HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Help! I need romantic ideas.
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:44:40 GMT
Reply-To: bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Organization: Zortech, Seattle

In article <1992Oct6.093649.2595@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
|   "I want my name in the press.  Why? Because I can make a lot         |
|    of money! I figure if I'm going through all this pain and           |
|                   suffering, I'm getting a Ferrari!"                   |
|     Amy Fisher, just prior to her plea bargain for attempted murder.   |

At least she has good taste in cars!
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,soc.couples
From: rdonahue@spdcc.com (Bob Donahue)
Subject: Re: Survey volunteer request: Romantic jealousy survey
Followup-To: misc.misc
Reply-To: baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: insert anything here
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:19:50 GMT

baltman@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Brian Altman) writes:

	"Hwelp me with my homework".

	Brian, you're homework is to find out who the news admin
is at Rochester and ask her/him "how do I correctly form
a header to a posting that lets me send to several groups but
redirecting all follow-ups and replies to me personally".

	Please don't post like this again (you've already done
this before) to 13 groups until you have read the manual and other
requisite documentation.  I'd tell you how to do
it here, but I feel that Rochester should take some of the responsibility
of your education since they are getting paid for it, not me.

	To anyone else about to hit the "f" key - *please* edit the
headers!  Most of the newsgroups listed do *not* appreciate cross-traffic
from unnecessary cross-posting!

	I'm directing replies to Brian, follow-ups to misc.misc since3
it's unclear which newsgroup Brian really intends follow-ups to go to.
(More likely he never considered that issue, or feels that
his homework is important enough to beon 13 groups at once.)
Apologies in advance to misc.misc folx.

BBC
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: DING! We have a New Winner....
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 23:30:26 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.102110.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

>  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.

The best men are usually much better than the best women.  The best
women are usually much better than the average man.

> 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.

What is "their fair share of medals and honor"?  Is it 51% because
women are 51% of the world's population?  What is the "fair share" for
blondes?  What is the "fair share" for men with bodyfat percentages
exceeding 30%?  Such men win no Olympic medals, yet they are a
reasonable fraction of the world's population.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Xref: sparky soc.women:17486 soc.men:17477 alt.feminism:2240
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Date: 8 Oct 1992 20:09:11 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

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

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

>Yes.  I'd also point out that role models are very important.  As long
>as our biased system continues to produce seven times more single-mothered 
>families than single-fathered families, and continues to put greater 
>pressure on men to leave the home, kids are not going to learn by seeing,
>either.  


You missed my point completely.  I said that kids should learn by
*doing*, not by *seeing*.  I don't think the gender of the primary
caretaker is nearly as important as whether the kid him/her/self
has the opportunity to do *hands-on* childcare of littler kids.

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: nina@ee.gatech.edu ()
Subject: Re: Help! I need romantic ideas.
Organization: georgia tech
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 18:35:09 GMT

In article <BRENNAN.92Oct11170154@yosemite.hal.com>, brennan@hal.com (Dave Brennan) writes:
> 
> 
> On another topic, I noticed that all the replies to the original posts were
> from men.  It'd be nice to hear from some women on this topic.
> 
My husband is very sensitive - but not necessarily romantic. I don't think
romance comes naturally - I think of it as a learned behavior. 

Most of the romantic things we do, I initiate - or plant a seed of an idea -
what is romantic to me is when he takes the idea and does something with it.

His sensitivity makes him romantic to me... he calls me at work
2-3x daily - he kisses me every morning and before we go to bed at night...
he tells me he loves me (and I know he means it, its not just words)
this is after 10 years of being together!

The whole thing is you have to do it because you want to. Not because you
think she expects it.  Surprise her with a love note on her pillow, 
run her a bubble bath and disappear for a little while, then ask her if she'd
like you to wash her back. There are all kinds of suggestions I can give
you:  tell her you'll take care of dinner and suggest she go rest/read, etc.;
I am assuming you live together - if that's the case, call her up and ask her 
out for a date.  No matter how long the relationship has been going on,
dating should always be a part of it.  And, as far as picking her up for the
date -- let her have some privacy to primp and dress and get ready
for the date - without you asking her "where are my socks, have you seen
my belt?" -- that way, the date doesn't get ruined before you even get out
the DOOR!!  The date should be significantly different than going out like
you would usually do... although it doesn't have to break your wallet.
I love to dance - and that's usually a very good date and doesn't require 
spending alot of money.  

Be creative... be sincere... being romantic doesn't mean putting on a big
production.  Think about your motives too... are you doing this to please
her?  

