HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: starbuck@ucrmath.ucr.edu (starbuck)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 27 Sep 92 16:07:24 GMT
Organization: University of California, Riverside


In article zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>In article (starbuck) writes:

>> Feminist thought, social and political, is faulty.

>  Tell us what you think that feminist thought is all about?  To most
>feminists, it's about equality.  What is so awful about this that you
>want to deny it to women?  Or anyone else?  You'll probably say that to
>most feminists, equality is not what they want -- well, show me where it
>says that feminists believe that -- certainly not any feminist on the
>net, not faludi, etc.  Equality *is* synonymous to feminism.

Were you and I differ is that I do not agree that equality is synonymous
to feminism.  Maybe once, but not anymore.  I do not wise to deny women
anything at all.  I applaud the successes of women, I support women in
their efforts to achieve, and I give women credit where credit is due.
I have learned from women, competed with women, worked with women, worked
for women and have had women work for me.  In my life and actions I have
done more for women's issues and concerns than the average feminists who
just "talk of situations, read books, repeat quotations, draw conclusions
on the wall" (Bob Dylan). 

There are feminists on the net and off that believe that equality is all
they want.  And in that notion you may count me in agreement.  But the notion
of equality is not original to feminists.  Many non-feminist women and men
will defend a women's right to equal oppourtunity, education, promotion,
ect.  Many non-feminist men and women seek a better society through better
understanding between the genders.  We do not seek war.  And feminism today
is more focused on being anti-men then on pro-women.  Feminists promote
the "victimization of women".  Feminists promote "hate and fear" of men.

It is a backlash agianst these notions that non-feminist women and men
object to not equality, not childcare, not fair support for children,
not criminal prosecution of rapists, not the end of domestic violence,
and not many many other notions and ideas that benifit society and the
individuals of both genders.

Where I see feminist thinking as being faulty for example is in trying to
convince women that they are all victims, that they have no power, and in
trying to place the blame for all failures of women on men.  Feminists define
much of what they profess in terms of men.  As an example of faulty thinking
is the case of domestic violence.  To the feminist it is a simple case of
violence agianst women and children.  To the free-thinking non-feminist
woman or man it is violence agianst women, children and men.  We do not
deny that women commit many many act of domestic violence not do we make
excuses for them.  To think you can solve a part of a problem by attacking
only the half that suits your purpose is faulty thinking. 

starbuck
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Subject: daycare (was: Bias in Academia?)
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:10:35 GMT

 farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
> >Education is about giving children opportunities.
> >
> >Daycare is about giving adults more free time.
> 
> Not really.  I don't know what the state of childcare is in the UK.
> Here in the US, it's pretty bad.  It's hard to find childcare for
> infants (I've heard horror stories of women 3 months pregnant being on
> waiting lists to get their infants into childcare) and expensive.

In NZ it's getting worse: they are starting to try to prosecute people
running unofficial daycare centers: more than 2? other kids and money
changing hands!! Waiting lists only 6-9 months? What age are you
talking about here? 

> Much childcare is catch-as-catch-can, relatives, neighbors, children
> being kept in someone's house.  The good childcare centers are usually
> packed and there are waiting lists.

> It's not about giving adults more free time, it's about helping a
> single parent hold down a job.
#sarcasm on: no, the parent should go on welfare so as to give her child
	the benefit of her full time attention.
#off - that is, untit she goes screaming mad and kills it.

> I don't have children and I don't want children.  But to ignore the
> millions of kids who get dangerous, sub-standard care or no care
> simply because their parents are too poor to buy better care is a
> disgrace.  I'd also like to remind the adults who think the shoddy
> treatment kids get is fine or not their problem that we're going to be
> old and dependent on these kids some day.

yes, but only in general - kids as taxpayers.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (This Space for Rent)
Subject: Feminism and Pornography
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:01:50 GMT

Since "Men's Magazines" are directed toward a male audience, wouldn't
it be great if they had feminist articles and ideas on sex?  I think
that many men would really care about what women think about sex and
relationships.  Make sense?  I would like to see the natural beauty of
a woman through a woman's perspective.

