HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Arlen Specter vs Lynn Yeakle race and feminists, etc.
Date: 30 Sep 92 06:38:37 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Sep30.011946.7891@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Joe.Francis@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:

>> Naaa.  He's up for re-election here in Pennsylvania and Lynn Yeakle is
>> breathing down his neck.

> It appears that Lynn is no longer "breathing".  Recent polls show her
> 16 points behind Arlen.

Yea, he's pulled away because she hasn't spent her TV dollars yet.  He's got
a lot more money and has been advertising on TV that Lynn didn't pay $17,000
in wage taxes until the day before she entered the race.  

What Arlen didn't say was that she paid these taxes just to be sure.  She's
been working at a women's shelter (or some other feminist volunteer
organization -- I'm not exactly sure) and didn't realize that she might be
liable.  As I understand it, she may get the money back.

I'll bet when Lynn starts to run her advertisments, the gap will close
again.  It's going to be a tight race.  Arlen has never had to work this
hard before.  Lynn is going to be running her advertisments in October.

While the "Anita Hill Thing" has hurt him, Lynn will need more than that to
win, however.  It got her foot in the door, but she'll have to demonstrate
that she's viable in other areas and issues if she's going to win.

She has a chance.  It's up to her to make something of it in the next few
weeks.

Personally, I'm not swayed very much by her supporters yelling "What about
Anita Hill?" all the time.  They start to look like nuts.  I want to know
something about Lynn!  I know plenty about Arlen and Anita.

Issues such as health-care score big with the older-Pennsylvanians and we've
got more of them in Allegheny County than Flordia has in Broward County!
Lynn could score big here if she takes a lesson from Harris Wofford.

But Arlen isn't anti-feminist, by any means.  He's pro-choice as is Lynn so
that's a plus for him among feminists -- or at least a draw with Lynn.  His
big blemish IS his cross examination of Anita Hill (even a bigger blemish
than his "magic bullet" theory that was used by the Warren Commission
investigating President Kennedy's assination).  But that's not enough to
take him down.  Many people seem to feel that he had a job to do and that he
did it.  Others do hold him responsible, but it's just not enough by itself.

In fact, Lynn has some problems in her own party.  She has to distance
herself somewhat from our Democratic Gov. who is pro-life.  Our other
Democratic Senator supports the new Pennsylvania law that sets limits on
abortions, so it's not much good for her to get his endorsement.

The next few weeks will be interesting!

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: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Women as Victims (was:_Backlash_ ( Sort of ))
Date: 4 Oct 92 01:48:51 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
| >| If you want to *do* something, help the balance of power (at least here
| >| in North America) swing back away from the position that calls itself
| >| "feminist," back in the direction of equality of REAL power for women
| >| and men.

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >Which would be what?  What would you do to women to
| >redress the balance of power?
| 
| For starters,
|    -End preferences and quotas for women in hiring and promotions
|    -End prosecutions for vague "harassment" that in fact are plain-out
|     censorship of 'things feminists don't like' (or, alternately, give
|     men the SAME power)
|    -End the feminist assault on the first amendment.
|    -Either abolish "Womens' Studies," or else give "Mens' Studies" the
|     same footing.

And how would you do these things?  All four would seem to
require a sort of fascist seizure of power.  In the case of
the first, the autonomy of corporations and academic insti-
tutions would have to be overridden; in the second, the
courts would have to be interfered with; in the case of the
third, it would be necessary to suppress the First Amendment
in order to end whatever you consider to be an "assault" on
it; and in the case of the fourth, once again, it would be
necessary to interfere with academic institutions.  Seems
pretty scary to me.

On the other hand, you might not be talking about state
power.  In that case, you have a big problem, because part
of the energy driving affirmative action and so on is the
consciousness of administrators that a major portion of
their constituencies are women or sympathize with women.
Certain large corporations used to exclude women from
management and engineering jobs, but now many of their
managers and engineers are women, and I don't think they
want to try telling them to go back to the kitchen.
They also have to consider their customer base, who can
boycott; most have a lot of women customers. 

