HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: FEMINISM AND MODERN WOMEN
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:04:33 GMT


I know this is flame-bait, but:

In article <1992Nov11.123422.1@jaguar.uofs.edu> pjz2@jaguar.uofs.edu writes:
>
>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.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*This* is just way *too* funny since the only person I can think of 
off the top of my head who likes to cite studies and periodicals is *me*!!

Very funny indeed!

rini
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Keywords: abortion
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:13:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.072908.22526@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <BxK4ns.2D2@cs.psu.edu> beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.060917.25221@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>>>In article <1992Nov5.185031@cs.man.ac.uk> peterw@cs.man.ac.uk (Peter Wake) writes:
>>>>
>>>>How many feminists would support the change of abortion laws so that the father could request termination of pregnancy (regardless of wedlock)?
>>>
>>>*request*, yes. *force*, no.
>>
>>...
>>
>>>if married - 2 parents, joint household. 
>>>if not married - 1 parent, her.  (I'm open to suggestions here, 
>>>particularily from the men.)
>>
>>The latter is a bit sexist, coming from a feminist for equality.
>
>Of course it is Don, but
>
>A) It is *KNOWN*, for certain, who the mother is during the 1st
>   trimester. Amnio isn't possible til the second trimester - 
>   5th month, I think - and even it can't always determine who
>   the father is.  (This is all 'I think', I am not a doctor,
>   this is not medical advice, if you think it is you are a 
>   blithering idiot  :-)
>
>B) This is what I've always assumed - that if *I* get pregnant, ultimate
>   responsibility is mine. The father involved may choose; I'm stuck,
>   either with getting an abortion or giving birth and then giving
>   it up for adoption (possibly to the father) or raising the child.
>   But I'm *STUCK*. 

I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
responsibility for $100,000 worth of child support is mine,
and the ultimate choice is hers.  (I'm not rich.  $100,000 divided by 
eighteen years gives a pretty unexceptional level of child support.)

I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
choice of who would raise the child is hers, even though I
would unquestionably want to raise him/her.

I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
choice of whether the fetus would become a child is hers, but
I would unquestionably want the fetus to become a child and would
be fully willing to raise the child on my own without outside support.

I've always assumed that if I get someone pregnant, the ultimate
decision about whether I'd even know would be made by the woman.


The mother involved may choose.  But I'm STUCK.

It seems we both think there are pros and cons.  So why enforce
a grass-is-greener judgement by making the default sex-biased?

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: The Prejudice Against Men
Date: 5 Nov 92 03:47:20 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <garry-041192190514@nulla-nulla.rice.edu> 
garry@rice.edu (Garry C. King) writes:
 
>There's an awful lot of young men
>wandering around upset with their categorization as "nice guys" and hence
>not suitable mating material (not until they have substantial $$$ or a
>clearly high-status future, anyway).  

Setting aside the important and still relevant issue of "marrying up" 
(income, status, age, height) for the moment, I just want to note that 
the men who are in highest demand in the marriage market are those 
with less macho and more egalitarian views, especially in regards to 
female labor force participation, housework and child-rearing.  

On the other side, it is the "traditional" women who are the valued
commodity on the other side of the marriage market.

References can be dug up on request.

rini
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 13 Nov 1992 08:00:08 GMT
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
NNTP-Posting-Host: unixg.ubc.ca

In article <misdeva-121192225927@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>
misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:

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

And who says you should?  I don't think we should pretend the
majority doesn't exist, because a few people on the net don't
conform.  That would be like pretending feminine standards of
beauty don't exist either, because we can always find a few
enlightened souls who ignore them.

