HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bo275@cleveland.freenet.edu (Larry R Beam)
Subject: The Beauty Myth: New frontiers for feminism
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:02:35 GMT



    The most  oppressive force  operating on  American women
these days is the  pursuit of beauty as  defined by our male
dominated culture. It makes  women hate themselves and their
bodies  for the  tiniest perceived  "imperfections." Dieting
makes  an   astonishing  proportion   women  sick--they  are
starving, and show  all the physical  and emotional symptoms
thereof.

    Having, through  the feminist movement,  thrown off some
of the oppression they suffered previously, today's American
women waste huge resources on  the phony products and of the
cosmetics industry.  Excessive dieting  makes some  women so
weak, and so impairs  their intellectual function, that they
can  not   compete  effectively  in   the  most  challenging
work-places.  Severe  diets subject  women  to significantly
increased risk of aneroxia and anorexia.

    The  pursuit of  "beauty"  leads many  women  to subject
themselves to  the violence  of plastic  surgery--all for an
empty promise of short-term  improvement in appearance. This
price of  this illusory  gain is  high, in  pain as  well as
money. Too often, as  exemplified by the current controversy
about   breast   implants,  the   long-term   cost  includes
catastrophic medical problems.

                   *  *  *  *  *  *

    All   the   above--and   much   more--is   argued   with
persuasive  detail in  a book  called  The Beauty  Myth: How
Images of  Beauty  are  Used Against  Women, by  Naiomi Wolf
(William Morrow  and Company;  1991; US$21.95;  348pp). This
apparently first  book from  a young  Rhodes Scholar  is the
best book-length feminism I've read in a decade, maybe two.

    Ms.  Wolf's book  has  strong emotion.  Every page--most
paragraphs--thunder  justifiable  fury. Ms.  Wolfe  does not
just report cold facts, in the manner of Science Magazine or
The New  York Times. The  book is a  powerful, visceral, and
winning polemic.

                      *  *  *  *  *  *

    The book  is having a  real effect on  public issues. On
the front page of  The New York Times  dated Sunday April 12
is the headline, "A Growing Movement Fights Diets Instead of
Fat."  This long  article refers  extensively to  Ms. Wolf's
book.

    I hope everyone with any interest ion feminism will read
The Beauty Myth.

 

 
---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Subject: The "Stereotypes" Subject
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:55:30 GMT

This is just a short notice from us moderators.  We're rejecting any
more articles on the subject of "Stereotypes are good/useful <-->
Stereotypes are bad/nonuseful" since it has gone around several times
now and participants are simply repeating themselves.

Note that not all the threads with the "stereotype" subject line are
being rejected; there are several that are addressing different
issues, and they are still acceptable for now.

Thank you,

--Cindy
one of the moderators

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Subject: Re: Divorce Stats
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:59:23 GMT


In article <1992Apr14.161342.8626@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>, mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
> Recently on the news I saw a statistic that surprised me.  It said
> that after a divorce, the average woman's standard of living decreases
> by over 70%, while a recently divorced male's standard of living
> increases by 46%.  Why would there be such a difference???
>
> Perhaps because more women stay at home than men, but a 70% decrease?
> And a 46% increase for men?  Amazing.  I think I'll go out and get
> married and divorced next week to increase my standard of living :-) .
>

  But you've missed a possible point. Look at it from prior to the divorce.
Was there something about marriage that raised a woman's standard of
living by 70% while lowering the man's by 46%? If so, than the divorce simply
"normalized" their lives back to the pre-marital state.



<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com Homo Cyberneticus-Computational Man  |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   I don't have anything against you...........but I wish I did!  :)    |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Marriage and well-being
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:47:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: ics.29EB44DB.13425

In <8206@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) writes:

>I have gotten pressure from my mother about getting married.  My
>girlfriend has gotten pressure from her mother about getting married.
>My father never put me under that kind of pressure when he was alive.
>Her father does not put her under that kind of pressure.  So, what's
>the deal?  My mother is not an idiot, and neither is hers.  If it's
>such a BAD deal for women and such a GOOD deal for men, why is this
>behavior still there, after 30 or 40 years of marriage?

