HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:25:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

In article <1992Oct9.184436.2912@speedy.aero.org>, nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
|> Perhaps the issue is how you play with the toys, not what the toys are?

Exactimundo! I would think that it would be a tremendous ego boost for 
youngsters to know that they enjoy and are even better at a something
than Barbie. I mean she's just perfect, ya know.

So if your kid is good at math or thinks it's easy, insist on one of
the Barbies that say _Math is hard_. I think the kid will get the idea
that maybe Barbie isn't all that great a model to build ones life after.
Especially if you help that thought along yourself. 

-- 
d'baba Duane M. Hentrich	baba@Tymnet.Com

We have yet to learn that the thing uttered in words is not therefore affirmed. It must affirm itself, or no forms of logic or of oath can give it evidence. 
The sentence must also contain its own apology for being spoken. - R.W.Emerson
Xref: sparky soc.women:17719 soc.men:17724
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Oct 92 09:42:01 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: griffin

In article <1992Oct12.230428.17982@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini) writes:
> In article <1992Oct12.104534.2616@mdcbbs.com> 
> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>>
>>  All I am saying is that there is a lot to modern warfare that depends on
>>sheer physical strength, and the average woman is smaller and weaker than the
>>average man. Any military commander who sends women into a hand to hand
> 
> Said military commander is no fool if the women are well-qualified.
> 
  And what if the opposing military commander fields well-qualified men,just
as both sides run out of gasoline?




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolf Hitler                |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in groups
From: RGINZBERG@eagle.wesleyan.edu (Ruth Ginzberg)
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:48:08 EDT
Distribution: world
Organization: Philosophy Dept., Wesleyan University
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20In-Reply-To: andrewb@nezsdc.icl.co.nz's message of Fri, 9 Oct 92 00:39:31 GMTLines: 13

In <1992Oct9.003931.6772@nezsdc.icl.co.nz> andrewb@nezsdc.icl.co.nz writes:

> I have heard that if woman live in group's that their menstrual cycles
> start to sync with each other.
> 
> Anyone care to expand or refute this.

True.  Its called "menstrual synchrony."  Allegedly due to pheromones.


------------------------
Ruth Ginzberg <rginzberg@eagle.wesleyan.edu>
Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.151402.10710@unixg.ubc.ca>, schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart
Schultz) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.162411@IASTATE.EDU>
>danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>>
>>   Oh for gods sake, could we please not make obvious math errors IN THIS
>>THREAD?  If your data are correct the probability of getting a math-phobe
>>barbie is...   ...mutter, mutter...
>>
>>          1-(0.99)*(0.98)*(0.97)*(0.96)  or about 9.65%
> 
> I hate to say this, Daniel, but you be wrong!
> 
> The correct answer is
> 
>      1-(99/100)*(98/99)*(97/98)*(96/97) = 1 - 96/100 = 0.04 = 1/25.
> 
> Now, let's give credit where credit is due, to Miriam Nadel and
> Deborah Mazariti, two women, who got it right the first time !!

   Oh, I see now.  Thanks :)

> 
> 
> :-)  :-)
> 
> -S. Schultz

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
Xref: sparky soc.women:17472 soc.men:17455 alt.feminism:2204
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 8 Oct 1992 01:04:07 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:

>IMO, the reason why mothers often are or seem to be better parents
>is because they had the chance to stay at home and learn the job.

>We need to increase societal pressure (positively,
>not via complaints about "helping out," which is derogatory and
>+detracts+ from the purpose)  on men to learn parenting and 
>to increase their opportunity.

>But how?  Affirmative action?  GI-Joe's that say, "Hand me a diaper!"?

The same way that women should!  Kids (of both genders) shoudl 
play with and "watch" other littler kids.  Of course, when they're
small they'll need adult supervision.  Learn by doing -- that's the 
best way.

One of the saddest things about modern society is that in our mobile
nuclear families the kids grow up without little siblings and cousins
and neighbors kids, and they never get much opportunity to interact
with children (practice parenting) until they bear their own.

							--  Michal
Xref: sparky soc.women:17440 alt.politics.elections:15399 alt.society.civil-liberty:6176 talk.abortion:40988
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 18:37:41 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.171051.21225@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct6.202425.22247@u.washington.edu> gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>>recently, you had few blacks as quarterbacks and centers in the NFL and
>>you have had only one black head coach in the NFL until recently.
>>>Why not treat people equally without regard to race, sex, religion?
>>	That was tried in the 1960s. Didn't work. That's WHY affirmative
>>action programs were mandated in the first place. Now if you can make it likely
>>that folks won't pay just lip service to the ideals these days, then
>>I think we can do something....
>Please!  The point is that if the goal is to treat people equally,
>to be color blind, then AA is not helping to achieve that goal, it
>is just the opposite, forcing lines to be drawn. 