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was:Feminist Jokes)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 23:25:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov3.183258.27493@dragon.acadiau.ca> 891666t@dragon.acadiau.ca (Trish Turliuk) writes:
>misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Nov3.041135.1258@netcom.com>, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert
>>Sheaffer) wrote:
>>> 
>>> So these little Romance novels provide yet another public proof of the
>>> mendacity of feminist rhetoric. They present indisputible
>>> proof that a large segment, likely even a majority, of the female
>>> population really DOES fantasise about being ravished (although not just
>>>         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>>>   
>
>>For a self-proclaimed skeptic, you really disappoint me.  How do you get
>>from the fact that "many millions of these books are sold every year" to
>>the idea that these sales are "indisputable proof" that a probable MAJORITY
>>of the female population has these fantasies?  Worldwide, that would be
>>over 1.4 billion women; in the US, it would be about 62.5 million.  I mean,
>>do you have some numbers on this or what?  By your analysis, women the
>>world over are currently experiencing ecstasy over the biggest bestseller
>>of all time i.e. the Holy Bible.  How many people actually read "Escape Me
>>Never"?
>
>Hear! Hear! I myself have never read such a book and have no desire to either.
>The females with whom I interact also are not into such novels for they do
>not reflect anything about us. It has been my experience (if I may generalize
>about my experiences) that the most common readers of these novels are 
>middle aged housewives whose purpose in life (as impressed upon them during the
>1950's) is to give herself to her husband. 
>thoughts,
>TR.

Most of the people I know who read them are teens (rather inexperienced, as
far as I can tell) or unmarried, lonely women.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
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 21:38:37 GMT

In article <1992Nov1.174836.12192@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>In article <1992Oct26.224830.20044@midway.uchicago.edu> mec6@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>>carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>  
>>>>Really - I think you'll find it was *far* more often the wife
>>>>accomodating the husband than the other way around. To get some peace
>>>>many women would just lie there and allow her body to be used by
>>>>her husband, even though she wasn't in the mood at all. Allowing
>>>>this use is made easier to her by a life of brainwashing from
>>>>society about the role of wives. But how often would a tired husband,
>>>>not at all interested in sex right now, consent to go down on his
>>>>horny wife just to "see <her> reasonably well-satisfied sexually"?
>> 
>>>Proof by stereotype, how compelling. 
>>
>>It is hard to representative data for historical situations.  
>              | (find)?
>
>Does not the "I think you will find it was *far* more often the wife
>accomodating the husband" seem like a clear representative claim? But
>I have had it claimed that a) women have the same sex drive as men,
>and b) men more often want sex. The above seems more in line with (b).

Not necessarily.  It could easily be that women and men wanted sex equally
often; but that women were expected to perform when he wanted and she didn't,
but not vice versa.
There is not even a correlation between the two, much less cause and effect.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Child Support
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 11:01:25 GMT

In article <misdeva-091192070158@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu> misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
>If a woman wants to have a baby without the father's help, I believe
>society needs to be equally - not more, not less - supportive of that
>choice as of the choice to abort.  We need to stop demonizing "welfare
>queens", and stop looking for quick fixes (forced abortion, Norplant,
>sterilization - it happens).

It's like the jokes about Dan Quayle and Murphy Brown.  He didn't like
that she was a single mother, but he's against abortion.  What was she
supposed to do?

The obvious solution is that women should not have sex with men..
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: MacKinnon (was Re: Please explain this quote)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 07:47:44 GMT

In article <carol.721259026@ee.uts.EDU.AU> carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson) writes:
>>    Almost half of all women, by contrast, are raped or victims of
>>    attempted rape at least once in their lives. Almost 40 percent 
>>    are victims of sexual abuse in childhood. [!!!!!!!] (p. 174)
>
>Obviously Robert finds this statistic outrageous. But perhaps he is
>falling prey to the exact male view of rape and sexual abuse that
>MacKinnon referred to - that it must involve penetration. Children may
>be sexually abused without even being touched. Sexual abuse on children
>may take the form of being shown pornography by adults, or having adults
>perform sexual acts in front of them. It may be through adults talking
>sexually to them, or telling them all they will ever be good for is sex.
>Child sexual abuse can occur at the hands of the teacher who touches you
>in odd places as he leans over your desk, or the brother who uses you for
>his own experimentation, or the man who masturbates in front of you on
>a train, or the doctor who pokes and prods unneccessarily while your
>mother waits on the other side of the curtain...... None of these
>scenarios are the father rape type thing that many people who don't know
>better think of when they think of child sexual abuse. But these 
>situations must NOT be belittled - they are sexual abuse and they do
>cause enormous amounts of damage to a child's growing sexual awareness
>and sense of self. Personally I suspect that figure of 40% to be on the
>conservative side.

