HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 23:31:56 GMT

In article <lwalsh.717967530@news.cso.uiuc.edu> 
lwalsh@nemo (Laura L. Walsh) writes:

> I never liked Barbies as a child and I didn't (don't) like the image.  

I remember that I liked my Barbie as a kid.  She wasn't the well-
dressed kind -- and true -- I sanded her tits off on the sidewalk one
day -- but I carried her around by her long blonde hair, many a day.
She worked on my 'ranch', she tip-toed (she can ONLY tip-toe)
through big mud puddles, she could sit on my bike handlebars, she
rode the dog..... Yeah, she was alright.  

While I'm hardly one to say this (having performed breast reduction
on my own Barbie) but I've never really understood those who condemn
her on the grounds of her body alone.  I mean, isn't that what we
want to try to get away from?  I think we should judge her for what
she DOES.  And what she does, is, I think, up to the kid who plays
with her.

Or at least, that's what I sometimes think.  

But somehow a talking Barbie changes that, IMO.   It's no longer up
to the kid what kind of person she is.  She just tells you what she's
like.  She finds math hard.  Oh...  I didn't know.  I thought she found
everything challenging and exciting -- like the way she took on GI Joe
last week and won....  Bummer.  Kinda takes the vigor out of her.
She becomes a sissy.  And that's sad.

rini
Xref: sparky soc.women:17169 soc.men:17088
From: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Capitalists
Date: 29 Sep 92 20:15:28 GMT
Reply-To: wrat@unisql.UUCP (wharfie)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: UniSQL, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA

In article <1992Sep29.162435.7473@news.nd.edu> slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>Capitalism.  I don't think women are the best known practitioners of 

	But certainly the oldest known.

Xref: sparky soc.women:17190 alt.child-support:3366 soc.men:17103 soc.couples:3845
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 05:48:14 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  <nyikos.718174651@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep30.034752.6607@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Ju
>
> >Does he consider IBM to be a "biased" source when it announces a new product
> >line?
>
> No, but I do consider it a biased source when it compares its computers
> to those of rival companies.

So then you shouldn't consider AGI as a biased source when presenting
statistics it's gathered, as long as it does no comparisons, right?

> >>In <1992Sep27.085848.166097@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm
> >>>--     The risk of death associated with childbirth is about 11
> >>>     times as high as that associated with abortion.
> >>
> >>That's officially reported figures.  In 1978, the Chicago Sun-Times
> >>did an expose in which it uncovered 12 previously unreported deaths
> >>due to abortion.
>
> >Gee, "Dr. Nyikos", I don't suppose you'd care to give us THE DATE THEY
> >PUBLISHED THIS EXPOSE, would you?  The month?  Anything beyond "1978"?
>
> It was a whole series of articles in the Fall of 1978.  That's as
> specific as my source, _Aborted Women, Silent No More_ gets.

Actually, it doesn't really matter whether that "expose" exists, is correct,
or whatever.  It was 14 years ago, and abortions were *not* as safe then as
they are today.  The "11 times safer" that I quoted is referring to more
modern medical procedures.

> You must have forgotten who you were talking to, doer-to-Peter's-body-
> Cochran.

What has Mr. Cochran done to Peter's body?  (I thought National Coming-Out
Day wasn't until the 11th.  :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
From: debra@creatures.cs.vt.edu (Debra Potts)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: WOMEN ARE NOT PAYED LESS THAN MEN
Date: 6 Oct 92 14:43:26 GMT

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)

	     Further, did anyone consider that the large number of women
	     in the work force are more likely to be employed in 9-5
	     or shift work-type jobs where strict adherence to "allowed"
	     or time-clocked hours is the norm.  Before getting my degree,
	     I worked often as a secretary, and in several places, despite
	     the fact that I was more than willing to go the extra mile to
	     try to keep the wheels turning smoothly, I would have actually
	     been _punished_ for staying late or coming in early or skipping
	     my lunch break--and especially for coming in on a weekend.  We
	     support workers had to get WRITTEN PERMISSION to come onto the
	     property anytime outside the hours of 9 and 5, even though the
	     doors were always open because the place was a luxury hotel.

