HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:
 >I don't know what all the fuss is about, folks. I think Barbie is right.
 >Math class IS hard. And I should be in a position to know, I majored in math.
 >I had to really "bust ass" once I became an upperclassman.  If there
 >were any "easy math classes," you sure couldn't graduate in my major by
 >taking them.

If math was so hard for you why did you major in it?  Graduate level math
classes are a cinch compared to any history class for me so I did not major
in history -- in fact the only reason I don't have a secondary teaching
credential in California is their requirements of history and government.
I'll take set theory over Calif. government any day.
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:59:13 GMT
Subject: Re: types of "power"
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer) writes:
   >One of the things underlying many of the discussions here 
   >is that :

   >	Many women feel that they are usually judged as 
   >	having or not having worth based on their 
   >	attractiveness EVEN THOUGH their attractiveness 
   >	DOES NOT relate to the situation.

   >IE, that their worth to the company and/or ability to do a 
   >certain task (code, test, communicate, build, manage, etc) 
   >is being determined by their level of attractiveness to men.

I have found this to be exactly the opposite.  As a reasonably attractive
blue eyed blond, I have found people assume that I have no brains *because*
of my looks.  They feel that brains and beauty are opposites so how could
an attractive woman have any worth as an employee other than decorative?
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.discrimination
From: bickis@skmath3 (M. Bickis)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 00:13:28 GMT

In article <92289.151920RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> (Rohit Parikh) 
RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET writes:
(quoting) jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore)

>-Perhaps some are correct in saying that men are more inclined then women
>-at mathematics.  What good is that information, other than to use it to
>-discourage women from pursuing mathematics?

Rohit:>No, it CAN have another purpose.  Let us consider four groups:
>
>WM:  women with interest and ability for Math
>WN:  women lacking either interest or ability in Math
>MM:  men with interest and ability in Math
>MN:  men without either interest or ability in Math
>
>[ ... ] there is some tentative evidence that MM may be
>larger. This does not mean that members of WM are less able at Math
>than members of MM.  However, it DOES mean that we should lay off
>extreme forms of AA which may result in discouraging males from Math.

If we were to know the relative sizes of WM and MM, we would know what
kind of targets would be sensible for monitoring the success of AA.
(One must be careful, however, since such estimates are fraught with problems.)
Just for the sake of argument, suppose the ratio of WM/MM was 1:2. 
Then an AA program that increased the proportion of female math graduates
from 20% to 30% in four years should be considered to be very succesful.
However, a more naive view would disparage it as "not good enough",
since 30% is still a long way from the 50% implied by a WM/MM ratio of 1:1.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@math.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
From: dbl@godel.msri.org (Daniel Lieman)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: types of "power"
Date: 15 Oct 1992 17:23:26 GMT
Organization: Mathematical Sciences Research Institute, Berkeley
Reply-To: dbl@godel.msri.org (Daniel Lieman)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.188.59

I picked up this thread in the middle, and don't know if this has been
mentioned yet...but I strongly recommend that if you are going to discuss
issues like this, you read some of the work that's been done on the
power of language, power of beauty, etc... by Robin Lakoff.  She's not
the only expert, but just the first one that comes to mind.

Daniel
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:47:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Pheromones.
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, gpkatch@alcor.concordia.ca (Gary Katch) writes:

    A few years ago I saw a story on a human pheromone study.
    The experiment tested the effects of male scent (extract of
    armpit sweat, as I recall!) on females.  The women in the
    study group were not in relationships, and they received daily
    dabs of male scent on the upper lip.  The study group experienced
    more regular menstrual cycles, leading the researchers to
    believe that a man's presence could affect a woman's biology.

    Now, I have some questions for you:
      Have you heard of this study?
      Did I get the facts straight?
      What is the source of the article?

There was a study done a long time ago (early 70s?) where one woman's sweat
was given to several others.  After a fairly short period of time, all the
women had adjusted their cycle to correspond to the 'controller'.  I have
not heard of a study using a male scent.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 06:59:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.194728.17929@u.washington.edu> rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>Have businesses lost money because of white male affirmative action?  I
>believe so, but that doesn't seem to have forced anyone to do anything
>about it.

I've wondered about this, too (in some discussions with Libertarians).
This seems to be a given (i.e., that if you discriminate on the basis
of sex, color, sexual orientation, etc., your business will suffer),
but I haven't seen it.  For example, State Farm Insurance was recently
found guilty of discriminating against female agents (at least here in
California), yet except for the laws that make it illegal to do this,
it doesn't seem to have been affected.

My thoughts are that there are few unique individuals with a 100% fit
with a given job.  So, for any given job, there are something like 10
people who would be a decent fit and work out well.  If five of these
people are white hetero men, and the people doing the chosing are
white hetero men, the chances are that a white hetero man will be
chosen and he'll work out fine.  The business won't suffer and women,
lesbigays, and other minorities will continue not to be represented in
the business.

Xref: sparky soc.women:17448 soc.men:17418 alt.feminism:2176
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: NEWSGROUP PURITY
Summary: Post while you can, Monkey-Person!
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:19:11 GMT
Reply-To: tjw+@pitt.edu
Followup-To: alt.feminism
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <1992Oct6.233504.4542@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>,
bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) writes:

> In article <MUFFY.92Oct6072121@remarque.berkeley.edu>
muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

> )By the way, I notice that most of the articles on here are cross-posted
> )to soc.men and soc.women.  I could have sworn that one of the reasons I
> )heard for the creation of this group was to reduce the traffic about
> )"feminism" in soc.men.  Didn't work, I guess.

Oh no, it works far better than you realize, my Muffy-Jean!  Those who are
concerned about NEWSGROUP PURITY now have a built in "tag" to use in their
kill files.  When reading soc.real.men, anything crossposted to
alt.feministas, can be killed, since it probably has *something* to do with
feminism.  On the other hand, anyone reading alt.feminazis who doesn't want
to read about soc.evil.men can put an entry in their kill file, since the
posting must have *something* to do with myn!

Of course, everything crossposted to soc.womYn can be killed by both sets
of readers. ;-)

It's a win-win situation.

And think of all the postings that no longer have to be rejected by the
"moderators" of soc.feminism!  And of those people who's articles ARE
rejected don't get to grumble, for you can tell them to post their articles
here.

Those that want sifted postings get them -- those that want "raw" postings
get them.  What could be better than that?  Everybody comes up a happy
camper!

Well, almost everbody! ;-)  You are bound to find *somebody* who doesn't
like it if you look long and hard enough!


And now, as Monty Python says, for something completely different:

> Some people allege that soc.men was created to 'reduce the traffic' on
> soc.women.  (Called by different names back then).

> Seems to me we now have a new topic here for a FPAF (Frequently Posted
> Argumentitive Flame) i.e. - Why was [soc.men, soc.women, soc.feminism] and
> now, add [alt.feminism] created?

Yea, it seems some people are fixated on why a newsgroup was created and
what a failure the effort was.  But it's their life.  Let them spend it
they way they want.  I enjoy this group for what it has in it.  They can
enjoy the group for what it does not! ;-)

> The more things change, the more they stay the same.

That's a catchy phrase, Bronis!  Do you they had USENET in mind when they
coined it?!?


Terry ":-P for the humor impaired" Wood
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 22:03:00 GMT

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.

From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:17:12 GMT
Subject: Re: types of "power"
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	

	Hey Jen....  right on the mark...!

	-Mike- (the wannabe sex-ticket :-)


Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:10:51 GMT

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.  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.  My belief is that people's greed is much
stronger than their hatred.  AA may be taking the some of the teeth 
out of the hatred, but by drawing divisive lines, it is increasing
the amount of hatred.

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.

AA offers a crutch to people, an excuse for failure, assigns blame
unjustly.  EEO offers an avenue for people who are truly denied employment
because of race, color, gender, or other non-job related condition.
AA has nothing to do with that.  In fact it's the opposite.  You must
deny qualified people jobs for less qualified represented minorities.
AA has nothing to do with fairness, justice, or equality, just paybacks.
Only the ones being forced to payback, aren't the offenders; and those
who profit by the paybacks aren't the one's who were denied justice.

Scenario:

villain:   Mr. Badguy
victim:	   Ms. Wonderful
bystander: Mr. Unlucky
bystander: Ms. Lucky

Mr. Badguy steals a job from Ms. Wonderful because of unfair biases.
Mr. Unluck loses a job to Ms. Lucky because of AA.
Irony: Mr. Unlucky and Ms. Wonderful were the most qualified for the job.

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:53:30 GMT

mrf12@cus.cam.ac.uk (Marcus Frean) writes:

>In article <1992Oct12.181923.5528@javelin.sim.es.com> 
>biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
>>........Breeding and genetics have absolutely nothing to do with
>>determining individual abilities and preferences. They only affect
>>characteristics that are absolutely value neutral, like skin color,
>>Tay-Sachs disease, Rh factor, etc. To suggest that there may be any
>>genetic factor in ability, orientation, or aptitude is offensive.
>>There are simply no significant population differences between
>>different racial or ethnic groups, and anyone who doubts this is
>>a prejudiced bigot.

>Phew!  I dont know what the original argument is about here but...

>...it's not true that breeding and genetics have *nothing* to do with
>individual abilities and preferences. In fact I thought this was the
>whole idea of natural selection! - if you've got some individual
>ability and it helps you stay alive and raise hell (oops I mean
>babies), then that ability gets passed on through your offspring
>precisely because it *is* in your genes...

>Not surprisingly then, skin colour, etc etc... are *not* value neutral
>at all - dark pigments are great in the sun (eg. you dont get
>melanoma) and a hassle out of it (eg. you dont get vitamin D so
>easily). In principle why shouldn't (say) the tradeoffs between brains
>vs brawn shouldn't vary across populations?  Whether it actually does
>or not is another matter. Obviously racists latch onto this sort of
>thing with glee hoping it'll make them feel better about being full of
>hate, which unfortunately takes all the fun out of arguing about it...

I really should know better, yet I am still surprised how people will
take the most blatant sarcasm at face value. I suppose what I wrote is
all too close to what some actually believe.

For the record: obviously genetics affects every one of our cherished
characteristics, from skin color to the ability to get a joke. Anyone
who believes that genes control "...only value-neutral characteristics..." 
is playing with a short deck, since there is no such thing as a value-neutral 
characteristic. Yet there is no shortage of taffyheads who will espouse the 
notion that genetic endowment can and should be ignored  when discussing 
questions of public policy. A pox upon them.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Xref: sparky soc.women:17761 soc.men:17764
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: DING! We have a New Winner....
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 15 Oct 92 10:21:10 GMT
 <1992Oct14.165939.21419@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1992Oct15.062029.22154@wetware.com>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Oct15.062029.22154@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
> martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin) writes:
> ] 
> [ interesting point that there are two 'standards' for jump school.]
> 
> ] After jump school I was sent to Alaska.  I haven't ran across a female who
> ] would be able to deal being an infantryman in the Arctic environment.
> ] Carrying a 90+ pound rucksack plus weapon, ammo, and webgear, and moving
> ] through five feet of snow (on snowshoes) is definitely not the place for
> ] a woman.  
> 
> Missed the Ididerod Races Eh?


  Without wishing to seem like I am jumping fences, I do still have an
affection for facts, even if I get them screwed up occasonally. Fact 1 is that
the same adipose tissue that makes for such esthetically pleasing qualities
in the female also makes them less permeable to the cold. Second fact
is that the Ididerod Races are a test of dogsledding, and a woman's lighter
weight givs her an advantage, as she is not actually carrying the  90+ pound
rucksack plus weapon, ammo, and webgear referred to above. 