Someone let 'em out, Robert.  So what's your plan now?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry)
Subject: Re: Conditioning during Masturbation
Organization: QQQCLC
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 04:40:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.022727.26928@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>What's the difference between
>sex with a human being and sex involving a magazine?  In
>the former case, there's a real person to associate
>intense pleasure with, to become attached to, to love.
>In the latter, there's nothing but a piece of paper.

	Then why do you agree with MacKinnon that having sex with
pieces of paper will negatively affect men's image of real women?
Do men connect these photos with real women, or not? And, if they
do, why would a pleasurable association produce a negative effect
on the image of women?

						Kayembee
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2033 soc.men:17311 soc.women:17351
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
Subject: CONDOMS!
Summary: BE PREPARED!  TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOURSELF!
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:49:36 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <MUFFY.92Oct4090947@remarque.berkeley.edu>, muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> In fact, my usual recommendation would be condoms, but
> as we have seen on this group, many men object to using them.

Men,

Do yourselves a favor and use that condom.  When you think about it, doesn't
it make the most sense?  Why take a risk?  Why suffer the hassle of a visit
to the doctor?  Why risk death?

Or for that matter, why risk being at the mercy of a pregnancy that you
didn't want and can't support?

Even if a "male" form of birth control (the male-pill) becomes available,
there are too many diseases out there today.  How many diseases are lurking
out there that aren't even known?  You could get something today (tonight)
that will not show up for years.

No, don't risk it.  Use that condom.  Be responsible!

Condoms can be purchased at any major drug store without having to ask for
them.  BE PREPARED!

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
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Violent Di Batters Charles
Keywords: Poor Little Princess!
Organization: LLNL
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 01:28:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.225732.18723@netcom.com> sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

	[Defense of his use of the _National Enquirer_]

	Robert Sheaffer, your credibility is dropping faster than a
chunk of ice that fell off a plane. Why do you think that's good
evidence at all? You're well aware that NE's publishers have been sued
for libel several times over its history, so what makes you think it
is such great journalism? You are turning from Scepticus Maximus into
Scepticus Minimus remarkably fast.

	Now why don't you go to the bookstores and libraries of San
Francisco and Berkeley (and perhaps even some in San Jose or Stanford)
and check out some _real_ scholarship. I was recommending that you go
by Politically Correct Collective Transport (tm) because you will be
able to get a lot of reading done if you go by such examples of PCCT
as BART or CalTrain.
From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 2 Oct 92 20:35:49 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <1992Oct1.205409.19341@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>In the referenced article, teri@sdd.hp.com (Teri Tracey) writes:
>
>>Procreation is one of the fundamental forces in being human.
>
>I disagree.  I consider someone sterile is as human as
>anyone.  I also do not think someone who has 8 children is
>better than someone with none.

I was hoping this would go by un-remarked upon.  Sigh.
Would you both be willing to go for "Procreation is a fundamental force in some
people's self-perception."?

This does bring up the old, but does that give such a person the right to
procreate when they are incapable of providing a suitable upbringing for said
children.  Just to be PC, I fully intend this to apply to the north shore
parents who ignore their children as well as those who can't afford to feed
them.


>	[...]  but I would like to see more attention paid to the fact
>>that the vast majority of people have children, and that this is not
>>abnormal, or inconvenient, or necessarily burdensome. 
>
>I disagree again, children are definitely inconvenient.
>
> ...I just realised you may mean the _process_ of having
>them.  Surely that is still inconvenient tho, if you
>had something else planned.
>
>On the other hand, I agree that having children is normal.

The intent was that people seem to focus on the inconvenience when this daycare
thing is discussed, (since it is kind of central to the issue) and that the
benefits of children are often lost in the focussing.

>>Sometimes I think "having a career" is way overrated.
>	[...]
>                               ...there's so many interesting things in the
>>world, and people have a lot of talents that aren't used in their jobs,
>>and it's a shame if they're not expressed.
>
>There is not much talent required in procreating.  Apart from
>that I don't see the relevance to what you were saying before.

The connection is that the reason daycare is an issue is the over-rating of
having a career.  Procreation is only involved as a necessary, but not
sufficient, pre-condition. :-)
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: "Attack Pattern" #2
Date: 5 Oct 92 23:18:04 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct5.202921.12998@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>Rich, I've already responded here to you once re why I wouldn't have responded
>to the original post, but you've put me in again in connection with GF, and I
>want to be sure you see the differences this time.

The problem is that due to the fact that (either/or) you would respond to
my posts to Gorden Fitch, and he would respond to posts to you. This to some
extent made the poster ambiguous.

I am not even sure why you are posting now? New subject line, no quoted
text, what is it that got your dander up this time?
 
>There were and are significant differences between GF and I.

Granted, but you seemed to be in complete agreement on the previous issue.
In fact, one of you posted just that.
 
>Samples:
>In my experience women and men are equally underhanded.
>
>Your experience, Gordon's experience, and that other guy's (sorry) are all
>equally valid.

Sorry, mine was called to question. I did not respond.

BTW, for the record, I did not say that, for those who skipped the 
previous <discussion>, but not this.

>In some cases, you may be shown to have an unusual experience by reputable
>studies.  This does not invalidate your experience, it merely shows it as
>atypical, or indicates perception differences from the majority.

I see, if the majority percives differently, then I am the one with a
problem. Thanks for clearing that up. :^}   But I have moved around quite
a bit, I would expect that the wider ones experiences, the more valid
they would be, at least as far as generalizations go.
 
>I think you have confused GF and myself a lot, and truly believe that most of
>the "hostility" you sensed from me was not there.

I will proceed from that assumption. But I still have no idea why you 
posted this. ???

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

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:53:13 GMT


>> Wait a second, I thought the basis for the objection to words like 'freshman
'
>> is that they are not generic.  On the other hand, I consider racial slurs fa
r
>> from 'generic terms'.  Talk about arguing in circles.
>
>What?
>
>freshmen distinguishes by sex, `spic' by race. Both are perceived negatively
>by some people when used by some other people. Seems consistent to me.
>
>moz

What????  Show me where freshman distinguishes by sex (and not because you say
it does).

JerkfaceJeffy   :^]
From: lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: LLNL
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:10:32 GMT

In article <zn#p+0=.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.001508.3182@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
@ 	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.

>	I don't recall airline instructions specifically, but I
>_thought_ the rule was to put your own mask on first, the logic being
>that you must remain able to function. Putting the mask on your child
>second won't hurt the child - too little time sacrificed to do damage -
>but passing out occurs more quickly, and you're better able to give
>continuing assistance to children and others when you're conscious.

	I plead guilty! I plead guilty! After getting half a dozen
responses about this, I will concede that my memory had gotten mixed
up. I remembered that one of the two was supposed to be wearing an
oxygen mask first, but I didn't precisely remember which one.

Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1829 soc.men:17154
From: walkerr@yaya.WPI.EDU (Robert A Walker)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Date: 30 Sep 1992 21:01:25 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
NNTP-Posting-Host: yaya.wpi.edu


>If she takes the Pill because he refuses to use condoms or wait while she
>puts in a condom, then it may imply that he is a sexist.  Of course, it may
>also imply that she is a fool.

That is hardly any kind of sexist issue, its a personal issue, a avery personal
issue, that, in my opinion has no right to dragged out of the bedroom.  The
decision is solely between the two people involved.  Jsut because a guy
doesn't like to wear a condom does not make him a sexist, I personally
hate them.  May "she" isn't on the pill for herself, but instead to make 
"him" happy.  I know that making a man happy is against some feminists
views, but its not like its "her" boss, its "her" lover, which does not
neciessaraly have to be a man.
                                                    Bob



Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Value of Womens' Lives (was: _Backlash_)
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:06:11 GMT

In article <v=_pqha.barry@netcom.com> barry@netcom.com (Kenn Barry) writes:
>
>	Test question: which is worse, a male-only draft, or one where
>both sexes are eligible? Stinking choice, but I prefer the former. At
>least only half the population gets shat on that way.