Two thoughts here.  First, I'll say that I think you're
overgeneralizing a bit from your own experience -- neither of our
parents, for example, pressured us into getting married, and in fact
my husband initiated the whole notion of us getting married.  I'm sure
you can find examples of both men and women pressuring their sons and
daughters to get married, so I think that's a club that can be pretty
much dropped.

But anyway, there are women out there who enthusiastically endorse
marriage for their daughters, as you note.  Beyond the fact that there
must be individual marriages that work out well -- I'd throw in three
factors:

  * One is that individuals can be pretty well-conditioned to accept
    certain things, and indeed expect that that's the norm.

    For example, I'm often surprised by what it can take for some
    women to accept that a marriage is bad.  In fact, you have the
    additional factor that a woman will often blame herself for some
    problem in her marriage rather than blaming the marriage or the
    husband.

  * Two is that, by having her daughter do the same thing the mother
    did, the mother's choice in life is then validated.

    I think lots of people can identify with this.  It's kind of like
    parents making their kids become doctors, or the son following in
    his father's occupation.

  * When the daughter takes the mother's path, the mother can more
    readily identify with her daughter's life.

    And so can, eg, offer the sort of sympathy and positive
    reinforcement, even concrete advice, her daughter might need when
    something goes wrong.  I'm not saying that no mother can be
    supportive of a daughter that goes into some career that the
    mother has no inkling of, but it can be more difficult.

And I wouldn't classify this as any sort of evil female psychology,
just good old human nature at work.  Women are no more exempt from
    that than men
are.

Regards,
--Cindy
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: uunet!cos!tango!bob1@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Basic instinct
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:30:16 GMT


Joanne M. Karohl asked for opinions re the subject line film. She
commented that she found it offensive, while her male cohorts
enjoyed the film. After watching a weeklong series of interviews
with the film's principals, I concluded that there would be no
point in seeing this film. It seems to provide considerable
bare skin for the sake of bare skin, and Mike Douglas' rear
end does little for me. :-(.

What might appeal to men is the idea of an attractive woman being the
aggressor toward the man, seduction by an attractive woman is
extremely flattering :-). However, the woman in this case is
not exactly the girl to take home to meet mother, from what
I heard and saw in the clips.

Which leads into a post by Richard Foy about a week ago. He
commented that men are *more* affected by visual stimuli. I
note that he said *more*, implying that women are also
visually stimulated, but to a lesser degree. I believe this
to be true, but would leave it to the ladies to comment on
the degree. Richard also mentioned *male conditioning* which
probably has more to do with response to visual stimuli than
anything else.

Joanne did not say exactly what offended her. Was it the fact
that in both this film and the one with Glen Close that the
women were both portrayed as *Black Widows* , i.e., in that
making love with either proved darn near fatal.

I suppose that is why I have no interest in viewing Basic
Instinct, this constant coupling of sex with violence is
getting really old. Maybe I'm getting old, but somehow I
fail to see any possible association. Please don't respond
with *what about rape* since rape has nothing whatsoever
to do with sex, only with violence and the desire to degrade.

There is one way to get the film industry changed - don't
go to such films - money only convinces them that they are
right and are giving us what we want.
 Comments?

REB

Usual guff.


---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: kath@geriatrix.cs.uoregon.edu (kathleen freeman)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Fem. for Life
Date: 17 Apr 1992 16:50:07 GMT
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In article <92106.152808DCW112@psuvm.psu.edu> DCW112@psuvm.psu.EDU (dave wilson) writes:
> I was wondering if any had information about the group called
>"Feminists for Life".  I would greatly apprietiate anyone who does
>emailing me that information.
>
>[Please post the information to soc.feminism as well.  Thanks.  --CTM]
>
Feminists for Life is a pro-woman pro-life organization.
The feminist part is they support equal opportunity and equal
protection under the law for women, i.e., "mainstream" feminism
minus the abortion rights agenda.  The pro-life part means they
are anti-abortion, anti-capital punishment, anti-euthanasia,
etc., i.e., support a consistent life ethic.  From the statement of
purpose:  "As seekers of peace and equality and protectors of
life, we pursue constructive, non-violent solutions to human
problems.  Since feminism rests upon the principles of justice,
non-violence, and non-discrimination, abortion and other forms of
institutionalized killing are inconsistent with these founding
principles.  We seek to identify and correct those practices
which exploit women and children and deny them their true
equality.  As feminist women and men, we must be consistent in
our demand for human rights."
FFL is a secular organization.  It is a national organization,
though many states have state chapters.  The national
organization can be reached at
811 E 47th Street
Kansas City, Missouri  64110
816-753-2130.