You can correspond to me via e-mail if you want some more ideas.  I am
getting too longwinded for the net.

Nina

From: Twila.Walker@f29.n130.z1.fidonet.org (Twila Walker)
Sender: FredGate@ocitor.fidonet
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Perot and women
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:47:58

I found it rather insulting... I couldn't belief he actually said that!  Good Lord!  Those women were reporters doing a job (and obviously a fairly good one if they rattled his cage)  I'm quite sure they don't feel the need to "prove their manhood".  Why on earth would any woman want to do that????  (groan!)

 * Origin: Mail Drop (1:130/29)
Xref: sparky soc.women:17768 soc.men:17770
From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 02:24:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.231511.18624@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.183741.8930@u.washington.edu>
>gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:

[.....]
>
>If the building I'm in catches fire, and I'm unconscious from smoke
>inhalation, I want a firefighter who is able to lift my 200-lb carcass
>and carry it quickly to safety.  I don't care if that firefighter is
>white, black, yellow, red, male, female, American, European, African,
>or Martian.  (Actually, I'd probably prefer a Martian who can teleport
>me to safety instantaneously :-)  Unfortunately, AA requires that the
>numbers of members of various groups hired be proportional to their
>numbers in the population at large, and therefore sometimes prevents
>the most qualified candidates from being hired.
>
[......]
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

If the human race depended entirely on the physical strength of its
individual members we would still be in the dark ages.  Modern
civilization is (besides all the bad things it is) also the triumph of
the puny human against the elements.  We should be able to accomplish
what needs to be without depending on the convenient availability of a
musclebound human.  It is my impression that modern firefighting
depends on equipment and training, and I would much rather have
someone with the best training, equipment, and thinking ability nearby.
Xref: sparky soc.women:17683 soc.men:17689
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Date: 13 Oct 92 21:44:34 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel) writes:
 
>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.

Hey!  Get your pox off me!  They're sticking in the taffy!

But seriously -- nope, no place for genetic endowment in 
public policy, IMO.  I thought that that's what the US constitution
was about (among other things)... "all men are created equal"... 

Of course it aint strictly true by any yardstick you use (height, 
weight, innate intelligence), but the point is that it's not the 
government's business to go deciding who's more fit and who's 
less on the basis of genes.

rini

Thank god for us taffyheads.
From: gt9911a@prism.gatech.EDU (MURUGANUKU AROARA)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Is Math Hard?
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:22:04 GMT
Organization: Somewhere near nowhere

In article <890091b.12.719260852@ace.acadiau.ca> 890091b@ace.acadiau.ca (HEIDI JILL BURKHOLDER) writes:
>
 I have been a silent reader of this group and thought I will share some of
my experiences pertinent to this topic. I am from India and I always found
girls to be much better than guys in math (atleast the schools I went). AS
a matter of fact two of my friends who did engineering with me had the best
background in mathematics. So I would say it is not fair to say that girls
are weak in math. There are lot of guys also weak in math. My brother used
to be scared of math till 8th grade, but them he changed and is doing his
BS in chemcial Engineering. I would say it is a very sexist and stupid comment
when one says girls are not good in math. Maybe lot of deficiencies might
be due to psychological. A parent might feel OK if their children does not
do well in math and the typical comment would be " you do not have aptitude
for it". But they won't do the same if it is English or some other subjects.
Math is very easy provided you are putting enough hours of work and there is
no question of apptitutde. Everyone is capable of doing it. 
******************************************************************************
SUNDARARAMAN VAIDYARAMAN               * *   IF MY MIND CAN CONCEIVE IT   
SCHOOL OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING         * *   AND MY HEART BELIEVES IT   
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY        * *   THEN I KNOW I CAN ACHIEVE IT       ATLANTA GA 30332                       * *                 -Rev Jesse Jackson  
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: I be Afraid that I agree with you....
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero)
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:21:55 PDT
Distribution: world
Organization: M&E (Division of EDS), Cypress CA

In article <1992Oct6.183511.9059@wetware.com>, drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
|> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:
|> ] In article <achmadsn.4.717752897@dhhalden.no> achmadsn@dhhalden.no (ACHMAD SUBHAN NASIR) writes:
|> ] 
|> ] Personally I find it rather ludicrous that one would judge one's equality
|> ] with others on the basis of their ability or inability to wield an M 16.
|> 
|> 
|> In a Word: Yes.
|> 
|> But given as it is Richard Lee's contention that this
|> is the DivineArbitorOfEquality, then I thought it 
|> useful to point out the viability of "Women on FullAuto"[1]
|> 
|> Personally I have always felt that the true arbitor was
|> who could hold the peremiter with M-60's on tripods,
|> and claymore's selectively positioned to provide enhanced
|> killing fields... 
|> 

