HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women

In article <stricher-090992110150@stayman.ocean.fsu.edu> stricher@masig.fsu.edu (Char Aznabul) writes:
>I'd like some feedback from women on this - would do you think of
>prenuptials?

When I married Bryan, he was $8,000 in debt and I had $10,000 savings.
During our marriage, my income was twice what his was.  We were married
2 1/2 years before he died and he left me more than $30,000 in debt.
Prenups would not have helped me in this case but it sure did open my
eyes about their necessity!  If the law required it as part of the
marriage license (fill in the blank form available at the office?), it
would take all the stigma away from asking for one.

I own my home and have retirement set aside and if Bryan had divorced me,
the courts would most assuredly made me pay him alimony -- if I am ever
optimistic enough to marry again, I plan to write something up.
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:01:39 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: women in engineering etc. + Bonus! Sexist Incident!
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, rspence@mpd.tandem.com (Russell Spence) writes:

>   	Almost all programmers I know have bad eyesight.  Many wear glasses,
>   	some wear contact lenses.
>   	Most programmers I know
>   	were not good athletes at school, particularly at the high school
>   	level.  Some had asthma or other health problems, some were "late
>   	bloomers" 

>   	My own
>   	theory is that guys become programmers or "engineering types"
>   	during highschool or early college and do so because they are 
>   	compensating for the lack of other talents that seem important at
>   	the time.

>   	And, how would this affect women going into
>   	programming, if at all?  (Or, maybe another way to phrase this question,
>   	what happened all the female nerds?  Are there women nerds, or did
>   	they go into some other field?).

Is it possible that your have the cause and effect backwards?  Kids who are
into athletics, kids who have lots of chores at home, kids with full social
lives, etc. can not devote the time required to becoming a whiz at hacking.
Those of us who went through our entire juniour high and high school years
without ever being invited to a party did have that time and are now engineers.
Those of us who are female were called "wall flowers", not "nerds" but we
are here too.

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,alt.politics.h
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 1992 21:48:09 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed

In  <1992Sep8.203314.1332@wetware.com>  drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
> Overseas GI Brats lived in a different world, and
> are DIFFERENT. And the sooner we accept that fact,
> and 'get over it' - the sooner we can get back to
> just living a normal life.....

Wait a minute - you're different than normal people?  I think it's going
to take me a while to get over the shock...

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:47:49 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
From: pw@panix.com (Paul Wallich)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:30:43 GMT
Organization: Trivializers R Us

In article <1992Sep8.163202.1289@speedy.aero.org> nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:
>In article <fknn_nr@lynx.unm.edu> bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician) writes:
>>In article <16858F49F.FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu> FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu writes:
>As for the "dominating nature" I do think that's to some extent true of
>engineering.  It's also true of pretty much everything else people do, though -
>it's our ability to manipulate our environment that distinguishes us from
>animals.  (Although some cats I've known are quite remarkable at being able
>to manipulate their environments by manipulating the humans around them!)
>
>There's a theory (and not one I agree with) that holds women as being
>more in touch with nature.  In that context, the connection to engineering
>as masculine seems clear.  The problem is that the theory is not particularly
>provable or disprovable, so is of questionable utility.  It's also clearly
>a relatively recent theory - industrial revolution or later.  In agricultural
>societies, it's clear that neither sex has a monopoly on manipulating
>nature.  

I think that the myth of the earth mother goes a little further back
than this; it's just the part about bondage and domination of the
earth mother that seems to start around the renaissance (see Evelyn
Fox Keller on Bacon in _Reflections on Gender & Science_) at which
point, btw, the female as nature gets transmogrified to wife/mistress,
which will make all the postFreudians in the audience happy.

>I do see that girls are often discouraged away from math.  I've heard many
>girls tell me that if they had trouble with math they were told it wasn't
>important.  It happens more the higher the education level, too.  A friend of
>mine from high school had a tough time with calculus in college.  Her advisor
>suggested she stay away from math classes, despite her desire to become
>a physician.  She eventually got discouraged enough that she majored in 
>English and went to law school (though she now works in publishing, not law, 
>but that's another matter).

I think that there's even a perverse pride for some women in being
no good at math, in much the same way that "cultured" people sometimes
take pride in scientific illiteracy. I know a woman economist, e.g.,
who used to do fancy currency trading (seriously numeric work) and now
juggles large disintegrating economic systems, who will pause and ask,
"So what's five percent of 80?" or some similar simple question.

paul
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Fun with probabilities
Date: 12 Sep 92 03:43:04 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <1992Sep11.092542.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>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.
>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?