Me too.  I watched the Oprah Winfrey special on child abuse (that will
probably win me points!  :)) and was amazed at the way two fathers
insisted, while admitting sexual molestation, that no vaginal
penetration took place.  It came across to me as "Well, yes, I did
fondle my daughter and touch her genitals and we even had oral sex,
but I didn't fuck her, so it wasn't _that_ bad."

This insistence on vaginal or anal intercourse as the nearly sole
(non-legal) criterion for child molestation or rape means that many
children are molested and raped and yet aren't really taken seriously.
I know a few men who were sexually molested by female family members
and yet their molestations are generally considered not _really_
molestations because they didn't involved intercourse.

I wonder too how many of us remember being touched on the genitals and
not liking it, but being too afraid to say no.  Or being held in laps
and feeling something hard being rubbed against us and being confused
and afraid.  Or how many of us wonder where the hell those polaroids
of our naked little bodies are now...

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Polygamy
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:14:48 GMT

In article <1djt9rINNs3d@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>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.  [...]
>
>>If alternative arrangements
>>work for you, than more power to you.
>
>I have no "problem" with polygamy in principle, but it seems rather 
>unstable.  It's hard enough keeping two spouses together in the same
>city....
>
>Comments anyone?

But if there's *three* incomes for the house, maybe the need to move is less.

I think that it might be harder to set up, but once it *was* working, you would
have greater stability.

Obviously, this is a gross generalization, and IMHO.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:3709 soc.men:18663 soc.women:18831
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Incorrect Orgasms? (was: Please explain this quote)
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:31:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Nov5.153133.19930
Organization: AT&T

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"	:-)
>
>
>							--  Michal

Gee, that was pretty good.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.humor.d
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 01:21:47 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.024944.25000@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>gf:
>| >>One thing that's amusing about this thread is the large
>| >>number (relatively) of versions which insist that feminists
>| >>pretend to be against sex while covertly wishing for it
>| >>("secretly wish she were the socket").  This is a recurrent
>| >>theme in anti-feminist and misogynistic writing going back
>| >>to the ancient world, and it's interesting to see it ooze
>| >>up spontaneously in this new environment.
>
>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer):
>| >Gordon, have you ever looked at any Romance novels? ...
>
>There's an interesting sequence here.  As the initial
>passage indicates, I drew attention to the material in a
>number of posted lightbulb jokes about feminists which
>indicate that the teller was relieving tension about the
>sexuality of feminists by portraying them as covertly
>desiring sex, and I said that it was a recurrent theme.
>As I noted in the original article, humor often reveals
>a great deal about the concerns and tensions of those
>who participate in it.

You were accusing the jokester of "misogynistic writing" which
"oozed" up like some sort of filth, for suggesting that feminists
might secretly harbor fantasies of being coerced into sex,
even of being raped. I proceeded to demonstrate that 
many feminists, at least those who read Romance Novels, obviously
do.


-- 
  
        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,rec.humor.d
From: whedon@netcom.com (Bill Whedon)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:07:56 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.210011.7298@cis.ohio-state.edu> csmith@tortoise.cis.ohio-state.edu (craig edward smith) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.153054.14666@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>| >| >>One thing that's amusing about this thread is the large
>>| >| >>number (relatively) of versions which insist that feminists
>>| >| >>pretend to be against sex while covertly wishing for it
>>| >| >>("secretly wish she were the socket").  This is a recurrent
>>| >| >>theme in anti-feminist and misogynistic writing going back
>>| >| >>to the ancient world, and it's interesting to see it ooze
>>| >| >>up spontaneously in this new environment.
>>
>>sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer):
>>| >| >Gordon, have you ever looked at any Romance novels? ...
>>
>>gf:
>>| >There's an interesting sequence here.  As the initial
>>| >passage indicates, I drew attention to the material in a
>>| >number of posted lightbulb jokes about feminists which
>>| >indicate that the teller was relieving tension about the
>>| >sexuality of feminists by portraying them as covertly
>>| >desiring sex, and I said that it was a recurrent theme.
>>| >As I noted in the original article, humor often reveals
>>| >a great deal about the concerns and tensions of those
>>| >who participate in it.
>>
>>rs:
>>| You were accusing the jokester of "misogynistic writing" which
>>| "oozed" up like some sort of filth, for suggesting that feminists
>>| might secretly harbor fantasies of being coerced into sex,
>>| even of being raped. I proceeded to demonstrate that 
>>| many feminists, at least those who read Romance Novels, obviously
>>| do.
>>|         Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
>>
>>You did?  I found your argumentive leaps rather
>>athletic, as I wrote in more detail than I care to
>>repeat.  I suggest you apply some of your maximal
>>scepticism to your own reasoning.
>>
>>In any case, no matter how much feminists desired
>>to be screwed like lightbulb sockets, there is
>>humor in the analogy only for those who have a good
>>deal of tension about the sexuality of feminists, 
>>or possibly their own sexuality.  One can easily
>>demonstrate this to oneself by substituting 
>>different subjects into the joke.
>
>It's WOMEN, and its not funny!
So, how about a little cascade, honey?



