the feminine, both in myself and others, I am
a feminist for this.

That some see feminism as part of a sour, sterile battle 
between interest groups is sad.  One can only hope they 
will decide to emerge from behind their barricades.  A 
world awaits.  
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2651 soc.men:17821
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:21:06 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Distribution: inet
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <MUFFY.92Oct16094916@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> In article <SK73171.92Oct16181353@peippo.cs.tut.fi> sk73171@cs.tut.fi (Kiiskil{ Sami) writes:
> >In article <1bfsf1INNdsq@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> >And the woman didn't make any decision if she will have sex with him
> >or not since women just do what their men want ??? Therefore she is not
> >responsible for any results of her action ???
> 
> Oh, wow, you're right!  I bet it *never* occurred to anyone here that
> women might be able to make choices too!  But now that you have
> enlightened us on that matter, I have this great idea!  What if they're
> *BOTH* responsible?  What a concept, eh?  Or is that way too difficult?

Although you somehow managed to completely miss the point, that's what he
was getting at.  When a man gets someone pregnant, "tough shit, you should
have thought about that before you got laid.".  But when a woman gets herself
pregnant, the refrain is "How can you deny this woman reproductive choice?"
Is it really that hard to understand why we think this is a crock?

> Muffy
> --
> 
> Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
> ~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
>  discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
>  of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn

-- 

#include <std_disclaimer.h>

Dan S.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,misc.misc
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: soc.feminism.unmoderated, anyone?
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 23:56:13 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism

I've recently been considering formally proposing soc.feminism.unmoderated to
news.groups (through the usual painful process), based on the relative
success of alt.feminism.

I feel that the amount of discussion does seem to indicate that there may be
sufficient interest in an unmoderated group to make the soc group
possible.  It seems that there may well be enough people who are interested
in an unmoderated group to make this possible.  The flame problem inherent in
an unmoderated group on such a 'hot' topic is significant, but does seem
to be managable so far.

Since soc.feminism was created first and there are numerous cases where
moderated newsgroups do *not* include any mention of the moderation status in
their newsgroup name, I feel it is more expedient to create the new newsgroup
with an 'unmoderated' tag to resolve the name-space collision, though this is
somewhat clumsy.

Any comments? :-)
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: At the Barricades (was: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda)
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:46:57
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1992Oct9.084417.18720@netcom.com>
	<MUFFY.92Oct9095132@anableps.berkeley.edu>
	<1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: barry@netcom.com's message of 9 Oct 92 18:50:28 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.185028.18017@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Oct9095132@anableps.berkeley.edu> muffy@anableps.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>My attitudes towards sex?  *laugh*...I think sex is great, and that
>>there should be a lot more of it, and a lot more depcitions of it.
>I never said otherwise. Nor meant otherwise. I've read enough of
>your posts in a variety of groups, to know you're not Mrs. Grundy. The
>fact remains, a statement such as "all the women in Playboy look alike"
>is purely subjective.

Indeed, it is.  However, I can say objectively that they look much more
like each other than they look like the women I see on the street every
day.

>It's an example of what C.S. Lewis called "dislike
>of kind". People's powers of discrimination go on holiday when
>confronted with _kinds_ of material they don't care for:

That may or may not be true, however, it is not what is going on here.
In fact, I *do* care for the pictures in Playboy, from an aesthetic
standpoint - in other words, I think they look good.  I just do not
personally find them at all exciting, nor do I find them to display any
great range of body types or variation in sexuality.  Like I said,
pretty boring.

>Gordon equates them, and you seemed to think you were agreeing
>with him. Don't ask me to read your mind.

Funny how everyone here keeps telling me what I think.  What I *think*
I was doing was giving Rich some examples of the "context," which he
asked for.  I do agree with Gordon that there *is* a context, but that's
as far as I got in agreeing with him in that article.

