HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lwalsh@nemo (Laura L. Walsh)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 1 Oct 92 19:25:30 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.lwalsh.717967530
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

oneil@cwis.unomaha.edu (Sharon O'Neil) writes:
>dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:

>But it reinforces the idea that math is hard for girls.  If Barbie thinks
>it is hard -- and she's supposed to be grown up, what with those measurements
>and all -- why should they work any harder?  And why should they think it's
>fun, especially if Barbie doesn't think it's fun.  We're not talking about
>adults here.  We're talking about eight year old girls.  

And even younger.  My kids liked them when they were 4 and 6.

>I think I'd probably not buy the Barbie doll for my daughter, if I had
>children.  I'd probably explain to her why I wouldn't buy that particular
>doll for her.  Of course, I have this feeling, if/when I do get married
>and have kids, they're going to have an awfully weird mom to look up to,
>what with my penchant for all these non-feminine hobbies, like computers.

>>In article <1992Sep29.203919.2777@zip.eecs.umich.edu> charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen) writes:
>>Then again, having said all that, I still wouldn't buy a Barbie for my
>>(at the present fictional, or maybe theoretical) daughter.

Before I had daughters, I thought this too.  I never liked Barbies as
a child and I didn't (don't) like the image.  But I did buy my daughters
Barbies, after their friends and their grandmother had given them
Barbies.  I still haven't figured out the appeal.  The doll is hard to
dress and doesn't bend enough to do much with.  90% of all used Barbie
dolls are found naked with some body appendage missing.  Why did I
buy the dolls?  Probably so that they could find out for themselves
that they aren't that good of a toy.  The dolls they really enjoy
playing with are called Playground Kids.  They each come with a piece 
of playground equipment and are definitely designed to be active.  And
they don't spout nonsense about math being hard.  But, then again,
I think talking dolls are nonsense anyway.  As Anne of Green Gables
would say, "They leave no scope for the imagination."
Laura Walsh
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: gardwt@ducvax.auburn.edu
Subject: <None>
Organization: Auburn University, AL
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:59:16 GMT
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: correction to <none>
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 30 Sep 92 09:58:12 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: eschner

In article <1992Sep29.154324.2583@mdcbbs.com>, rivero@mdcbbs.com (Michael Rivero) writes:
> 
>   Last Thursday, a story broke about a 5 year old girl, Marticia Gantler,
> who had vanished from the Fox Hills shopping center in Culver City.
> 
> 

CORRECTION.


  Okay, there's been a followup. The radio news had erroneously reported that
the couple spotted by the security guard had been arrested when in fact it was
the two women who were arrested. The confusion stemmed from the fact that
the women were arrested at the same time the report came in from the Kentucky
Fried chicken guard that the girl had been spotted. Apparently, they were able
to provide identification that the little girl was really theirs and
were released just as the two women were being arrested, hence the
confusion in the initial radio report. 


<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|  Michael Rivero rivero@mdcbbs.com  "Middle-aged Mutant Ninja Animator" |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|                       I CAME,  I SAW,  I DIVORCED                      |
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Reply-To: danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock)
Organization: Iowa State University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 21:24:11 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.224430.6183@speedy.aero.org>, nadel@attatash.aero.org
(Miriam Nadel) writes:
> >In article <1992Sep29.203919.2777@zip.eecs.umich.edu>
charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen) writes:
>>
>>	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".
> 
>One minor clarification (that still doesn't make it okay).  My understanding
>is that each individual doll says 4 phrases but that there are actually about
>100 different phrases used.  I assume you only have a 1 in 25 chance of
getting
>Math Phobic Barbie.  Mattel is justifying themselves by noting that another 
>phrase available is "I want to be a doctor."  I don't know if they assigned 
>individual phrases or always grouped the same 4 phrases together so I don't 
>know if you can get a Barbie who wants to be a doctor but won't get into med 
>school because she won't get through calculus.
> 
> Miriam Nadel

   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%

Also, the story I read says there are 250 phrases which improves the odds to...
...um, er...

    1-(249/250*(248/250)*(247/250)*(246/250) or roughly 3.94%

so you two errors almost cancel out to leave you off by only 0.06%.  
Luck-key!