	Ahh, could you re-read what I wrote?

	The point is that in the 1960s, civil rights legislation supposedly
mandated equal treatment. However, violators evaded the spirit of the
law and STILL treated people in a discriminatory manner.  Affirmative action
was a result of court action to FORCE these non-compliant violators to
follow the spirit of the law. In other words, EXPECTING people to treat
everybody equally didn't work before; why would it work now?

	Can you devise a less restrictive way of achieving equality?


 The stereotype
>of blacks in the NFL was that they weren't as smart as whites and
>couldn't be expected to handle the QB job.  Nowadays with Warren
>Moon, Doug Williams, and Randall Cunningham leading the way, the
>myth has been shattered.

	Yet, this took until the LATE 80s to do this.  And this is in
an area where productivity is clear cut. And this is in an area where
the rewards are great.

	If it took this long for bias to be overcome in an area where
the rewards are so great and the evidence is so clear, how do you
expect it to be overcome in areas where it isn't?

>Ultimately, without AA, people would lose accounts because of racism,
>businesses would lose money, and people on their own will begin to
>see that the biases are unfounded and eliminate them.

	I think this is wishful thinking. As your own example indicates,
it's taken this long to overcome PARTIALLY the bias in an area where
the rewards and the evidence is clear-cut. In the meantime, if we were
to take this route, this would mean you would have to condone continuing
discrimination against minorities, particularly in areas where it
isn't so clear. 

	This isn't a black and white area. You are balancing discrimination
on a variety of groups.  



-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: You and Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 12 Oct 92 14:10:50 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: weirens

In article <73740062@hpsad.sad.hp.com>, sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen) writes:
> In soc.women, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> 
>     In article <1992Sep29.014101.12554@cis.ohio-state.edu>, angrish@hickory.cis.ohio-state.edu (yogesh angrish) writes:
>     > In article <1992Sep28.165054.9146@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> sdp@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (sunil.d.patil) writes:
>     >>
>     >>To all those beautiful, loving and compassionate girls,
>     > 
>     > YOU MAKE ME MAD........
>     > GET A LIFE YOU JERK....OR POST THIS BULLSHIT IN SOME OTHER NEWSGROUP.
>     > 
>     -- 
> 
>       The habitable surface of the Earth is some 60,000,000 square miles. That's
>     room enough for all kinds of people. At least let's give the guy credit for
>     trying to do something positive!
> 
> Miracles never cease!  Who would have thought that I would ever see a rivero
> post that I completely agreed with ?


  Thanks. As long as we can keep the ideas flowing, even the ones we dislike,
there is still a chance we can work our way out of this mess we call
modern civilization. :)


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|  "The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall                 |
|  victims to a big lie than to a small one."                            |
|                                          --Adolf Hitler                |
|                                                                        |
|   "All men are potential rapists, and that's _all_ they are!"          |
|                                 -- Susan Brownmiller                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: Kathy_McTaggart@mindlink.bc.ca (Kathy McTaggart)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Another Irate Dad Kills
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:02:35 GMT
Organization: MIND LINK! - British Columbia, Canada
Distribution: world

I haven't read this whole thread, but I get the feeling that what you,
"restless wanderer", are getting at is--is it fair to have kids, with all the
pressures that puts on you, the kids and society, just so you have someone to
look after in your old age?

I find (a classic gross generalization, but those are always fun) it amazing
how many people assume that noone outside your immediate family will care
about you once you "get old". Surely what we need to be aiming for is a much
more integrated society where your support group is broad and cares for you
out of desire rather than familial obligation.

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: drs@bnl.gov (David R. Stampf)
Subject: Re: INTERFAITH MARRIAGES
Reply-To: drs@bnl.gov
Organization: Brookhaven National Laboratory
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:43:23 GMT

What a question - I have an interfaith marriage in that my wife is no particular
religion while I am Catholic. She is also a different race and culture than I, and
it was precisely those difference that attracted us to each other. She attends
my Church frequently, but doesn't participate fully - she recognizes my beliefs,
and the necessity (?) of having our daughter exposed to relion/ethics. We feel
free to bash the areas of religion that we both dislike, and we avoid (mostly)
the areas that we have differing opinions (e.g. abortion).