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: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Why Gordon Is a Feminist
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:47:41 GMT
Organization: The Immoral Minority

In article <1992Oct16.165758.16010@midway.uchicago.edu> 
mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>(An aside here.  There has is a lot of talk about how "feminism" is a
>bout women and not men, both literally and in practice.  For me, it's 
>not that way.  If there was another philosophy out there that said, 
>"I think ascribing [encouraging or whatever] people roles on the
>basis of their sex organs sucks weenies" then I would call myself that.)

But that's not what main-stream feminism says.

The priority for women in custody, the stereotyping of "deadbeat dads,"
the "violence against women act" which takes the traditional approach
that violence against women should be punished more severely than 
violence against men, the affirmative action quotas, etc. all those
are just a way to create "new" and "improved" stereotypes.

You see, my problem is not so much with what the stereotypes
say but with their very existence.  

>>Why the hell should you, or anybody else, let society dictate your feelings?!

>Yes.  Exactly.  And that is what feminism has let me see.

I don't want to let society, or a political movement, dictate my
feelings; that's why feminism is not for me.  

>rini

Hillel                                    gazit@cs.duke.edu

"But certainly Jess and Clay (and others) are right in insisting that
none of us should be forced to sacrifice a personal dream for
someone else's ideals."  --  Mara Chibnik
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Clinton Gore position on women
Date: 14 Oct 92 22:45:41 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

hg:
| | Tell me Gordon, if y'all don't ever think about zero sum games,
| | then why do you behave like if you play one?

(Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >I didn't write the article, nor am I a writer for the
| >Democratic party or the Clinton-Gore campaign.  

gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| At least twice per week you paint the anti-feminists as playing zero-
| sum games, but you have no such complain toward the feminists.  Even
| when a political campaign states as targets, loud and clear, that there
| should be choice for women but no choice for men you have nothing to say.

It seems to me it was only a few weeks ago that I
posted my personal opinions on these issues, which
differ from those of the Clinton-Gore campaign as
published here.  I did not realize that I was 
required to reiterate them every day.  However, I may
have the articles on file.  Perhaps I could set up
a little script to issue them every few hours?

| Even when they suggest plans that will hurt the privacy of men you and
| all the "abortion is a matter of privacy!" crowd have nothing to say.
| 
| Just afterward you come back and say "so what if the feminists' 
| sponsored programs hurt you?  It should not be a zero sum game."

Where?

| What a hypocrite.

Yass, yass....
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 16 Oct 92 02:29:00 GMT
	<1992Oct14.165802.27866@panix.com> <1992Oct16.041900.20100@netcom.com>
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: payner@netcom.com's message of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 04:19:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.041900.20100@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.165802.27866@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>[ sigh ]  Feminism is not a boilerplated, monolithic ideology
>>or political movement.  It is what St. Augustine called a
>>community of affections.  

>Good so far, although this will make it terribly difficult
>for "anti-feminists" to find a target, will it not.

Nope.  It makes it *much* easier, since in the great diversity of
feminist views, there are some pretty bizarre and even repugnant ones.
Here's a sample of what an anti-feminist can do with this:

Anti-Feminist: Feminists hate men, hate sex, and really just want to
  oppress men.
Pro-Feminist: That's not true at all, look at <some moderate feminist>.
A-F: Look at Andrea Dworkin!
P-F: Yes, but she doesn't speak for *all* feminists.
A-F: I never hear any of them denouncing her.  She *calls* herself a
  feminist, and they don't spend all their time disagreeing with her, so
  they must accept her and therefore her views are "feminist views."
P-F: I disagree with her, as do many other feminists I know.
A-F: Oh, yeah?  Well, what about *this* statement?  I haven't seen
  anyone publically denounce that.
etc.

Some of us feel that our time could be better spent accomplishing
something rather than disagreeing with the multitudes of people who also
call themselves feminists but who have views that we disagree with.  The
anti-feminists just pick some particularly extreme view and attack us
for believing it.  Then they go for another, then another.  Because of
the great diversity of feminist views, this can go on pretty much
indefinitely.