Dan
Danwell@IASTATE.EDU

PS:   :-)
From: Laurie Mann
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Statistics  (Re: The Politics Of Appeasement)
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:48:18 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com
Distribution: usa

Rich Whalen writes
>In article <1992Sep29.011341.2517@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>How much funding is there for penile cancer, testicular cancer, prostate
>cancer?  One hears so little about these things that it's easy to conclude
>that there is none.

There has been an awful lot of talk about prostate cancer over the last
fifteen years or so.  At least, I've heard a lot about it and I'm not a
man or a doctor.  It does strike many men, though I don't have the
statistics handy. 

>|>Nearly one in four American women will come down with breast cancer in
>|>her lifetime.  This could be your mother, sister, daughter, or wife.
>The current statistic used by the American Cancer Society is 1 out of 8 women
>will have breast cancer in her lifetime.  One of the significant reasons for
>the increasing numbers is the increase in lifespans.

I have to agree with Rich on this stat.  I've heard 1 in 10 or 1
in 8, never 1 in 5.  The issue of "increasing numbers"
also applies to most forms of cancer, including prostate and breast cancer.
Cancer still receives the highest level of government funding (we're
talking care and research here) of any disease.  AIDS is now second, and
I think heart disease is third.  

*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Vote to can George and Dan! **  Vote for CHANGE in 1992!****
***** "Hollywood still doesn't get it." Dan Quayle, 9/21/92 *****
* "No Dan, YOU still don't get it."  American Voters, Fall 1992 *
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.discrimination
From: jrmo@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (joseph.r.moore)
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:22:45 GMT

So why not beat a dead horse?

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?  Can we really say that all
or most of the gene's that predispose someone to mathematical aptitude
are only found on the 'Y' chromosome?   I don't see where gender fits 
into the equation, if you have math aptitude, it should be encouraged,
regardless of gender.

Some say that unequal numbers between the genders is a sign of discrimination.
Can we really say that none of the gene's that predispose someone to 
mathematical aptitude are found on the 'Y' chromosome?

Joe Moore
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men,alt.feminism
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Affirmative Action (Re: The Politics Of Appeasement)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:35:04 GMT

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.

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

Xref: sparky soc.women:17151 soc.men:17068
From: slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:28:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: OUC, University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Sep29.134757.13387@mr.med.ge.com> larry@ducktales.med.ge.com (Larry Landwehr) writes:
>In article <1992Sep29.011341.2517@leland.Stanford.EDU>,
>    farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
> 
>> Something like 40,000 American women die each year from breast cancer.
>.
>.
>.
> 
>1) Women's issues get more than their fair share of media and money.
> 
>2) It is illogical to allocate a disproportionate share of resources to
>   groups who need it the least. I feel the same way about giving all old 
>   people free medical care while many kids do without. I expect to get
>   old some day.
> 
>3) You missed the main point of the paper which is "the politics of
>   appeasement".

Mmmmm.  I was under the impression that the politics of a democratic 
society involved appeasing the majority.  Last I heard, women comprised
the majority of the population.  Can the majority rightfully be described 
as a special interest group?  Nope, don't think so.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu
From: clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 1 Oct 92 18:18:05 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <1992Oct1.165449.6739@news.nd.edu>, Susan Larsen writes:

> Football is hard.

Nope; even the nerdy kids in my neighborhood (like myself) played
football.  I was, however, the only one in my neighborhood to ever learn
calculus.

> Playing chess is hard.  Learning programming is hard.  But, what
> toy company would market a Ken doll or a Joe doll that would make
> these statements?

Ken and Joe don't program or play chess, since it isn't "cool".

> Yes, math class is hard.  But it is equally true that math class
> is fun.

For you and me, but for the vast majority of people of both sexes
this simply isn't true.  The statement Barbie is making may not
reflect the world as we wish it were, but it does reflect the
world as it is.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Amy Fischer: The Circus Continues
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 16:48:12 GMT

rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep24.093343.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>>  
>>>  If convicted for statutory rape, Joey will go to jail for far longer
>>>than just 3 years.
>> 
>> Really?  What is the minimum sentence for statutory rape in NY?  Three plus 
>> years seems like an awfully long minimum sentence for something that is so
>> rarely prosecuted at all.
>> 
>> Just wondering.
>-- 
>  The "rarely prosecuted" is not accurate. 

Well, it sure is in my experience.  As a teenager under 18, it was
not unusual for me to have sex with men over 18....  a good bit over
18.  No one ever prosecuted any one for this.  Heck, one of these men
was a cop.

Most of the men and women I know have done similarly.  (Note that laws vary
from state to state, so in some cases, it was legal, while in others, it
was not.)

I think it is a dumb law, statutory "rape", and I think in most circumstances
(consenting lovers) most people agree.  This is probably why it rarely
prosecuted, IMO.  A similar case with sodomy, I think...

Do you know, btw, what the minimum sentence is in NY for statutory rape?
Like I said, three years seems like a very long time for what is, IMO,
a rarely prosecuted (and inherently silly) law. 

rini
From: mikep@hpmwtd.sr.hp.com (Mike Powell)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 04:12:42 GMT
Subject: Re: Statistics  (Re: The Politics Of Appeasement)
Organization: HP Santa Rosa Site (SRSD MWTD)
Newsgroups: soc.women

	
	I thought I read that testicular cancer occurrs in men
	about as often as breast cancer occurrs in women.... and that
	it is just as fatal.

	The surprising thing about this would be (if it is true) that
	one rarely if _ever_ sees tv, magazine, or newspaper ads/stories
	concerning testicular cancer...  it's always "breast cancer,
	breast cancer, breast cancer...." every time I turn a
	corner... "breast cancer!"  Hey, let's get serious about
	breast cancer...  let's put an end to it.  And hey, while
	were at it... maybe we can divert a few dollars to the
	problem of testicular cancer, educating men to this potential
	hazard and giving the best chance of catching and living
	through this disease....  living the life they deserve, happily
	ever after....


	NAAAHH!!!  let 'em die.

	Perhaps this was the point of the original poster (in part).

	No?


	-Mike-
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Monday, 28 Sep 1992 01:50:45 EDT
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Support for young women in science
 <1992Sep26.230535.21410@leland.Stanford.EDU> <92271.144433RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
 <1992Sep27.205547.12947@midway.uchicago.edu>

-From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
-
   She quotes me as follows:
-But then he goes on to say:
-
->         In many universities these days, I understand that black students
->    tend to sit with other black students in the cafetaria and white
->    students with other white students.  If they feel more comfortable this
->    way, then that is their choice.
-
-To which I say:  Looks like you have answered your own question.  That is,
-some women would feel more comfortable talking to only women -- THAT is
-*clearly* one thing group (A) achieves that group (B) cannot.
-
-rini

   It is clear that Rini C. thinks of a group for women only as like a
table where only white students happen to be sitting and I think of it
as like a cafetaria where black students are not allowed.  Perhaps one
could ask, about this table where white students happen to be sitting
whether black students would ba ALLOWED to join or would it be one where
they were not allowed.  And if the latter, then might it not happen that
a white student who habitually sits at a table for `whites only' may
then lose out on the chance of meeting black students?  The issue I am
raising is a genuine one and it is not going to go away by pretending that
I `just misunderstood'.

      Rohit Parikh
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 3 Oct 1992 19:57:42 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

boserj@netcom.com (Jeffrey Boser) writes:

>If you start thinking that you
>cant do something, you wont.  <smirk>  Ive noticed that some of the
>most brilliant people are so *damn* arrogant about their field,
>they seem to think that there is *nothing* they cant do
>Maybe the two got something to do with
>each other, eh?

I agree that defeatist thinking is counterproductive.  But I
disagree that arrogance is a pre-requisite for brilliance.  Being
an arrogant a**hole may correlate with "success" (especially in 
academia), but it is possible to succeed without being so.

At least, I sincerely hope it is....

						--  Michal
From: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 2 Oct 92 18:28:05 GMT
Reply-To: lisa@zeppelin.llnl.gov (Lisa Corsetti)
Organization: Climate Model Intercomparison Group, LLNL

In article <2565@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>
>Also, math class *is* hard, for the majority of students.  I never had
>problems with it, but I know lots of people who had trouble with even
>basic algebra.  I don't think that I would want my children playing with
>toys that totally ignore the reality of the world.
>

In my opinion, and in the opinion of psychological experts, negative
thought patterns *are* *very* *harmful*.  The idea of a company that
markets a toy which promotes negative thought patterns really gets
me upset!  With so many of us trying to encourage young females to
get involved in technical fields, the Barbie that says math class is
hard counteracts our work.  I called the number to get my complaint
logged.