  That's a nice ideal, and one which is promoted during the conscription of
troops, i.e. you just push a button and the bad guys fall down. However, 
the history of WW2 and Korea is replete with decisive battles which ended
as hand-to-hand combat with knives after the ammunition ran out. Patton
almost lost third army during his drive across Europe when his fuel ran out
just as he met a Panzer column. That battle was saved only because the 
Germans had more knives sticking out of them than the Americans did 
when it was all over.

  As was the unfortnate case during the recent Los Angeles insurrection,
when women go up against men in a non-munitioned fight, they get
very dead, very quickly. The women who fought for the Soviets
during WW2 suffered excessive losses in situations where the machinery
was no longer running.

  No military commander (certainly not one I want defending my country)
will put weaker soldiers into any situation which has any possability of
degrading into a hand-to-hand fight. 

  Women can make fine pilots and tank crews, but they are at a natural
disadvantage in a ground fight when the ammo runs out, the plane is shot down,
or the tank disabled.


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|   "I want my name in the press.  Why? Because I can make a lot         |
|    of money! I figure if I'm going through all this pain and           |
|                   suffering, I'm getting a Ferrari!"                   |
|                                                                        |
|     Amy Fisher, just prior to her plea bargain for attempted murder.   |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Xref: sparky soc.women:17638 alt.feminism:2483
From: noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 01:40:24 GMT

In article <3851@bcstec.ca.boeing.com> silverm@bcstec.ca.boeing.com (Jeff Silverman) writes:
>I called Mattel, as the daddy of a future Blue Angel, and asked them how my
>little girl is ever going to master the F-14 Tomcat if she's getting programmed
>in the 4th grade that Math Is Hard?  The P.R. twit at the other end of the line
>asked me if I was a computer expert, and then asked me if there is some kind
>of network of computer experts.  Evidently, we're making an impact on the 
>P.R. twits.

What's the number?  Let's all call!!!

Aaron L. Hoffmeyer
TR@CBNEA.ATT.COM 

P.S.  Talking Ken says, "I hate housework!"  "Let's get drunk and drive
around town!" and, of course "English class is hard!"
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,soc.singles
From: beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:57:34 GMT

In article <1athnuINNog2@gap.caltech.edu> peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>beaver@castor.cs.psu.edu (Don Beaver) writes:
>
>>If women have a "lock" on these jobs (a 90% rate of awarding child 
>>custody to women reflects this) and on the "educational slots" that 
>>permit them to stay at home if they choose, then should we implement 
>>affirmative action for men? 
>
>Unfortunately, there *aren't* such "educational slots".  People
>don't really learn how to parent.  Neither men nor women.  Most
>mothers (as well as fathers) often feel ill-equipped for the job.

You're right that there aren't really any educational programs 
(Home Ec is pretty negligible) for this purpose.


What I was referring to was the opportunity to learn by doing.
IMO, the reason why mothers often are or seem to be better parents
is because they had the chance to stay at home and learn the job.

Men tend to be prevented by work-constraints and social-constraints.
Even when they might want to learn, the expectation that they
are incompetent, tied with the volume of mistakes most parents make
at the start, may stop them from being persistent.


There seems to me also to be a kind of female "machismo" in that women
are expected to know how to raise children, so often they will "bluff"
their way through and refuse to give up.  Furthermore, because they might
feel nobody would accept their giving up, they "quietly" go through all 
the unadvertised mistakes that +everyone+ makes when learning to parent.

[This was one part of the famous/infamous Murphy Brown episode that
I admired: it gave voice to the possibility that a woman might not
know what to do, while a man might.  Namely, parenting is not an
inherently female subroutine.  It's too bad that it can be associated 
with the possible implication that +career+ women have somehow lost 
"inherent" skills.]

It's this "bluffing" your way through, being persistent in spite
of your mistakes, that is necessary to learning.


Men have neither the societal support, the career option, nor 
the biological opportunity (eg. recovery period after birth) to 
learn the job.  We need to increase societal pressure (positively,
not via complaints about "helping out," which is derogatory and
+detracts+ from the purpose)  on men to learn parenting and 
to increase their opportunity.

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


>Most parents are pretty unsure of themselves and are just trying 
>to get by taking it one day at a time.