And in the process, the articles can portray women as competent writers,
and real people who are comfortable with their sexuality.  Changing
the way we think also changes what we regard as attractive.  Perhaps,
successful, intelligent, and competent women will become the stereotypical
attractive traits for a sexy woman.  What makes a man attractive to
a woman?  What makes a woman attractive to a man?

The definition of "attractive" is fickle.  Look at the paintings of
fat women from the Renaissance.  Were they just "fat women" then?
NO!  They were BEAUTIFUL women!  But things change.  Back then, if
you were rich enough to eat excessively without moving, you were
attractive--- because wealth is attractive.  If you stayed indoors
and your skin was blanched, you were more attractive than those those
sun tanned peasants who worked the fields.

Now... it's attractive to be thin and have a nice tan.  Why?  Well,
everyone has enough to eat, but not everyone is wealthy enough to
have leisure time to work out and go on Carribean vacations.  Our
supermodels?  They're SWIMSUIT models!  Is there a reason for this?
(Other than showing their skin!)  Sure, swimming is an EXPENSIVE leisure
activity.  RIch people have pools in their yards;  Richer people
live on the coast of a lake.

Now, if attractiveness is tied so closely to wealth, I predict that
soon, our stereotypical attractive woman will change once more.  It
will not be the happy homemaker of the fifties.  Rather, in the year
2000, attractive will be those women who have careers, and who can
double the income of a family.  Those women are intelligent, sensitive,
competent, and wealthy!  Women with careers are a growing minority.
And with this new change, there must be a change in the way men think
about these women.  I believe that after the Backlash, that men will
truly appreciate the new woman of the millenium.  After all, it's always
been the rich minority to set the standards of what's attractive.

-- 
Eu-Ming Lee (aka CyberGeek)                      el27166@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
"Nobody told me there'd be .sigs like these."
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-&{&gp% +/)@ooooooo
NO CARRIER
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda (Was: Value of...)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:32:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.223208.20854@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:

[...]
 
>The contention that Playboy might influence someone to rape is tenuous.  

I'd say tenuous is an overstatement. The government commissioned a study
just to prove that this is so. But the study (who's name escapes me)
showed that such a connection did not exist. I recall that it did show
a weak connection with (child pornography? something non-normal), but the
conclusion stated that despite the study, the commission still believed
what they set out to prove. 


>                                                                      I am
>not willing to say that it could never happen, but I don't think that it will.
>I mean, someone sick enough to rape is not going to be swayed by the presence
>or absence of Playboy et al.  

Indeed, the problem is probably much deeper. I suspect that Playboy might
act as a trigger, but I suspect a Paula Abdul Pepsi commercial (or half of
the other commercials) would have the same effect. Assuming that the victim
is not sufficient a trigger. 

>                       The possibility that there might be that one case
>where the absence of Playboy made a difference just seems so remote.  The
>possibility that I'm wrong makes me real nervous, though, I must admit.
>
>[Aside:  I'd sure go for a no-parole and/or death-penalty for rapists, tho.
>         There's way too high a % of repeat offenders.  I forgot the #, sorry.]
 
>I do think MacKinnen has a valid point about what she finds offensive about
>Playboy, all rhetoric aside.  

If you mean that she finds it offensive, so what. I find much of her rhetoric
offensive, and not substantiated by what I know. Does this mean that she
should be censored? Or only if I get enough followers? 


>                                  I don't think that her (and others) being
>offended means they should be able to censor, though.  OTOH, somebody who comes
>up and forces her to look at a Playboy (or has it hanging in their work-place)
>is being extremely rude.  Whether it should be illegal or considered
>harrassment is discussed elsewhere, but I'll just throw in that I wouldn't
>want federal law to outlaw Playboy on any wall of any workplace, but that if
>somebody is really offended by Playboy on the wall they have to look at, it
>should go.