  The ideal way to end this particular debate is to compare mens versus women's 
track and field scores for the previous Olympics as a measure of absolute
best performance between the genders. There is a reason for most events to have
seperate men's and women's divisions, else the women would not get their
fair share of medals and honor.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  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                   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.women:17441 talk.abortion:41004
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABSOLUTELY NEW REMEDY FOR CONTRACEPTION IS OFFERED !!
From: mcbeanb@brandonu.ca
Date: 6 Oct 92 12:36:31 CST
Organization: Brandon University, Brandon, Manitoba, Canada

In article <92276.201021KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>, KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu (Kurt Ludwick) writes:
> In article <ABtgiogWZ1@sasco.georgia.su>, andro@sasco.georgia.su (Andrew
> Gachechiladze) says:
> 
>> Please, pay attention on this fact. It is multi use with
>>                       99,9 % GUARANTEE !!
> 
> Hey, I've heard of it!  It's called ABSTINENCE!

Doesn't anybody believe me?  Abstinence is *not* a very reliable form
of contraception for a sexually active couple to attempt to use.
Sure, some people can abstain for great lengths of time (virgins
everywhere do), but not *everybody* is reliable enough to adhere
to abstinence.  Jeepers.

Brian McBean  -  McBeanB@BrandonU.Ca
Xref: sparky soc.women:17630 alt.feminism:2474
From: mwasson@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Michael Wasson)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:05:58 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii

>>Girls are given toys (such as Barbie dolls) that involve appearances and social
>>interaction, rather than intellectual exercizing.  
>
>Actually, I think dolls, including Barbie, are generally good toys.  Yes, one
>way to play with them is to have a group of girls together dressing them up,
>but it is also possible to do what I did just as often as a child which is
>to use the dolls as actors in your stories.  There weren't a lot of kids my
[...]
>you do with a baby doll?  Barbie, though, could be a doctor, a race car
>driver, a spy, a pirate, etc..

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.

(Peculiar aside: There was an article on this in the NY Times some years
back. She-Ra was held up as an example of a powerful female hero
character. One person complained, however, that She-Ra just had magical
powers while He-Man had the *real* power, a sword. Gee, I dunno, but
I'd be *much* more scared of a powerful sorcerer than of some dumb
guy with a sword....)


>Of course, there is the time I cut open Bendable Posable Skipper's leg to
>see how the knee joint worked.  
I hope you didn't go on to med school ;-) "Let's just see how this knee
joint works here..."  "No, Doctor, no! ARRRRR!"

>Perhaps the issue is how you play with the toys, not what the toys are?
>
Yeah, but ....  we should be giving our kids toys that help rather than
hinder. I think if a kid makes their Barbie(tm) run the Iron Man it's
*despite* the propaganda ....

>Miriam Nadel

______________________________________________________________________
Mike Wasson  ---  U.Hawai'i, Manoa  --- Fat Messiah Games
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It was one of those movies in which a computer takes over the world
and you jolly well wish it would -- anything's better than the people"
 							Joanna Russ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Subject: Re: An Old Male Fantasy that needs to pass
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:29:50 GMT

martinjp@cs.washington.edu (John Martin) writes:

>When I was in jump school at Fort Benning, Ga...

[lots of stories about how women can't cut it in the military, deleted...]

>Perhaps women from other cultures may be successful in combat but I do
>not think American women have what it takes, physically and mentally 
>(emotionally?). Generally speaking of course :)

Now, John, I'm absolutely sure we could come up with at least as
many personal accounts of how men (generally speaking of course) 
make lousy parents.  Should we thereby conclude that American men
do not have what it takes to be good parents (physically, mentally
and emtionally)?  Perhaps then we should insist that mothers should
always be awarded custody then, because of these broad generalizations.
Does that sort of argument make sense to you?  

Personally, I find it very distasteful.

rini

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men