Hope this helps,
Kathleen




-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: Reverence take two (& three)
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:01:19 GMT



In article <sa0p3INNrgv@agate.berkeley.edu> Mikelis Bickis <BICKIS@sask.usask.ca> writes:
>Lenore Levine <<levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu>> writes:

>> To be more specific. Does your woman-revering worldview involve giving
>> reverence to a murderess, or a vicious, manipulative social predator?
[...]

>You misunderstand the nature of this worldview.  The reverence is for 
>women as a class.  It is not an attitude that individual women [...]
>[..] It would be improper, for example, to exploit 
>her sexually, regardless of how low her esteem might be as a person.

If I understand you correctly, what you're saying here is that you don't
feel that you can exploit any woman sexually because you revere women as
a group.  Now, since you do not similarly revere men, does that mean
that you feel that you *could* exploit them sexually?

More generally, what things *can* you do to men, as a class, that you
can't do to women, as a class, because you revere them?

Isn't this the very attitude that men object to in some feminists, such
as the woman who recently posted that the murderer of a woman *must*
have been a man, because "a woman wouldn't do that"?

Muffy
--

Muffy Barkocy                             muffy@mica.berkeley.edu
~Little round planet/in a big universe/sometimes it looks blessed/
 sometimes it looks cursed/Depends on what you look at, obviously/
 But even more it depends on the way that you see~ - Bruce Cockburn

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: Mobilization for Survival <mobenat@igc.org>
Subject: Sisters in Stuggle Conf.
Status: RO
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 16:12:59 GMT


                   SISTERS IN STRUGGLE
              Women's Alliances for Change
   A Multi-cultural, Multi-national Women's Conference

Saturday, May 2, 1992
8:30 am- 6 pm

Barnard Hall, Barnard College
3009 Broadway (at 116th St.)
New York, New York

Registration fee $25 (sliding scale)
Cultural Evening  8 pm

For more information or to register: 
Women's Conference/UPWA, PO Box 3487, Church St. Sta.,
New York, NY 10008-3487
Phone: (212)385-2222  Fax: (212)927-7326

Panels on
  Colonialism, Feminism & National Liberation
  Socio-political Context of Violence Agt. Women
  Women's Health & Reproductive Rights
  Women and Labor Organizing
  Women & Development
  Politics of Identity & the "New World Order"

Sponsored by Nat'l Mobilization for Survival, Barnard
College Dept. of Women's Studies, Columbia University
Inst. for Research on Women and Gender, Middle East
Solidarity Alliance, Union of Palestinian Women's
Associations in North America.

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: ae1c@dlrvms.go.dlr.de
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: working mothers
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:32:33 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.scd31INN4bh
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com) writes:
>On a related point, I recall seeing figures
>showing that most mothers of preschool children do not work full-time,
>and that most of the mothers who do say they would prefer not to.  If
>I'm right, the traditional family is not as dead as you say.

Funny - I remember reading surveys saying just the opposite.
Nonetheless the "traditional, nuclear fmaily" is dying, if not dead
yet.  In addition there is an enormous problem of context in such a
loaded question as "whether working mothers wouldn't rather be home."
You had best understand the context fully and its effect on the
statistics before blithely repeating such.  Most mothers would
probably be at home with the kids instead of sitting and typing
letters for a cranky boss all day.  Most *fathers* would probably
rather be at home with the kids instead of sorting mail all day in the
mailroom.  The answers to such questions depends on who you ask, what
their jobs are, *when* you ask them (on a bad day at work or a good
day? when their kids are sick or when they are well?) and *how* you
ask them.  