Seems to me the same number of people would be drafted one way or
the other, pretty much.  Twice as many would have to register, but
the combat probability is halved for each person.  Not much difference,
really.

Of course, this is an idealization.  What would really happen is
that the combat probability would actually increase for a male
registrant, because only the non-combat roles would be split up.
I'd say that would cause more hard feelings across the genders than
a male-only draft.

-S. Schultz
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2106 alt.sex:31994
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,alt.sex
Subject: Re: Catharine MacKinnon, Playboy and feminist propaganda
Date: 6 Oct 92 05:12:45 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)

I have a friend in the Mid-West who likes S&M.  Around the time of her
birthday I was in L.A. and picked some gay S&M porno (Drummer) for her 
in a gay prono store in L.A.  It did not turn me on (even though she 
claimed that it was *great*), but I did not find it offensive.  
I probably *miss* something which is obvious to Richard when he claims:

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

>I think Playboy *does* portray women just as sex objects (interview responses
>notwithstanding), and I'm sure it is offensive, 

Please spell out for me why _Playboy_ is offensive.

>[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.]

Have you ever heard about "The Scottsboro Boys"?
(This is not a rhetorical question.)
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bias in Academia?
Date: 7 Oct 1992 02:02:14 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>I don't see any alternative.  I grew up in a very small town in the
>Southeast (US).  We had the same neighbors for years.  Our situation
>seems like an ideal family situation.  But when my niece was born, my
>sister and brother-in-law didn't know their neighbors.  He wasn't on
>good terms with his family.  My sister's friends would babysit a bit,
>but not frequently.  They were on their own, except for my family.

At least your sister had her family.  Many people in today's world
don't live close to either of their families and can't count on their
relatives for help with childcare.	

						--  Michal

Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
    JSL:
    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.
    CM:
    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'.
    JSL:
    By the way, what gender is "they" in the previous sen-
    tence?
    CM:
    nonspecific, but it would be reasonable to assume fe-
    male, since the specific term you generalised to `they' 
    was `female'.
    JSL:
    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, CONTRADICTORY THINGS THAT YOU WON'T KNOW WHO 
    SAID WHAT. [ tiny flame ].
    CM:
    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.
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 01:54:26 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: kaarts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Kenneth John Aarts)
Subject: The 75% woman
Originator: kaarts@asimov.cc.umanitoba.ca
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 23:12:19 GMT


What would the effect on society, culture and evolution be if women comprised
75% of the population?  Would women today be better off today?  In a stronger
position?


	One of my lines of thought is that this would put women at an even
larger disadvantage.  A superficial glance at evolution and family units
could suggest that the remaining men would become even more valuable, 
increasing their negotiating ability in cultural and domestic agreements.
	Another implication could be an increase in female infanticide until
until the populations equalized.  This would be a very sad, but somehow
consistent, mechanism within society.  This leads to the aside;  Is the
current practice of infanticide a result of some cultural belief that males
have more inherent value, or a social belief that the average male will make
a larger contribution to the tangible success of a primary social unit?

	Finally, is there some critical threshold for the ratio of 
males:females, above which evolution and social needs would force cultures
where females have the primary dominant role?

Hmm,
	Ken
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:2055 soc.men:17323
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men
Subject: The Pill
Date: 5 Oct 92 18:11:10 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <oenqvEm00VI=4Fd1QF@andrew.cmu.edu>, rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings) writes:

>>(At least, I've never heard about the Pill causing sterility or death.)

> 	It can cause blood clots in the brain, which can cause death.  When
> women who should not be taking the Pill are put on it by doctors who
> don't know better, they can have complications which can lead to
> sterility or death.  


BTW:  I heard on the ABC nightly news last night that women who have taken
the pill are less likely to develop ovarian cancer.  The longer one is on
the pill the greater the protection.

Terry