What about that Bikini calander? I have one on my wall right now (not at
work, the other one is jet fighters, both get used, and I enjoy looking
at both of them). Oddly, I do not recall a single line in the Constitution
or Bill of Rights protecting one from being offended. And people get offended
at the damnest things.

BTW, although I may not have made it clear, I am not really disagreeing with
you.

>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

Rich

payner@netcom.com
From: spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: ERA
Date: 28 Sep 1992 16:51:55 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley -- ERL
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: zabriskie.berkeley.edu

dsteinbe@nmsu.edu (David Steinberg) writes:

>On a similar note, I'd like to ask a question of ERA supporters.  What
>difference would be created by passing the ammendment?  If the bill
>effects as little as some people say that it would, why bother having
>it anyway?  Or is it just symbolic? 

My guess is that if an ERA amendment passed, there would be numerous
bills introduced in Congress with the ostensible goal of 
interpreting/enforcing its provisions.  You would see members
of Congress falling over each other to grab the limelight.  Some 
legislation would be of an affirmative-action flavor and
there would be quite a bit of debate over that.  All manner of
gender-neutral legislation would be proposed, plus the topic
would become a big one when it came to appointing and confirming
federal judges.

So I think the effect would be more than symbolic.

Steve
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: _Backlash_ ( Sort of )
Date: 3 Oct 1992 18:13:02 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>So, I said, any man who thinks that that is what women are like
>should either get a vasectomy or not have sex with women.  Seems
>perfectly sensible to me.  What's so "extreme" about suggesting some
>useful ways for a man to avoid this horrible risk?  By the way, please
>note that I am not really recommending abstinence, just no sex with
>women.  They would be perfectly safe (from this danger) if they had sex
>with other men, blow-up dolls, sheep, or whatever.

>I would recommend sterilization or not having sex with men to any woman
>who believed  that all men were lying about birth control in order to
>get them  pregnant.

I do think that sterilization is a rather extreme remedy for either
gender, because at this point it is usually irreversible.  A person 
(of either gender) may absolutely *not* want children at this time,
but may want them later.  Injthis case sterilization is probably not
a good alternative.

Fortunately, there are alternatives other than motss, blow-up dolls,
barnyard animals, vegetables, or -- heaven forbid -- abstinence.

Condoms, used with lubricants and proper care are highly effective,
and both the man and the woman can be *sure* that they are in use.
Other barrier methods are also easily verifiable (it's pretty easy
to tell whether a woman has a sponge or diaphram in -- just check!)

Also there are lots of rewarding acts one can perform with one's 
partner that carry little or no risk of pregnancy.  But I get the
impression that Muffy does not need a lecture from me on this 
subject.	:-)

						--  Michal
From: zen@death.corp.sun.com (d)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Observations from male studentnt
Date: 30 Sep 92 03:14:14 GMT
	<1992Sep25.214541.15830@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep25173538@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Sep29.005352.2047@jato.jpl.nasa.gov>
	<ZEN.92Sep28190528@death.corp.sun.com>
	<1992Se
Organization: savage hackers
NNTP-Posting-Host: death.corp.sun.com
In-reply-to: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Tue, 29 Sep 1992 23:59:25 GMT


In article <1992Sep29.235925.23916@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:
> zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
> >  So what you're saying is that if you're at home or work, reading this
> >post right now, that you're responsible if someone grabs you from behind
> >and rapes you?  
> And I *let* them...yes.

  *LET* them?  *LET* them?  You imply that people have a choice in the
matter?  Jesus, do you think anyone *lets* someone rape them?

> >By your logic people are responsible for being raped by just breathing.  
> MUST it either be "one" or the "other"? There are some situations, granted,
> where there is very little responsibility on the rapee. Don't forget that
> rapist...that rapist has responsibility as well. 

  I haven't forgotten.  But you still say, by virtue of existing, that
you are responsible if you are raped.  That's really bizarre.