Plus, in the case of women, you have to correlate their view of
societal expectation (your favorite phrase) with their answer.  That
is, if a woman believes that society expects that "a good mother"
should stay home with her children (or at least want to), then she is
much more likely to answer that she would rather stay home, even if
she really likes her job and is happy to have that stimulus in her
life.  I've also read where women who work believe that they are
better mothers for it -- that they have much more patience with their
kids since they are not forced to be with them 100% of the time; that
they make a better role model because they are independent, confident,
functioning humans.

On a related point, I think you should come to live in Germany - you'd
be happier here. The "traditional family" with mom at home (and not
just during pre-school years) is the overwhelming rule here still.
And the woman's movement is at least 30 years behind that in the US
(and in many other European countries) and so you wouldn't feel
threatened by all us bra-burners until you're ready to retire and
maybe not even then.  

Cate "ae1c@dlrvms.go.dlr.de"


-- 
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Subject: Re: Gender and Gender Roles (was Re: Perpetuating Stereotypes)
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:30:09 GMT


I enjoyed reading Celeste's thoughtful article on gender and gender
roles.

Just one point. Three of the problems she describes as being part of
the female role: (1) makeup, (2) panty hose, and (3) high heels, are 
essentially
cultural transients. I suspect there is going to be much, much less
social compulsion for any of these three 20 years from now then there
is today -- and in most circles (3) is a dead duck even now.
(The women I know whose jobs require them to wear the full awful
business drag seem to find it OK to wear flats with it.)

As it is there are many women, such as myself, that mostly avoid
all three.

Also, let me make the point that the thing that makes all three of
these devices horrors from hell is their compulsory or semi-compulsory
nature. (I.e., I am wasting as much time on the net as another person
might *enjoy* wasting on makeup.)

...And that one of the bad things about compulsory appearance fascism
is that it tends to take the fun out of the interest in appearance
one might have for one's own pleasure.

One of the things I like about the Bay Area is the substantial minority
of people who are interested in creating nonstandard, noncompulsory
personal styles. Ah, the stores, the stores! :-) :-) :-)
  
(Of course there's always the other problem -- that actually being a
graduate student in mathematics and having to write a thesis takes
a little of the fun out of doing math. But *that* problem can't be
helped.)  

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: VNASMAN@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.MIL (Tori)
Subject: wimmin in gov.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 7 Apr 92 18:36:08 GMT

Speaking of professionally challenged (we were, once), here's yet
another mere anecdote, courtesy of the the _Federal Employee's News
Digest_:

"The US Marshals Service failed to pay a female branch chief the same
salary it was paying to several men performing "substantially equal
work" and thus violated the Equal Pay Act, the US Claims Court has
ruled.  It ordered a retroactive promotion with back pay and other
monetary awards to the woman, who was graded a GS-13 while male
colleagues were graded GS-14s.  The court found the agency violated
the law when it denied her requests for promotion to the higher level.
It noted her position required substantially the same "skill, effort,
and responsibility" as the jobs held by the three males.  The court
rejected the agency's defense that she wasn't promoted because she did
not "forge effective working relationships" with her supervisors.
There was no record that her supervisors ever raised the work
relationships as an issue until the court case arose, the court noted,
and that she received outstanding job performance ratings at the time
(Ellison v. United States, 663-88C, March 13, 1992)."

Effective working relationships ... effective for whom?  If women
passively accept this sort of treatment, they lose.  If they fight for
better treatment, they may (almost certainly will) be accused of "not
getting along well" with people (supervisors).  It's nice to know
there's still at least one U.S.  courtroom where Ellison could get a
fair shake.

Tori


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: kardaras@en.ecn.purdue.edu (George S Kardaras)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: A request
Date: 12 Apr 92 03:40:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: en.1992Apr12.034029.18815
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network


Hello,

My brother is planning to come to the US to study 
Economics as an undergraduate and he asked me  to
find out which Achievement Tests he should take. 

Personally, I have no idea and I hope there will
be a good soul to help me out.

Thanking you in advance,
George S. Kardaras