Sorry, Michael, I don't. However...
stats & probabilities was a long time ago, but I tend to figure that
since the only 100% reliable birth control methods are sterilation (of
either partner) that having sex with a motos is wise only when both are
prepared to handle a possible pregnancy, either by having the baby or
an abortion.

I also figure that 2 or 3 methods is MUCH MUCH more reliable than 1.
Say, the pill, a sponge, and a condom???

-jen
Xref: sparky soc.women:16369 soc.men:16196
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Lioness method (monthly)
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 14 Sep 92 10:59:43 GMT
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

>>
>>>	When you have to walk into danger, take the knife out and put 
>>>it in the fluffed-out paper bag. Roll the bag around the handle, and
>>>carry it by that handle. If you're walking on ice, or anywhere where
>>>you might fall, DON'T carry it unsheathed, you can fall and sever
>>>your femoral artery, causing death. Leave the sheath on, but
>>>UNFASTENED. Slit the bottom of the bag so the sheath can be shaken
>>>off the blade and out of the bag.
>>>
>>   This is ludicrous. You would look _so_ suspicious doing this. If you got
>>stopped by the cops while doing this you would be sure to get a free ride
>>to the police station, photograph, and other fun, free stuff.
>>
>>>	If grabbed from the rear, DRIVE YOUR KNIFE INTO HIS LEG
>>>MUSCLES; that makes him unable to chase you, and marks him for police.
>>>
>>    But it is still in the sheath...
> 
> 
> And in Massachusetts, a double edged knife longer than 1 inch is an
> illegal weapon.
> 

  In California, ANY double edged knife is classed as a "dirk", and is
considered a fighting knife with no other real use. If caught carrying one,
the police will assume that you are looking for trouble, and indeed, there
was an altercation just a few weeks ago in North Hollywood where a girl and two
guys stabbed and killed two other guys. While it's been chalked up as just
another drug "turf" killing (small turf = no automatic weapons) the girl was
witnessed brandishing a dirk shortly before the attack. That has resulted in
the accusation that she may have initiated the entire assault.

  The fact remains that the entire threat of assault to women has been blown
totally out of proportion. Suggesting that wo,en carry open weapons creates a
situation where women will strike at a man without thinking, even if the man's
approach is totally innocent, such as (as happened to your truly) trying to
return a dropped wallet. 

  Mind you, I believe in self defense for all people, without preference
for gender. But trying to whip up a killing frenzy in women and suggesting
tactics and procedures which will more likely result in legal problems
than in actual safety is hardly the way to go.




<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:28:01 GMT

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

>Hopefully it is better these days but I will never forget my high school days
>(late 60s).  I had gotten a D in typing but an A in a pre-calculus math class.
>When signing up for my senior year, my counselor would not approve my card
>because I was not re-taking typing and was not signed up for book-keeping.
>I went over his head to the principal (recently promoted from the math dept.)
>with my father's signature on my card so I could take calculus and physics (I 
>ended up with an A in both).  My counselor had my dad sign a form that said 
>he understood that the school was not responsible for the fact that it was
>not providing me with career skills.  The counseling office later signed
>all the calculus students (except me - the only girl) up for testing out of
>1st semester college caculus and failed to send in my college applications.
>Luckily, I got into college anyway and majored in engineering math.  Although
>I was the only person from that high school class who had to take the 1st
>semester of calculus, I made quite a bit of money tutoring it so all was not
>lost.

Jeez, Vicky, I didn't realize it was really that bad back then, and I was
in school at roughly the same time. Of course, I had troubles of my own...

I guess every person that doesn't fit into the roles defined for them by
society is going to have hard going. 

Are things any better now, or are we simply changing the definitions of
the roles, so that now working women are the norm, but home-makers are
penalized?

BTW, you're right on target with your dating rules, but you need to add
a correcting factor for the 'glamor' of the work that a person does.
Engineers scores, for example, should be multiplied by 0.80, while those
of physicians should be multiplied by 1.25.

Regards,
       H. Biesel s.N.a.
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: EuStress Has Trouble With Words
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:00:52 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>Pregnancy incurs no responsibilities (for women) in most developed countries.