> You've basically got two poles...on one hand you have the rapist who rapes
> an innocent victim...and on the other hand you have the couple out on a date
> who have consensual sex and then for some reason or other the woman decides to
> cry "Rape!". You can't judge both circumstances by the same standard, and you
> can't provide one rule (i.e. "way it is") that will handle all cases. 

  Why not?  Why can't you just have one rule:

If someone says "no" to sex, then you don't force them to have sex with
you.  If you do, it's rape.

  It seems fairly intuitive to me.  What is so hard about that?

 -- d
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1699 soc.men:17001 soc.women:17105
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:57:36 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

>> 	For putting on oxygen masks, all the airliner instructions
>> I've ever seen state to put one on a little kid before putting on one
>> for oneself. This would seem to be a case of "weakest first", though
>> there is no "women and children first" anywhere.

Time to change airlines, I suspect!  ALWAYS put the oxygen mask on yourself
first, THEN help the child.  You are far more likely to get the mask
correctly on the child if you are not gasping for breath yourself!

Terry
From: chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was: _Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 4 Oct 92 18:15:17 GMT
Organization: School of Chemistry, University of Bath, UK

In the referenced article, mec6@midway.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:

>You are right in that the power structure often does make a special
>effort to "protect women", but I think that that has as much to do with
>the chivalrous idea that women *need* special protection as it does to
>do with any feminist causes...

I fail to see much distinction between chivalrous 'special
treatment' and modern feminism, with the single exception
of abortion rights.

>In my experience, you'll find a mighty condemnation of wife abuse and
>a light dismissal of husband abuse among both feminists and old boys,
>democrats and republicans, old and young.  It's endemic in our society.
>It's a problem.  But the feminists did not *make* it so.

>I think your finger pointing is a wee bit unfair. 

Recently in the UK there was a bit of media discussion
about how "unfair" it is that many women who murder their
husbands go to prison.  Feminists have been at the forefront
of this argument.  It was the usual argument (wifebeating).
Whether men ever get beaten, or whether some of those
murderers deserved prison was not discussed.  The feminists
did not consider the opposite case.  It was explicitly special
treatment for women.  Noone thought it fit to mention that
women already get lighter sentences for murder than men.
I did not hear *any* feminist interviewed object to this idea,
let alone argue for increased sentences for women.

The feminists are certainly *making it so* in this case.

>I'll fight for the balance of power under the name 'feminist', thanks.  

Good luck.

>rini

Toby
-- 
Toby Kelsey
School of Chemistry,  # JANET: chpetk@uk.ac.bath.gdr, otherwise
University of Bath.   # chpetk%gdr.bath.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: dswartz@sw.stratus.com (Dan Swartzendruber)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Date: 2 Oct 92 15:07:39 GMT
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.

In article <keulen.718008610@possum>, keulen@possum.csu.murdoch.edu.au (Mike van Keulen) writes:
> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> 
> >He must do *something* to dispel this "wimp" image.  Maybe he should
> >give Dan Rather a hard time during an interview....
> 
> Hang on a minute ... what's wrong with walking away from a fight ... if I see a
> fight coming which could involve me, I would much rather walk away, avoiding
> the confrontation and defusing the situation.  Isn't that a much better
> strategy?  Surely the rough and tumble "real-man"-hood days aren't still
> around?

There's absolutely nothing wrong with walking away from a fight, assuming
it's possible.  Also assuming that your failure to stand up for your rights
won't result in the same person (or others) perceiving this as weakness and
continuing to pick fights.  I remember getting very frustrated in grade school
and junior high when my parents, teachers, the counselor, etc all kept telling
me that "It takes two to fight", and "If you just ignore him, he'll leave you
alone after a while", ad nauseam.  Yeah, right.  The one time I got angry enough
to fight back, I got suspended for a day, but funny thing: he never bothered me
again.  Mind you, I'm not advocating getting into fights with strangers in a
bar where weapons might be involved...