-- 
-- "Illegitimatida non Carborundum es" --
From: carol@ee.uts.edu.au (Carol Gibson)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Appoved Bodies
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:38:33 GMT
Organization: University of Technology, Sydney
NNTP-Posting-Host: rossi.ee.uts.edu.au

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

>Actually, when body-type preference studies are conducted, by asking men
>which female body types (using faceless outlines) they find most attractive
>and asking women which female body types *they believe* men find most
>attractive, women nearly always choose thinner, taller types than men do. 
>I think that's even sadder.

Just like men often think women want more muscley types... Do you
think that is sad too?

	Carol
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: Secretly Wishing... (was: Feminist Jokes)
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:45:03 GMT

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

>I hope people will notice that to "refute" the critics
>of feminism, it is necessary to misrepresent what they say.
> 
>I objected to the lesbian-inspired notion that the phallus is of *no* 
>value for bringing a woman to orgasm. 

Well, Robert, it's just that your "arguments" are so ridiculously
humorous that they don't really invite serious criticism.

To be taken more seriously, I suggest that you:

1) Provide some evidence that the research which has shown that most
   that most women do not orgasm through penis/vagina intercourse
   alone is lesbian-inspired.  (E.g. some letters from radical
   lesbian feminists to Freud offering bribes for him to make
   such claims would help your argument a great deal.)

2) Provide some evidence that those who don't orgasm through
   penis/vagina intercourse alone think that the phallus is of
   *no* value in their sex life.

3) Provide some interpretation of the case of radical lesbian
   feminists fucking eachother with strap-on dildos (a not uncommon 
   case which seems to contradict your premises in the extreme).

As a "skeptic", I'm really suprised that you don't seem to know
the basic elements of a valid argument.   Stringing together a
bunch of false premises just doesn't cut it.

rini
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: liberal men are a hot item?
Date: 13 Nov 92 10:13:21
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
	<1dvna8INNq1u@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
	<MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu>
	<1e0o3aINNrsi@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca's message of 13 Nov 1992 17:19:38 GMT

In article <1e0o3aINNrsi@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz) writes:
> In article <MUFFY.92Nov13084310@remarque.berkeley.edu>
> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
> >
> >Well, neither of us *has* claimed that the majority don't exist.>We've
> >simply objected to the suggestion that the minority, which we are part
> >of, does not exist (i.e. that no one, including feminists, is interested
> >in liberal men).

> And of course, nobody made such a sweeping claim.  The original idea
> (Rini can correct me here if I misinterpret) was that women as
> a rule are more likely to prefer 'liberal' men than men are to
> prefer 'liberal' women, other things being equal.  My response
> is that other things are not equal, specifically that women as
> a rule prefer 'masculinity,' and that this might create conflicts
> that are difficult to resolve.

And there it is again.  Why is it that you deleted the rest of my
response, which addresses this?  Even if it *is* the case that "a
majority of women" prefer "masculinity," *AND* you define a "liberal
man" as (among other things) one who is "not masculine" (which is
ridiculous, actually, but I'll accept the stipulation for the purposes
of this argument), it is still quite possible for liberal men to be a
"hot item" among that minority of women.  "As a rule" suggests that it
is a huge majority of women who prefer "masculinity" (whatever the heck
that is), which *does* suggest that the minority is virtually
nonexistent.

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