	     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
Xref: sparky soc.women:17421 soc.men:17388
From: gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Date: 6 Oct 92 20:24:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Oct6.202425.22247
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle

In article <1992Oct6.184823.24444@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.214335.25648@news.nd.edu> slarsen@monet.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>I think AA has made reverse discrimination such that white men are seen
>as the bad guy.  If you're a poor unfortunate white, it's your own fault,
>even if a less qualified member of a represented group receives preferential
>treatment.  I think it only proliferates injustice to judge people by the
>group they belong to.  Once there was a dream that all were created equally,
>and that they would be judged by the content of their character and not the
>color of their skin.  I guess that dream has to be put on hold.

	I think this has always been put on hold, or, at least, it was always
lip service and never adhered to.

>Somehow, in sports, things seem to be balancing by themselves.  With the
>amount of money on the line, race has no place in sports, all players are
>the color of the jersey they wear.  If qualified minorities are overlooked
>in favor of less qualified white men, wouldn't those businesses be more
>likely to fail, be less profitable.

	Of course, it's often EASIER to measure superiority in the sports
world. You either get to the finish line first, or you don't; you either
gain 1,000 yards or you don't. Not quite so clear cut in the real world.

	And even in sports, you still have the Al Campanis's, until
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....



-- 
	"I got into theatre originally to pick up girls. Unfortunately, all I
found were women..."
e-mail:  gwangung@milton.u.washington.edu
Xref: sparky soc.women:17251 alt.feminism:1855
From: tjw@vms.cis.pitt.edu (TJ Wood)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 1 Oct 92 17:38:34 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <gthomas.717911648@unixg.ubc.ca>, gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:

> But realy, college educated individuals, some of whom, almost certainly,
> were female, had at some point, a meeting or probably several, to decide 
> the four phrases that "Teen Talk Barbie" (tm) would have as a repertoire.

> What do these women tell their daughters when they get home?

"Math class is hard!" ;-)

Terry
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: csulaima@titan.ucc.umass.edu (CYNTHIA R SULAIMAN)
Subject: International Prositution
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 17:12:02 GMT

I was wondering if anyone could recommend good books, articles,
and papers on the subject of international prositution.  Underground
or small press publications are very much welcomed.

Thank you,

Cynthia Sulaiman


Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 03:54:08 GMT

In <1992Sep29.203919.2777@zip.eecs.umich.edu> charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen) writes:

>I think this got posted elsewhere, but just in case:

>     According to the Wall Street Journal this morning, Mattel is selling
>     a product called "Teen Talk Barbie" which says 4 phrases.  One of the 
>     phrases is "Math class is hard".  I can't imagine a product better

Having studied some mathematics I can say that math *is* hard.  In my most
charitable frame of mind I suppose that for girls math *class* is hard.
What is her next line,  "Ken, why does the quadratic equation work?" or
"Ken, what is 'x'?".  Like Ken would know.  

But realy, college educated individuals, some of whom, almost certainly,
were female, had at some point, a meeting or probably several, to decide 
the four phrases that "Teen Talk Barbie" (tm) would have as a repertoire.

What do these women tell their daughters when they get home?

Guy
gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Perot and women
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:30:50 GMT

Laurie Mann writes:

>ljf writes
>>Did anyone else find Perot's comments about the two female NBC
>>reporters being too harsh on him, and that "they're trying to prove
>>their manhood" bizarre?

>Sadly, no. It's a common attitude among men who don't know better. 
>But Perot has that sort of attitude misogynistic attitude.  

Just for the sake of the argument, suppose that there really were two
female reporters who were being unusually harsh on Perot, and suppose
further that only female reporters showed this characteristic. If I
were in Perot's shoes I might conclude that these two reporters were 
trying to establish that they were just as tough, just as penetrating 
in their questioning as the men, by being even tougher than the men.
(it is often claimed that for women to be accepted as professional equals 
they must be better and often more aggressive than their male colleagues).

Now, if I were as politically unsophisticated as Perot, I might
call this behavior "...proving their manhood", a mistake neither Slick
Willie nor Boring Bush would commit.

Jeez folks, the guy is just an amateur, occasionally blurting out his
gut response, rather than always keeping his carefully constructed
facade in view for the public. Privately, I'd bet, Dan, Willie, and
George are chuckling; agreeing with Perot, but chuckling at his ineptitude
for saying so out loud. 

And, no, I'm not planning to vote for Perot; he'd make a good Ceasar, but
a lousy president. I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Tweedledum, or 
maybe Tweedledee.