> Mike
> 
> --
> ***************************** Michael van Keulen *************************** 
> * Snail: School of BES - Biology         e-mail: keulen@murdoch.edu.au     *
> *        Murdoch University              phone:  ++ 61 (09) 360-2843 (work)*
> *        Murdoch WA 6150  AUSTRALIA              ++ 61 (09) 417-3902 (home)*
> *************************** "To Love is to _LIVE_!" ************************

-- 

Dan S.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Freshman
From: moselecw@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (moz [chris moseley])
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:14:22 GMT
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand

 jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
> Freshman doesn't exclude any gender.  Freshwomen does (no 
> such word).  Freshperson would lead me to believe that they 
> were referring to a female because they went to pains to 
> invent a new word.

So, saying `freshperson' IS gender specific then? But saying `freshMAN'
is not? I think you are reading too much into the statement here.
Dammit, I deleted the bit where you said that you go by what a word
MEANS not what you can read into it. I think you contradict yourself
here.

To repeat another post, what is wrong with `fresher'?

Trying to claim `man' as generic is passe. One simple rebuttal I
like is the following situation. (you may like to try this on
someone.)

Point to a group of women, and say `see those men over there'.
(the `men' here is generic)

Alternatively, make a statement like `every man has a duty
to give birth at least once, in order to promulgate the race'.

>   By the way, what gender is "they" in the 
> previous sentence?
nonspecific, but it would be reasonable to assume female, since the
specific term you generalised to `they' was `female'.



> If you feel that you have been treated unfairly in this 
> discussion and which to pull out, feel free.  A little 
> advice is in order before you go.  GROW UP YOU LITTLE, 
> IMMATURE WIMP.  IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
> BEING ATTACK PERSONALLY AND HAVING YOUR OPINIONS AND IDEAS 
> ATTACKED, YOUR IN THE WRONG PLACE TO BE ARGUING YOU INSIPID 
> POINTS.  NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO DEBATE WITH SOMEONE, TRY 
> TALKING TO A MIRROR BECAUSE YOU SAY ENOUGH STUPID, CONTRA-
> DICTORY THINGS THAT YOU WON'T KNOW WHO SAID WHAT. [ tiny 
> flame ].

not that you ever need to shout  at anyone, just because you
can't make them agree with you, hmm?

A couple of points: the above attack looks very personal to me.
	: by shouting, and letting your grammar and spelling
	   degenerate as you did, you further convinced me that
	   you have at least a big a problem as you claim the
	   other person has.
From: Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 27 Sep 92 23:33:45 GMT
 <garry-260992122629@nulla-nulla.rice.edu>  
 <1992Sep26.233238.24140@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Sep26.233238.24140@leland.Stanford.EDU>
farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

> This is not at all obvious to me what you mean by this.  Do you mean
> that you, as the sole wage-earner in your family, can't spend more
> time with it?  Do you mean that your female friend, with a husband who
> earns as much or more than she, can?
> 
> Or is it that your wife does most of the childcare as you work and
> your female friend does most of the childcare as she works?

But...  Garry didn't say if he is the sole wage earner, or if he is
married, or if he has children, or if his friend is married, or if so
how much her husband earns.

Has he revealed all this in an earlier post?  Or are you just pulling a
"John G. DeArmond" on us and annoucing your speculation as fact?
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Subject: Re: MEN-BASHING
Reply-To: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov
Organization: Jet Propulsion Lab - Pasadena, CA
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:01:48 GMT

tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle) writes:
>True...actually, what I find interesting is that most women can shrug off 
>being called a bitch and any number of other things, but call them a cunt, 
>and you had better start running! Most of the women I know/have observed go
>absolutely berserk.

But WHY? Any theories?
-- 
Dave Hayes - Network & Communications Engineering - JPL / NASA - Pasadena CA
dave@elxr.jpl.nasa.gov       dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov         ...usc!elroy!dxh

Supporter (n.) - 1. Someone who will say anything.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism