HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 9 Sep 92 05:18:19 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Sep7.035229.21429@msc.cornell.edu> hillyard@msc.cornell.edu writes:
/From article <1992Sep6.154026.14965@techbook.com>, by szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo):
/> to CS?  Two things that I know are important to CS, are verbal ability
/> and arithmetic.
/Picture hard working programmer typing away at his $10,000 terminal.
/"Damn, if only I could add and subtract better, my programming would
/go so much better."
/From across the room.  "Hey, I had the same problem, until I got one of
/these."
/Flash to $5 calculator.

It's so much easier to recognize bugs in a program if one knows
what the correct answer is supposed to be.

Besides, just *try* to code a floating point emulator if you don't understand
arithmetic.
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion,talk.politics.guns,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.bush,talk.politics.clinton
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: <None>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:46:20 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: selinger


  A few weeks ago, there was a short series of posts debating whether
lawyers were valuable tools in resolving marital disputes, or in fact
helped create the current situation of high divorce and gratuitously
excessive litigation merely to make money, i.e. encouraging/exploiting the
unhappiness of their clients for purely personal profit.

  Now there appears on the horizon a group called "California Child
Support". This group of lawyers (who have apparently run out of ambulances to
chase) have a law firm that specializes in getting more child support for women
under the new guidelines recebtly passed. Their current radio commercial opens
with (and I am NOT making this up) with one woman asking how another is
able to have her kids go off to school in the latest fashions. The second
woman responds that she did "The Smart Thing" and had California Child
Support increase her monthly amount.

  Of course, the father gets to pay the legal fees charged by California Child
Support, along with the added child support plus his own court costs.

  Nearly 1/4 of men paying child support already live below the poverty
level. It's one thing to make sure the kids are dressed. But to drive the
man even lower so the kids can be in the latest fashions?

  It's bad enough to encourage women to make false allegations against the
husband to deny him his parenting rights, and to garner higher support
payments. But to purchase radio time to convince women to seek higher
support for such trivial reasns, with a clear disregard for the husband's
status is another. If the man is already living in poverty, having the courts
award higher support payments will possibly drive him into homelessness and
render him unable to make any payments at all. Then, it's the children who
suffer, the mother who suffer's and the farher who suffers most of all. 

  The ONLY ones who benefit (and benefit greatly) from the current
system are lawyers. Until their influence is removed, there will be NO
happy familes, because too much money is made by braking familes up.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|       I practice safe sex (I had an airbag installed)!!!!!!            |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall)
Subject: Re: Smart Women/Smart Men
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:01:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.165545.24396@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.061446.19534@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>>bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>>
>>>In article <73740009@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>>>/As to the "in her head" bit -- if so, why are air-heads so popular?  Where
>>>/are all the men who want something in my head?  As an engineer with some
>>>/other smart women freinds, I can vouch for the fact that (on the average),
>>>/men do not appreciate much in there.  Maybe you were referring only to
>>>/personality?
>>
>>I am unavoidably, tragically drawn to intelligent women.  They don't see the
>>need for another person in their life (they say), they think they will be
>>happy being alone forever, pair bonding is an emotional weekness they do not
>>suffer from.  Then they marry bikers.
>
>Yeah, I know what you mean.  I am drawn to intelligent men who seem 
>to have a fondness for barflies.  It ain't fair.
>
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

I'm finding that the problem with two intelligent people is that both are
pursuring their interests, schedules do not necessarily synchronize, and
so there is little time available to spend together.

If you choose a partner that likes to "hang out" and is not so actively
pursuing many interests, they'll be around during your free time and so
you'll have more time together.  I see no problem with this relationship
if both people are happy doing what their doing.

I have known a few men that really wanted "their woman" to be at home
and available to them at all times (kind of at their beck and call was
my impression).  My impression is this type of relationship is not balanced
and is not fulfilling.  I guess there are women emulating this scenario -
and all I can say is, like the men, they get what they deserve (unfulfilling
relationships).

If you are two intelligent people who both like time alone, and are conscious
of spending quality time together, and *both* will compromise, then it can
work (well, it works for us).
   
Not very clearly expressed, but I tried.

 Janice Kendall    kendall@adobe.com    ...!{decwrl|sun}!adobe!kendall

		"Creativity overcomes violence."
				John Bradshaw on "Homecoming"
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:36:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
   >Women have the choice of putting a child
   >up for adoption, and if the father is out of the picture, she is
   >relieved of the financial burden of the child.  Men don't have that
   >option unless through abandonment or death, they have become the sole
   >custodial parent of the children.