I don't know about *most* countries but in this one, unless the child is
given up for adoption, the mother has quite a few legal responsibilities.
The only substantial difference between the mother and father (in the
letter of the law, not it's application) is that the father is not allways
known.  The application of the rules is another matter.
From: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Women are inferior
Date: 8 Sep 92 23:43:46 GMT
Reply-To: cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center

In article <1992Sep5.203856.14581@cco.caltech.edu>, peri@cco.caltech.edu
(Michal Leah Peri) writes:
|>cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
|>>  
|>>Thank you for this reminder that all over the country, children are
|>>returning to college and introducing a whole new crop of freshmen
|>>into the GPA-killing world of usenet.
|>
|>Hey, wait a minute!!!  
|>There are lots of adults returning to college, too!
|>Mustn't engage in age-ism.	;-)	;-)	;-)

You, madam, are clearly a child pretending to post as an adult to
remind us that children are wiser than....ummmmmm, men, ummmmm,
no wait, you're a senior citizen casting aspersions on....

|>						--  Michal
           
                     -rocker
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu (Person in flux)
Subject: Re: Hating Men with Full Force
Reply-To: kls4344@ritvax.isc.rit.edu
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 15:21:49 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.115348.1@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>[deleted] There is also a certain tendancy for many 
>women to take what men do very much for granted. Many women used to complain
>about husbands who took their cooking for granted. It was always there with
>no problems, therefore "transparent". Likewise, many men are justifiably
>upset when their partners don't appreciate the effort men expend, not only in
>the extra 8 hours per week worked, but over keeping the cars running and fixing
>the appliances, re-roofing the home and other carpentry and plumbing, all to 
>save the household money.

Michael, you and I basically agree.  We're both, for obvious reasons, pushing
our own sex's viewpoints, but we both recognize the two-way street involved in
all this role playing, communication, and whatnot involved with male/female
relationships.  I know many many wonderful men who, in my perception, do more
for their households in terms of total involvement (wage-earning as well as
household chores and childcare) than their wives, and I ask them if they're
aware of the balance in their relationships.  They are, and they accept it.  I
admire that kind of attitude; I wish more people would strive to adopt it.  If
we all took the golden rule to heart and also tried to do more than our 50%
share of things, society would be a far better place.  

Katie
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: stevens@eatdust (John Stevens)
Subject: Re: Missed Opportunity....
Followup-To: alt.abortion.inequity
Organization: Not bloody likely.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 05:25:55 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.195336.1707@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
>
>ps: small clue - things that are not yet are not yet.
>their potential to become something is there, but they
>are not yet that which they might become. Thus the loss
>of that which is not yet is NOT the loss of the 'thing_in_itself'
>but the loss of the 'thing_in_its_potential_to_become.'

Correct.  Notice, however, that murder is not the loss of the
'thing_in_itself', but the loss of potential life.

On this basis, wouldn't abortion be a more heinous crime than murdering
a ninety year old?

John
stevens@uswest.com
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Re: Remote (Taxpayer) Wallets vs. the Ovarian Nurturer
Date: 15 Sep 92 14:04:25 GMT
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA

In soc.women, bobk@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

 >  in your own right against men. Some of us guys aren't model citizens. But
 >  as with many things, the negative gets all the attention and the majority
 >  good things get forgotten.

I realize that some men are fabulous.  However, according to Newsweek (I think
around May), only 25% of men pay their mandated child support every month.
"Majority" may not be an accurate description of the good guys.

 >  Aaron only spoke of paid support. But stop and think about the 'NCP'
 >  needing to pay for a home suitable for the kids to 'visit' in. I have 
 >  my kids for 120 days of each year. Since I have 3 kids (four with my
 >  step-daughter) and each are old enough, that means a house with rooms
 >  for each. Five bedrooms isn't cheap. I know it, my ex knows it. Don't
 >  you?

There are a lot of children in this world who do not have their own
bedrooms.  I am glad you are able to afford that for part time kids but
if is hardly required.  Also, 1/3 : 2/3 would be a version of joint custody.  
NCP means 0-20% of the time according to my sources.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Father Notification Reconsidered
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 23:39:42 GMT

In article <1992Sep11.050833.10852@microsoft.com> jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:

)I'd see nothing wrong with changing the law in this manner. Note
)There are some creatures called 'adults'. Part of my definition
)of these creatures is that they do what they say they will do.
)Hence if two adults made such an agreement, they could abide
)by it --- and the court be damned. If BOTH parties request the 
)same terms, wouldn't the court normally agree to that? (okay,
)my naive-ness is showing). 

Defining someone who always keeps his agreements as an 'adult' rather
than an exceptional person may be satisfying, but IMO *is* rather
naive and unrealistic.  (And a bit like Humpty Dumpty - saying that words
mean what he wants them to mean, no more, no less.)


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: bevans@carina.unm.edu (Mathemagician)
Subject: Re: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 92 11:14:43 GMT
Organization: Society for the Preservation of E. coli

In article <16858F49F.FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu> FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu writes:
>1. nature: women have different cognitive abilities than men and do not have mu
>           ch interest in men's pursuit of dominating nature. As most of the en
>           gineering is. More right brain with thicker connection between left
>           and right brain. (corpus colossum)

Question:  Why is the pursuit of science/engineering/mathematics
considered to be a non-creative act?  I am confused over the phrase,
"dominating nature," in reference to engineering and why it is called
"men's" pursuit (that is, I consider the pursuit of these things to be
without a gender, even if one gender is more predominant due to the
(debatable) reason of biology.)

I can see the point of view ("Maybe it's biological?"), but I don't
understand certain assumptions you have made.

>2.Nurture: women are discouraged , verbally or non verbally to pursue abstract
>           topics such as math, science and engineering. Feminist perspective.

Question:  Why is science/engineering considered abstract (math I can
easily see as being abstract, but I see nothing abstract about
designing a bridge)?

The main thesis is a valid one, but I am questioning some of your base
assumptions.

-- 
Brian Evans                |     "Bad mood, bad mood...Sure I'm in a bad mood!
bevans@carina.unm.edu      |      I haven't had sex...*EVER!*" -- Virgin Mary
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:00:29 GMT
Subject: Re: Women in engineering ( help ..)
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, nadel@attatash.aero.org (Miriam Nadel) writes:

> Certainly, the most common reason for
> women to keep out of several fields is inadequate math background.  

> I do see that girls are often discouraged away from math.  I've heard many
> girls tell me that if they had trouble with math they were told it wasn't
> important.  

Hopefully it is better these days but I will never forget my high school days
(late 60s).  I had gotten a D in typing but an A in a pre-calculus math class.
When signing up for my senior year, my counselor would not approve my card
because I was not re-taking typing and was not signed up for book-keeping.
I went over his head to the principal (recently promoted from the math dept.)
with my father's signature on my card so I could take calculus and physics (I 
ended up with an A in both).  My counselor had my dad sign a form that said 
he understood that the school was not responsible for the fact that it was
not providing me with career skills.  The counseling office later signed
all the calculus students (except me - the only girl) up for testing out of
1st semester college caculus and failed to send in my college applications.
Luckily, I got into college anyway and majored in engineering math.  Although
I was the only person from that high school class who had to take the 1st
semester of calculus, I made quite a bit of money tutoring it so all was not
lost.
Newsgroups: soc.women,sci.med
From: robin@ntmtv.UUCP (Robin Coutellier)
Subject: MAMMOGRAPHY CTR CLOSING - PICK UP YOUR MAMMOGRAMS
Originator: robin@volans
Reply-To: robin@ntmtv.UUCP (Robin Coutellier)
Organization: Northern Telecom Inc, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 19:38:27 GMT

NOTICE:  IF YOU HAVE HAD MAMMOGRAMS PERFORMED AT MID-PENINSULA MAMMOGRAPHY 
	 IN LOS ALTOS, CA, PLEASE CONTACT THEM AT (415) 941-9881  

I received a call last week from Mid-Peninsula Mammography in Los
Altos, CA to come in and pick up my mammograms from last year because
they are closing.  The reason they gave for closing is lack of business.

In any case, they mentioned that there are quite a few people they have
been unable to reach so far, so I thought I would post this on USENET to
try to reach some of the women who might not be contacted, including
women who may have moved out of state..  

If you are unable to reach them by phone, their address is:
 
                     Los Altos Medical Arts Center
                     851 Fremont Avenue, Suite 106
                     Los Altos, CA 94024

I am in no way affiliated with Mid-Peninsula Mammography.  



Robin Coutellier                   
Northern Telecom, Mountain View, CA
ames!ntmtv!robin   	          
ntmtv!robin@ames.arc.nasa.gov