In any case, the cornerstone of our marriage (18+ years) is respect for the other
persons beliefs/opinions. Rather than trying to change each other, we enjoy the
differences. Good luck, but don't expect the other person to change. I know a
lot of miserable people who got married expecting that and were surprised.

	Dave

 In article 140340IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU, <IK20050@MAINE.MAINE.EDU> () writes:
>Hi!
>I wanted to ask a question of all you netters out there.
>DO interfaith marriages usually work?  (By interfaith, I
>mean, two different denominations of Christianity, say...
>Catholic and Protestant..or Catholic and Mormon?)  What if
>your spouse "bashes" your religion and won't allow you to attend
>the church of your choice, because she or he believes that only
>their church is right (religious bigotism)...What do you do then?
>How do you get the other person to respect your faith and to love
>you for what you are, regardless of religion?
>
>i need help on this urgently!!!  Thanks......me.







Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: WOMEN ARE NOT PAYED LESS THAN MEN
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:12:09 GMT

In article <3581@creatures.cs.vt.edu> debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts) writes:
)A question:  Did anyone take into account that there are far more men in
)             positions of power and prestige in business and industry, jobs
)	     that take them out of the office, even out of town, and that
)  	     the nature of their work often means "toiling" beyond the
)	     traditional 40 per week.  (for which there are usually
)	     monetary and/or compensatory benefits)

Yep.  Consider the following, from "Times of Change"

"Since usual weekly earnings include overtime, if earned, it should be noted
that men tended to work longer hours than did women.  About 29 percent of
the full-time men but only 14 percent of the full-time women worked 41 hours
or more a week in May 1980.  When women worked overtime they were slightly
more likely than men to have received premium pay, probably because large
numbers of men were in salaried positions where overtime pay was not required
by law.  Proportionately, data for 1980 and 1979 indicate fewere workers
represnted by lahbor organizations worked long hours.  WHen they did,
however, about twice as many recieved preium pay as did unorganized workers
on long workweks.

Male workers who were union members were about twice as likely as unionized
women to have worked overtime and, whiel about half of organized women
working more than 41 horus a week were paid overtime, nearly 3/4 of the men
covered by union agreements were paid.


)
)	     This line of thought leads to....
)
)A warning:   Be very careful of ALL polls and statistics.  Look at the source,
)	     learn a little bit about surveying methods and practices and be
)	     very wary of the pitfalls of pop psychology and sociology.  It
)	     is so easy to invalidate any poll or survey that it's almost
)  	     funny.  (For any who scoff at this, please go back and look
)	     at your course notes from SOC 101 and PSYC 101; this is one of
)	     the first facts you have to memorize.)
)
)Debra Potts

Yep.  This includes being wary of $.69 on the dollar and Faludi, though :-)

From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:44:56 GMT
Subject: Re: Math and such (was: Re: Mattel on women
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In article <1992Oct6.224326.3834@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:
    >If you have kids, I think the best thing to do is to talk to them about
    >math, about what they like and what they want to do, rather than to worry
    >about what 'Barbie' says.
My kids are boys (though they have played with Barbies on occasion) and are
being raised by an engineer so I am not worried about them.  I am against 
the Barbie math quote because of girls who do not have someone to boost their
egos and may be unduly influenced by the doll.  Not every child is blessed
with parents who are as supportive as needed.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: my opinions only
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:56:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.214335.25648@news.nd.edu>
slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:

>Maybe it is because white men, as a group, do not have a strong 
>desire to move into fields which have been traditionally dominated 
>by women and/or minorities?

I'd like to get a job as a professional basketball player.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 16:21:11 EDT
From: Graydon <SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: I be Afraid that I agree with you....
Distribution: world
 <1992Oct7.102157.2600@mdcbbs.com>

Women are at a 'natural disadvantage' in *exactly* one aspect of
hand-to-hand - average upper body strength. ("Never wrestle with
a man").  Horrors.

Training (there are whole bunch of well developed martial arts that
assume that other guy is bigger and stronger than you are) can get
around this; hit someone hard enough in the right place and it doesn't
matter that it was _just_ hard enough.  (The idea of amazon units is
damned unlikely, too - Susie is going to spend much of her time slitting
throats of those who are trying to wrestle with Billy-Joe-Bob, given your
scenario.  That's about all.)

The *social* consequences of a bunch of women who can fight, for real,
are what the (innately conservative) military is trying to avoid.
It isn't going to work for much longer, unless we have a tech level
collapse.