The above could be rephrased as:
    Men have the choice of putting a child
    up for adoption, and if the mother is out of the picture, he is
    relieved of the financial burden of the child.  Women don't have that
    option unless they have become the sole custodial parent of the children.

I realize that women have had an advantage in getting custody of the 
children.  However, they can (and do) pay child support if the man has
custody of the children.  They also pay support in joint custody if the
man has the smaller income.  Due to our society's tradition of the "better
paying jobs for men" and "women care for the children", this does not happen
as often as the reverse -- but the rules about money are symetrical.  For
every one of the men who asked for full custody but didn't get it, you
could probably find more who would fight against full custody if
offered it.  I feel sorry for someone who really wants to raise their
children and is not allowed to but this is not the case all the time.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 12 Sep 92 06:22:17 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Sep10.140415.22731@Princeton.EDU> rdnelson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Roger D Nelson) writes:
/To the extent evidence exists to support your contention above re the
/math SAT and university performance, it would make sense to normalize
/female and male scores to separate standards, thus producing equivalent SAT
/scores for university admissions committees' consideration.

This is already done with different races, the practice is called
"race-norming". The trouble with this is:
o	It is fundamentally insulting and demeaning to be judged against
	a lesser standard than another group.
o	What is a race? What standard do you judge people of mixed ethnic
	backgrounds? What a mess...
o	Why stop with race? What about norming for socio-economic backgrounds,
	for left/right handedness, for height, etc? Of course, if you take
	every such effect into account, everyone is in their *own* group
	all by themselves, and you have eliminated the test.
o	It's discrimination, pure and simple. If you think it is for a good
	cause, fine, but don't pretend it isn't discrimination.
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Date: 11 Sep 92 18:22:37 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

/I saw an article in the New York Times about gender-biased questions on the 
/SAT (Scholastic Aptitude Test, for those outside the U.S., widely used in 
/undergraduate admissions decisions); this article alleged that even on the 
/mathematics test there were questions biased towards men because of the use of
/sports knowledge. 

I got 750 on the SAT in 1975. I didn't know then, and still don't know,
how football is scored. I don't know the rules for basketball or hockey.
I have to stop and think about baseball (I played in Little League as
a 9-year old). I lived in Seattle for 5 years before I knew that the
Sonics were a basketball team. I never watch sports on TV (except for
Formula 1!).

All women I know know more about sports than I do. I am the most ignorant
on sports person I know. Watching sports on TV is about as interesting as
watching flies crawl across the window.

The only question I remember being annoyed at was an analogy question that
assumed knowledge of mixed drinks. Being a minor, I knew nothing about
mixed drinks.
From: JSC115@psuvm.psu.edu (Jeff Campbell)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Women in international companies
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:34:58 GMT
Organization: Penn State University

Can someone help me?  I am a research assistant at Penn State, and the
professor I am working for wants to do a study on the following group of
women:
        Women who work for US based companies with international divisons
        Women who work for British based companies with international divisions

What she needs is a list of women to send a survey to.  Where would I get
something like that.  I thought of buying the mailing list from a professional
magazine like "Executive Female" but subscribers to these would include the
large proportion of women who work for companies with no international div.
Any help is appreciated.  Please send responses to JSC115@PSUVM.psu.edu.

Jeff Campbell
Xref: sparky soc.women:16472 soc.men:16314
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Fun with probabilities
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 11 Sep 92 09:25:42 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: selinger

In article <919@nazgul.UUCP>, bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
> In article <715965054@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
> /Consumers Report claimed that condoms are 85% effective.  In other words,
> /over one year of using condoms, there is 15% probability for an unwanted
> /pregnancy.  In 7 years, the expectation is more than 1...
> 
> Ooops! Over seven years, the probability of having an unwanted pregnancy
> is *NOT* .15*7, but is 1 - .85^7, or 68%. Probabilities cannot be more
> than 1.
-- 

  Last night I was one of several speakers at a local men's forum, and 
another speaker made the statement that condoms break during use 17%
of the time. This seems like a very high failure rate. Anyone have some
accurate references please?



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  Middle-Aged Mutant Ninja Animator   |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|       I practice safe sex (I had an airbag installed)!!!!!!            |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: ejohnson@graph.. (Liz Johnson)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 9 Sep 92 15:48:41 GMT
Organization: Computer Science, Indiana University

In article <1992Sep8.005135.4793@lugb.latrobe.edu.au>  
9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:
> Now, I'm not sure why this is.  Is it because if a woman gets to that
> stage it's because she has to be shit hot (ie, 200% what a man can do),
> or is it that women naturally have a greater affinity for that kind of
> work?

I remember an article about 3 years again in Chronicle of Higher
Education that speculated as to why the women who are in engineering
tend to be very good. It was written by a female engineering prof.
She said that her experience has been that teachers tend to encourage  
males who have even a slight apptitude for math to go into engineering  
while they only encourage the women who are superior in math. Sounded  
plausible to me.

Liz Johnson
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: buick@belay (Patrick D. Buick)
Subject: Re: Feminists ignore Cosmetics?
Organization: Belay Enterprises Inc. Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:08:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.140821.25028@athena.mit.edu> terra@athena.mit.edu (Terra Incognita) writes:
>In article <1992Aug28.204754.8256@umr.edu> asparrow@mcs213f.cs.umr.edu (Angelia Sparrow) writes:
>>I have not read Wolfe, and I'm not
>>a feminist. But, the topic intrigues me.
>>
>>I stood my ground when my mother insisted
>>on make-up saying I looked pale and plain.  
>>I already have a man, I don't need to entice more.
>[...]
>>
>>A psych prof I had once ran some experiments.
>>She was seeing whether men put as much emphasis on
>>makeup as women.  She took pictures of women made
>>up and then had them wash their faces before another 
>>picture was taken. [...]
>>However, when pictures were shown to a group of
>>men, most could not tell the difference between clean
>>and madeup.
>>
>>Women wear makeup as a bow to social pressure
>>from other women, it seems.  
>>

... some deleted...
>Women are made to feel
>that they aren't "presentable" without at least a little makeup, and
>that they aren't "attractive" unless they have "the ideal" figure.
>In any case, money, and not social dominance of one gender over the
>other, seems to be the prime motivating factor in this form of
>"oppression" of women.

I think it is strange that my mom won't go grocery shopping unless she is
"done up"...  Actually, I think it is, for lack of a better term at this
time, gross.  What utter crap.  I hope to find a woman who is content with
her own natural looks.... an outdoors type... someone somewhat independent..
oops... got carried away..

I thereby cast my vote!  :-)
Patrick
-- 
==========================================================
Patrick D. Buick EMT, EET | Internet: buick%belay.uucp@uunet.uu.net
Belay Enterprises Inc.    | Internet: buickp@cuug.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada  | UUCP:..keyword!calgary!pixel!belay!buick
Xref: sparky soc.women:16352 soc.men:16177
Newsgroups: soc.women

	

	Steven, Steven, steven.....

	dude...

	we're just having fun with it at this point.  Joni has a great
	sense of humor!  (I'm tempted to reply to her by saying that
	actually, the poster *knew* we would think that it was a
	man acting like a women acting like a man.... so obviously, the
	original poster was a women, who knew we would think it was
	a man acting like a women acting like a man...  besides, only 
	a woman would be able to devise such a scheme.... :-)

	Oh god... I'm in trouble now!   :-)

	-Mike-

Xref: sparky soc.women:16641 soc.men:16470
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 15 Sep 92 11:04:41 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <=hzn06@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.114410.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>In article <!hsn12n@lynx.unm.edu>, bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>> Michael...a person with *no* brain activity isn't alive.  There are
>>> many systems within the brain...a comatose person has some brain
>>> activity going on.
> 
>>> If this hypothetical disease you speak of causes complete cessation of
>>> brain activity, then that person truly is dead, not comatose.
> 
>>  Okay, then, even knowing that brain activity will resume in 9 months, 
>>after the desease runs it's course, according to you it's still okay to 
>>yank the plug on the life support right now, because the potential of a 
>>thing is not the same as the thing itself, and that turning off the life
>>support right now is not murder.
> 
> I'm saying that this "hypothetical" disease you suggest is completely
> ludicrous since such a thing couldn't happen.
> 
> The body would be fairly rotted in 9 months without any blood coursing
> through the circulatory system keeping the cells alive.
> 
> You are suggesting we consider the ethical consequences of something
> that could not possibly happen.

  You seem to have conveniently forgotten two things. First is the Karen Ann
Quinlen affair, which demonstrated that the body does not rot when there
is no brain activity as long as life support is maintained.

  Secondly, you also forgot that there is indeed detectable electrochemical
activity in the brains of 7 week old foetuses, who have already differentiated
the major structures of the brain at that time.

  But, of course there is no such desease (yet) as I suggest. It is a thought
experiment designed to illustrate the arbitrariness of those who insist that
a child isn't a human being until the moment of birth.

  There is a pro-life commercial running right now featuring a woman who was 
aborted at 7 months, but was rescued and kept alive in an incubator. Try 
convincing her that her early "eviction" denies her her humanness.

  I'm not saying outlaw abortion. All I am saying is don't decide FOR me
when my kid becomes a human being.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: heidi@wolf.net.com (Heidi Wolf)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: looking for a quote
Summary: Rebecca West said it
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:19:27 GMT
Organization: N.E.T., Redwood City, CA

In article <8SEP199211153389@zeus.tamu.edu> pdj7631@zeus.tamu.edu (Unbeliever) 
writes:
>I have heard a quote that goes something like this:
>
>"I do not know  what the word 'feminist' means, except that I am called one
>whenever my behavior differentiates me from a doormat."
>
>Does anyone know the proper wording and source?



	"I myself have never been able to find out precisely
	 what feminism is: I only know that people call me  
	 a feminist whenever I express sentiments that
         differentiate me from a doormat."

                 -- Rebecca West, THE CLARION, November 14, 1913
                    (As cited by Cheris Kramarae and Paula A. Treichler
                    in their book A FEMINIST DICTIONARY, p. 160;
                    published by Pandora Press, London, 1985.)
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 05:08:56 GMT

sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:

>I do not believe that "good fortune" is the operative here.  I worked at
>many jobs to put myself through college (including house_cleaner, babysitter,
>ironing, sewing, selling theater tickets, etc.) and never had trouble finding
>more work someone was willing to pay for.  I went to summer school instead of
>FortLauderdale, and took an extra semester to get through but "where there is
>a will, there is a way".  I wouldn't recommend this as the first choice
>for anyone who has the option of having school paid for by their family or
>a scholarship but people who do not finish college and then whine that they
>couldn't afford it do not get my sympathy.

The days when students could pay their own way through college are (largely)
gone.  This is mostly because education costs have greatly outpaced 
inflation.   

								--  Michal
From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Smart Women/Smart Men
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:55:45 GMT
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame

In article <1992Sep10.061446.19534@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> pciszek@nyx.cs.du.edu (Paul Ciszek) writes:
>bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>
>>In article <73740009@hpsad.sad.hp.com> sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
>>/As to the "in her head" bit -- if so, why are air-heads so popular?  Where
>>/are all the men who want something in my head?  As an engineer with some
>>/other smart women freinds, I can vouch for the fact that (on the average),
>>/men do not appreciate much in there.  Maybe you were referring only to
>>/personality?
>
>I am unavoidably, tragically drawn to intelligent women.  They don't see the
>need for another person in their life (they say), they think they will be
>happy being alone forever, pair bonding is an emotional weekness they do not
>suffer from.  Then they marry bikers.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  I am drawn to intelligent men who seem 
to have a fondness for barflies.  It ain't fair.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: education
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:12:33 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:

>Walk down the aisle of your local toy store.  Take a look at a box containing
>a chemistry or science set.  You'll see the boy doing the experiment while a
>girl looks on.  

This would be a good addition to the other thread that is debating why more
women are not "into" science/engineering/math.  I know the only microscope,
chemistry sets, etc. that I ever played with were originally given to my
brothers.

>There have been similar theories related to anorexia nervosa: that some
>women are seeking to prevent their bodies from maturing by starving 
>themslves.  Anorexia nervosa does lead to amenohrrea (cessation of the
>period) as well as giving one the body of a child-woman (small under-
>developed breasts, no curves, etc.)
>Consider shaving as well: adult women are naturally hairy on the legs
>and under the arms, just as a man is.  Is removal of this hair a way to
>infantilize the woman?  Some would argue that it is.  Consider the ads
>which compare a smooth woman's legs to a baby's bottom.

I have often wondered about men who prefered the 'boy like' woman.  I can see
where a closet pediophile would like the "no curves and no body hair" in his 
ideal date.  I would think that a het male would tend to prefer a more adult
look if our society did not preach the "you can never be too thin" bit and the
"clean shaven baby skin" bit so wholeheartedly.  Of course, the same could be
said for women who prefer men without facial hair though they tend to prefer
the adult body type (early 20s, not 40ish stomach).

Ahh, to each his/her own!  My opinions are certainly not swayed by the fact
that I was "blessed" with a waist/hip ratio that is decidedly female :) ;)
It sure would be a boring world if we all had the same opinions.
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.sex.wizards