                                                    Lisa


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|  "There's no beginning, no ending. There's just infinite                    |
|   passion of life."                                                         |
`-----------------------------------------------------------------------------'
Xref: sparky soc.women:17267 soc.men:17207
From: nissim@mary.fordham.edu (Leonard J. Nissim)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Date: 1 Oct 92 23:12:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Fordham University
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41
X-Posted-From: mary.fordham.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Oct1.161757.5779@news.nd.edu>, 
slarsen@titian.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes...
[intermediate posts and some of sl's post deleted]
> 
>At any rate, this all reminds me of a quote I heard, wish I could remember 
>the source and can only paraphrase at best:  Democracy will never work.  
>Once the public realizes they can raid the government treasuries by vote, 
>the democratic government is destined to fail.
> 
>Sue Larsen
>slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu

Whether it is original with him or not I don't know, but this quote is 
from "Glory Road", a science fiction novel by (the late) Robert Heinlein. 
I don't have it with me, but a character asks the protagonist, an American,
whether his coutry is still trying "that silly experiment".  Thinking that the
questioner means prohibition {of alcohol, 18th amendment}, he says no.  The
questioner soon realizes the misunderstanding, explains that the experiment he
meant is democracy, and explains why, in his opinion, it can never work.  
Roughly, "Sooner or later, the public realizes that they can vote themselves 
the keys to the public treasury."  

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard J. Nissim  (nissim@mary.fordham.edu)   
Disclaimer:  "I speak only for myself."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.child-support,soc.men,soc.couples
From: kapa@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (k.a.perkins)
Subject: Re: What a Problem!!!
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:31:47 GMT
Followup-To: soc.couples
Summary: not fair, but unconstitutional?

In article <1ach72INN1em@gw.home.vix.com>, shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell JD) writes:
> In a recent missive seeker@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Karen Lynn White) tells us:
> *
> *
> *In article <1992Sep30.043039.26375@cbnewsk.cb.att.com> noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) writes:
> *
> *Since you are using Indiana as an example I wonder if your example is
> *true anywhere - in practice.
> 
> I agree with Aaron that this is a heinous and indefensible law..I have

< a law that requires non custodial parents to put children through
college while there is no such law affecting families where parents are
still married to each other >

> long said that such a law will be my first constitutional case [i.e. I
> believe that such a law is unconstitutional and must be challenged].

Well, it may certainly be an unfair law, but how exactly is it
unconstitutional?  I mean, what part of the constitution does it
violate?  I don't think that it discriminates based on gender or
race, and it doesn't exactly discriminate based on marital status
(since the ncp could be married to someone else and still have it
apply) not that marital status is listed in the constitution as something
you can't base discrimination on anyway.

By the way, I do know of an instance, albeit about 15 years ago, where
such a divorce degree provision was enforced in Illinois.  The college
student sued her dad to force him to comply.  He had pleaded poverty,
and she would have let it go, but then he bought himself an expensive
boat, and she stopped believing his poverty story.  I neither disagree
nor agree with what she did, I only offer it as an example of the law
actually being enforced.

Kate Perkins

Xref: sparky soc.women:17309 soc.men:17247
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Female "Wiring"
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 2 Oct 92 09:41:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.women,soc.men
 <1992Sep29.155335.2585@mdcbbs.com> <137606@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1992Oct2.101604.10769@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: goldsmith

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!  Although the post about withholding sex because the male desires
>>it is a close second.
> 
> I thought it was funny. 
> 
> I'm still trying to figure out what a bad orgasm is...
> 

  Are her eyelids still pale?  :)

  Various portions of the human anatomy change blood content and color during
arousal and climax. This is not a phenomenon that requires a lab to verify,
just some awareness of your partner. The eyelids, being much thinner than
other skin, shows the change much more clearly, and obviously, the change is
more obvious in paler skinned partners.

  Rather than call it rediculous, just experiment a bit. You'll find out 
quickly that it's true, and will actually let you know if the big "O" was
faked or not.

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

Xref: sparky soc.women:17395 talk.abortion:40697