Graydon

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: lwalsh@nemo (Laura L. Walsh)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 14:49:13 GMT

mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson) writes:

>Hmmm. This is an interesting comment.  Dolls made for boys are called
>"action figures" -- but on the other hand, even if you accept Barbie(tm)
>into the realm of action figures, there's still a terrible discrepancy
>between the boys & the girls. I was in KayBee toys not long ago and the 
>female action figures I could find were:

>Little Mermaid. (no comment)
>What's-her-name (April?) from TMNT. She's pretty lame (and is there any
>	particular reason she's haole now?....she was African-Am. in the
>	comix....)
>Storm. Well, Storm's cool -- she controls a primal force of nature & all.
>Wonder Woman (not in stock).

>And that's *it*.  I'm not saying the boy-toys they make are so great
>either ... I'm really disappointed in Lego for their new focus on guns 
>and good guys 'n' bad guys in their space Legos .... And the endless
>licensing [sp?] tie-ins have pretty much sucked all creativity from
>the toy industry. And *yet*, IMHO it's good for kids to have imaginary,
>powerful characters to identify with. Boys get this aplenty. Girls don't.
>______________________________________________________________________
>Mike Wasson  ---  U.Hawai'i, Manoa  --- Fat Messiah Games
>----------------------------------------------------------------------

My kids have been playing with some dolls just smaller than Skipper,
which are called "Playground Kids".  They come with a piece of play-
ground equipment and are soft-bodied, so they can ride horses, do
cartwheels, splits, and bridges (my kids are interested in gymnastics).
They can hold hands and "like" to perform tricks as a group.  But
our local Children's Palace just went out of business and I haven't
been able to get them anymore.  If anyone finds a store that has
some of these, I would like to get the name and address of it, so
I can get a few more.  In my opinion, they are definitely preferable
to Barbie.  
Laura Walsh (lwalsh@nemo.life.uiuc.edu)
Xref: sparky soc.women:17710 soc.men:17717 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:6859
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:30:45 GMT
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper

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

] In article <1992Oct8.175556.23357@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
] >You mean where people who own businesses that they built and risked
] >there savings on, hire whoever they like.  Are you saying that people
] >of all races and sexes are not equal?  Is it possible that white men
] >have a combination of genetics and upbringing that enables them to be
] >better at certain jobs?  
] 
] You know it, dude.  I hear it comes from the fact that black slaves
] were bred for their muscles and not their brains.  Therefore, we have
] black athletes and not black scientists.  Why, the unemployment
] figures among black men alone just prove how inferior their genetics
] are.  And President Bush just proves how superior those WASP genetics
] are.
] 


Now That is Funny.....


ciao
drieux

ps: personally I am INSULTED that the LoopLessOne is
listed as some proof that Insects have a genetic
superiority.....


-- 
Modern Day Problems:
In any case, don't give up, just type slower :-).
Chimo
Bob.
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 23:09:52 EDT
From: K. Roper <ROPERK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: I be Afraid that I agree with you....
Distribution: world
 <1992Oct7.102157.2600@mdcbbs.com> <92284.162111SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

In article <92284.162111SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Graydon
<SAUNDRSG@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>
>Women are at a 'natural disadvantage' in *exactly* one aspect of
>hand-to-hand - average upper body strength. ("Never wrestle with
>a man").  Horrors.
>
>Training (there are whole bunch of well developed martial arts that
>assume that other guy is bigger and stronger than you are) can get
>around this; hit someone hard enough in the right place and it doesn't
>matter that it was _just_ hard enough.  ....

   ... and then there's Aikido, where you don't really hit at all.
 The trick is to make your assessment of size differential
 *instinctive* so you can adjust the depth of motion accordingly.
 It's a good art for someone who can take advantage of a large
 difference in size between defender and attacker.  (Aikido's
 defensive.)  It's certainly appealing for small folks like me.

 The local sensei isn't much bigger than me, is somewhere in his
 mid- to late- sixties, and can see to it that you beat the snot
 out of yourself :>  (that's how Aikido works, after all)
 Sensei'd have a lot of fun with Graydon -- big guys are his
 favourite demonstration 'volunteers' :>

 I suspect Judo and Ju Jitsu have similar principals about size
 differentials (I have an uncle with a black belt in Ju Jitsu, who
 suggested that I take Judo (not Ju Jitsu) before Aikido.  We are
 similarly vertically challenged (*cough*), so I'll assume he knows
 what's he's talking about.)

 What was the question again?

 Kim