Yes and no -- some parents feel unsure, most parents feel unsure at
some moments.  I feel pretty sure of myself (I had a lot of experience
with kids before becoming a parent).  It's just that being sure/unsure
is not, IMO, an inherent gender trait.

Don
-- 
beaver@cs.psu.edu                       Opinions from the PC-challenged
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: schultz@unixg.ubc.ca (Stewart Schultz)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:14:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.162411@IASTATE.EDU>
danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>
>   Oh for gods sake, could we please not make obvious math errors IN THIS
>THREAD?  If your data are correct the probability of getting a math-phobe
>barbie is...   ...mutter, mutter...
>
>          1-(0.99)*(0.98)*(0.97)*(0.96)  or about 9.65%

I hate to say this, Daniel, but you be wrong!

The correct answer is

     1-(99/100)*(98/99)*(97/98)*(96/97) = 1 - 96/100 = 0.04 = 1/25.

Now, let's give credit where credit is due, to Miriam Nadel and
Deborah Mazariti, two women, who got it right the first time !!


:-)  :-)

-S. Schultz
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:38:36 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.235033.10912@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.022429.5811@u.washington.edu>
>rons@hardy.u.washington.edu (Ronald Schoenberg) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.231511.18624@fid.morgan.com> sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct7.183741.8930@u.washington.edu>
>>>gwangung@byron.u.washington.edu (Roger Tang) writes:
>>
>>[.....]
>>>
>>>If the building I'm in catches fire, and I'm unconscious from smoke
>>>inhalation, I want a firefighter who is able to lift my 200-lb carcass
>>>and carry it quickly to safety.
>:
>:
>>  It is my impression that modern firefighting
>>depends on equipment and training, and I would much rather have
>>someone with the best training, equipment, and thinking ability nearby.
>
>It depends on both.  I want the most qualified person to be hired; I
>only gave the example of being able to carry a heavy victim as one
>form of qualification, because it happens to be relatively easy to
>test for.  AA says to hire people from group X, even if they're not as
>qualified as others.  I object to that.
>
>Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com

You deleted from my posting the paragraph relevant to that issue (that
seems a little unethical to me).  I tried to make the point that
proper equipment and training makes the requirement of having
musclebound firefighters, (not to mention musclebound anything else)
irrelevant. If there are any occupations that absolutely require a
musclebound man, then it is discrimination that has allowed society to
fail to develop the equipment to do the job right.  If simple muscles
were required to build a automobile then they wouldn't be built because the
musclebound man doesn't exist who can lift all the parts needed in
assembling an automobile.
   To make the point another way, if the planet contained only women
(a biological possibility since it was discovered that eggs can
fertilize eggs, i.e., sperm aren't necessary for reproduction), then
society would develop the equipment necessary to get people out of
burning buildings without musclebound men.  The fact that that
equipment may not have been developed at this point is due to the
discrimination that allows only male firefighters which relieves
society of having to do it right, i.e., they rely instead on a steady
supply of musclebound men.
Newsgroups: soc.women

In soc.women, ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic) writes:

    >sdp@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (sunil.d.patil) writes:
    >> To all those beautiful, loving and compassionate girls,

   >I have gone through hell-on-earth to disabuse myself of these notions.
   >There is nothing wrong with discussing attractiveness in public.
   >Everyone judges using many criteria. 

   >I want to meet beautiful women. What does this mean? How do you possibly
   >know in advance? What makes a woman beautiful? You don't ask this.

   >If someone does not think that you are attractive, they are a bad bet for
   >a relationship. As to suppressing speech regarding what everyone is aware
   >of, this I call the 'conspiracy of silence'. I do not agree with its
   >premises

I agree.  Especially since the men I consider good looking are seldom the
ones that other women do.  When I was in college it was even a dorm joke
about the fact that my list of 10 best looking men didn't include even one
guy that anyone else listed!  This does not bother the men on the other
lists and it sure is an advantage to the ones on mine.  BEAUTY IS IN THE
EYES OF THE BEHOLDER is true.  
In women, some men like the current thin look, some prefer more curves.
Some like the exotic look with dark eyes and hair and some prefer blonds.

Another point: in a room of 100 people, some would consider 2-3 beautiful
and some would consider 75 beautiful.  I fall more into the 95% preference
so "meeting beautiful girls" was not as limiting in my mind as it may have
been for some.
From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 15:13:57 GMT
Subject: Re: Help! I need romantic ideas.
Organization: HP Signal Analysis Division - Rohnert Park, CA