Regards,
       H. Biesel


Newsgroups: soc.women
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: Calculus
Organization: TRW Financial Systems
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 11:24:45 GMT

bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>(questions value of calculus in college)
>
>(offers example of use of calculus in job, endorses its study ?)

Highschool teachers of Calculus are, or at least the curriculum itself is,
incompetent. Calculus can be taught to 8th graders.

The old saw about, if you can't do it, teach it.

No wonder we're behind Japan.

Calculus lives! You can't do serious science ('hard') without it, or at least
without understanding what it does for you. It's a language of nature.

-ecsd
self-taught calculus at age 16

way e.z., dudes.
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Victoria's Secret
Date: 30 Sep 92 15:48:47 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers (MPD) Austin, TX

In article <BvD9tw.8LB@mtholyoke.edu> kdyer@MtHolyoke.edu (Kristy K. Dyer) writes:
> A women who admits to her sexuality becomes
>"pornography".

Who is doing this labelling?  That is the important question.  Hint:  I don't
think it's men.

Daniel Welch
----
My girlfriend, she gets so uptight,
When I call her and tell her it's porno night.

	-- Limbomaniacs, "Porno"
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: swartz@fraser.sfu.ca (Norman Swartz)
Subject: Info wanted: MA and PhD programs
Keywords: philosophy, feminism, program
Organization: Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 05:06:19 GMT

Posted to: alt.feminism; soc.feminism; soc.women

To aid in advising students, I am trying to put together a small
database about post graduate programs in Philosophy and Women's
Studies (or Feminist Philosophy).  I would be pleased to have you
send me directly (at one of the email addresses below)
information you might have about such MA and PhD programs at
universities in Canada and the United States.  Which universities
have joint programs in philosophy and women's studies (or
feminist philosophy)?; which have programs in philosophy that
allow for a substantial component of (or concentration in)
women's studies (or feminist philosophy)?

Please understand that I am asking for information about the
existence of such programs, their location, their size, etc.  I
am NOT soliciting opinions about the quality of these programs.

Many thanks.
==========================================================================
Professor Norman Swartz   |  e-mail (via Internet): norman_swartz@sfu.ca
Department of Philosophy  |  e-mail (via Bitnet):   swartz@sfuvax
Simon Fraser University   |
Burnaby, B.C.             |  fax:                           (604)-291-4455
Canada V5A 1S6            |
==========================================================================


Xref: sparky soc.women:17411 soc.motss:41989 soc.misc:1010 soc.men:17378 soc.college.grad:1912 soc.college:4164 soc.bi:13448 sci.psychology:4031 rec.misc:249 alt.politics.homosexuality:6350 alt.personals:19924 misc.misc:3441
From: baba@Tymnet.com (Duane Hentrich)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.motss,soc.misc,soc.men,soc.college.grad,soc.college,soc.bi,sci.psychology,rec.misc,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.personals,misc.misc
Subject: Re: What adjectives do you think best describe romantic jealousy?
Date: 6 Oct 92 17:55:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: tymix.2612
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: BT North America, San Jose CA.

Can't we make a newsgroup like alt.help.me.with.my.schoolwork for this type
of crap. 13 news groups. Duh!

Or maybe alt.usenet.poll

-- 
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:17371 talk.abortion:40563
From: mprc@troi.cc.rochester.edu (M. Price)
Newsgroups: soc.women,talk.abortion
Subject: Re: ABSOLUTELY NEW REMEDY FOR CONTRACEPTION IS OFFERED !!
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:42:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: galileo.1992Oct5.174254.118
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


 Why would anyone want a remedy for contraception? Jeez, if you don't
want contraception, don't use it!

                                                            MP
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 2 Oct 92 05:06:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1ag6t9INNnhb@gap.caltech.edu>, Michal Leah Peri writes:

> OK, so math isn't fun for everyone.  How about Barbi saying
> "math can be fun"....

I would prefer "Math class is trivial", but I don't think a Barbie
like this would be too popular.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Support for young women in science
Followup-To: soc.women 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 92 19:02:57 GMT

I think this bears repeating...

In soc.women, larry8@ut-emx.uucp (Larry) writes:

>   With regard to the difficulties that females have pursuing
>   an interest in science, I am curious as to whether any of the
>   women on this group think of the idea of a newsgroup (or listserv)
>   targeting young women of, for example, high school age.  Of
course,
>   this presupposes that they would have access to an e-mail
>   account.  But if such access were available, do you think that it
>   would be helpful to young women to be able to discuss their
concerns
>   with either female college students studying science or women in
>   science/engineering jobs?