It is definitely a great advantage for the anti-feminists to have so
many different views coming from "feminists."  Not that they generally
acknowledge that there *are* differences.  They ascribe all the most
extreme, indefensible views to all of us.  That's why Gordon says (quite
correctly) that they treat it as a "monolithic political movement."
It's not.  For some of us, it isn't even "political."  For others, it's
*very* political.

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                               muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Weavers' fingers flying on the loom/patterns shift too fast to be
 discerned/all these years of thinking/ended up like this/in front
 of all this beauty/understanding nothing~ - Bruce Cockburn
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.censorship,alt.sex,soc.men
From: mpevans@nyx.cs.du.edu (Mark Evans)
Subject: Re: Censorship
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 10:08:46 GMT

elf@halcyon.com (Elf Sternberg) writes:

>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.

I thought men were ment to be immune to hurt, or something like that
(well I have been in the situation of 'Your a man you can't be hurt',
'Wrong I have been in situation xxx' 'Your lying/whinging....')

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

At present the UK and french governments are trying to decide if the book
'Sex' by Madonna is pornographic. Where is the exploitation here
IMHO there is nothing wrong with exploitation of self.
(if you insist on calling it exploitation)
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The "feminist agenda"? (Was: Women as Victims)
Date: 13 Oct 1992 21:00:19 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <1992Oct13.161246.16883@panix.com>
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,

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.

-S. Schultz
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Date: 10 Oct 92 20:01:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct10.005919.806@leland.Stanford.EDU>, farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> The only thing I can figure out is that someone is trying so hard not
> to be a victim that s/he loses whatever common sense and compassion
> s/he has.  Strange, too, how this only seems to crop up in people who
> have lead sheltered lives, where little bad or evil ever befell them.
> But they're such great people, of course, they're responsible for
> their nice, tidy lives.

I've heard the "line" used to get people, who blame everything that happens
to them on someone else, to take responsibility for their lives.  It's a
generalization and (generally) most generalizations will not hold up in the
general case.

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
-- 
        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
From: rajat@watson.ibm.com (Rajat Datta)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: You are responsible for everything that happens to you
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:36:00 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <1992Oct15.235421.28196@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov writes:
>
>It's all a matter of definition. If I run into bad luck, then perhaps
>the choice I made was not reasonable and I failed to see why...
>

Are you saying that whenever anything bad happens, there was always some
sign to indicate what was going to happen ahead of time?

In Peekskill N.Y. within the last week, some woman's front bumper got
demolished by a meteorite (according to CBS newsradio; astonishing stuff).
How could she have possibly known not to park her car there?  

Anyway, if you believe in that, it wouldn't be too far a step beyond to
believe in spiritualists predicting the future.  All you have to do is observe
the signs more carefully.

>Doesn't it take just as much timing to be in the wrong place at the
>wrong time as it does to be in the right place at the right time?
>The need for timing is just as great, it's just the polarity of the
>intent that is reversed...

Hoo boy!  Doesn't it take just as much timing to throw a 6 on a die as it does
any of the other 5?  All I need to do is figure this out and nobody'll beat me
in boardgames.  

I presume that what you mean that sometimes we make choices that have
bad consequences which we should have been able to avoid.  It sounds
quite ludicrous to say that we are so much in control of our universe
that we can control all events around us.  (If we could what would
happen if two of us met and we had contrary interests?)
-- 
rajat (rajat@watson.ibm.com)
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2445 soc.men:17620
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH & DEADBEAT DADS!!!!!!
Summary: Laugh While You Can, Deadbeat Dads!
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:53:23 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <718918204@lear.cs.duke.edu>, gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit) writes:

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

Hey Hillel!  Don't vote for GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH either!  Did you hear
his "crack" about DEAD BEAT DADS during the Presidential debates?

I immediately thought of you when I heard it!  I thought, "Well I guess
that Hillel will have to vote for PEROT!".

You just can trust them sneaky conservatives!

It's open season on DEAD BEAT DADS!

Terry "What about the MARROU/LORD ticket?  Why aren't they in the debates?" Wood
-- 
        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