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... MISINTERPRETATION!
Date: 27 Sep 92 17:20:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bv8ytK.7v3

In article <1992Sep27.142543.22029@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> kcochran@nyx.cs.du.edu (Keith "Justified And Ancient" Cochran) writes:
>In article <1992Sep26.010732.2804@zooid.guild.org> Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org> writes:

>>I was referring to the fact that I just *knew* that people were going to
>>accuse my *thoughts* of being *actual violence*, as you seem to have done.

>No he hasn't.  You said something killing a woman if she showed you a lack
>of respect by having an abortion and not telling you about it.

>While some men will only THINK those thoughts, some men will ACT on those
>thoughts.
>
>And that seems to be a pretty good reason for throwing out every "spousal
>notiication" law in the book.


Some people think of shooting loan officers who inform them that
their credit rating was too bad for a loan or that the bank will
repossess the house in thirty days.

Should we now say that a loan officer doesn't have to inform you?
You have no right to know how anonymous people rate your credit
(or whether there were mistakes), or to take your belongings out
before the bank locks the house?

We could ban all guns, ban all cars, ban all conversation,
ban all information, if you like.  People have violent thoughts,
people describe their strong emotions using violent phrases,
and a few people use violence.  


>While some men will only THINK those thoughts, some men will ACT on those
>thoughts.

Perhaps we should ban all thoughts?

Or imprison feminists who suggest -- outspokenly -- murdering men?
(Perhaps we should ban their books?)



There are strong reasons besides "common decency" why a wife should
notify her husband of an abortion:  the man may have married in order
to have children.  The law, as currently implemented, enforces his
duties to her based on *her* possible intent to have children, so the
law is unequal as it stands.  As long as "the books" require husbands
to pay child support without choice or be divorce-able based on
sterility, wives should have to inform their husbands (except
in dangerous situations) of reproductive choices.

The "potential" for violence in some situations is not grounds
to maintain an unjust situation.

Hopefully this contradiction will be resolved in one direction
(+notification,+duties) or the other (-notification,-duties).

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: carroll@cs.uiuc.edu (Alan M. Carroll)
Subject: Re: a question for wives...
Organization: Technophiles Inc. - Engineers with Attitude
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 00:45:43 GMT

In article <92271.075732RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>, <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
> I am amazed - and then again, not amazed - at the responses that this
> query to `wives' has received.  There are a number of feminist responses,
> amounting to `why do you want to get married?'

You left out the key part, "...to someone who is not eager to marry
you". All the "feminist" responses I have seen indicated (and I
entirely agree) that getting married _just to be married_ is not a
particularly good thing to do. I'd also have to say that a
relationship that starts with cynical manipulation is not likely to be
a stable one.

-- 
Alan M. Carroll          "Weren't there yams involved, too?" - J. Ockerbloom
Epoch Development Team   
Urbana Il.               "I hate shopping with the reality-impaired" - Susan
Xref: sparky soc.women:17305 soc.men:17244
From: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Female "Wiring"
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:39:20 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Followup-To: soc.women
Organization: Climate Model Intercomparison Group, LLNL

In article <1992Oct2.101604.10769@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>In article <137606@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep29.155335.2585@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
>>> 
>>> Actually, a woman's eyelids become suffused with blood after a good orgasm.
>>>That's what eye shadow tries to simulate.
>>
>>This is the most *utterly* *ridiculous* thing I've seen posted here
>>today!  
>
>I thought it was funny.  I wonder how many people checked out their
>eyelids after having an orgasm.
>
>I'm still trying to figure out what a bad orgasm is...


Worse yet, I wonder how many male readers believed the original
post.  :) :) :)



Please note the three smiley's above.

                                                     Lisa


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  "There's no beginning, no ending. There's just infinite                    |
|   passion of life."                                                         |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Xref: sparky soc.women:17378 soc.motss:41873 soc.misc:1008 soc.men:17339 soc.college.grad:1904 soc.college:4142 soc.bi:13424 sci.psychology:4018 rec.misc:247 alt.politics.homosexuality:6348 alt.personals:19878 misc.misc:3427