HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tweaver@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Tim Weaver)
Subject: Re: Basic instinct
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: Kalamazoo College
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:50:19 GMT


>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.
>
You also have to take into account that there's a heck of a lot
more "visual stimuli" focused at males than at females.  This
is where your "male conditioning" comes in.

Michael Douglas' but doesn't do any thing for me either :)
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Tim Weaver  (tweaver@kzoo.edu), Database Programmer/Analyst, 616-383-5656 
   Snail:    Kalamazoo College    1200 Academy Street    Kalamazoo  MI 49007
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
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: elle@midway.uchicago.edu (Ellen Keyne Seebacher)
Subject: Electronic Salon on Gender and Technoscience
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Reply-To: elle@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 1992 18:03:53 GMT


I'm posting this to soc.feminism and comp.society at the request of
Deborah Heath; please direct questions to her at the address below. --EKS

___________________________________________________________________________
You are invited to participate in THE ELECTRONIC SALON:
        FEMINISM MEETS INFOTECH.

Join us in cyberspace for a computer-mediated discussion of invited papers
on gender and technoscience, part of the Eleventh Annual Lewis and Clark
College Gender Symposium, April 12-15, 1992. This promises to be a lively
occasion, with papers from, among others, participants in the 1991 NEH
Summer Institute, "Science as Cultural Practice."

Participation in the discussion is by e-mailing list subscription.  For
information on how to participate, send your name and e-mail address to:
        gender@lclark.edu

The Electronic Salon will be held via e-mail during the Symposium, from
April 12-15.  The papers to be discussed will be accessible the previous
week via FTP or special request.


Additional questions may be directed to:

        Deborah Heath
        Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology
        Lewis and Clark College
        Portland OR 97219
        Internet: heath@lclark.edu


---
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: uunet!cmcl2!panix.com!jk@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Kalb)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: reverence for women
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:37:07 GMT
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:

>>And what would the mechanism be for coordinating things, so that all
>>the things that have to be done (like child-rearing) get done? 

>Whatever works for people . . . For a single parent,
>that person would probably coordinate with other people, either friends
>and relatives or hired people, or just do all the work themself.

There was a front-page article in the New York Times this past week
about how the numbers of single mothers have doubled in the past decade
that detailed the problems they face (their average income is about
$12,000 a year, for example).  So it seems that the individual
self-help approach you suggest is often unworkable.  The current divorce
rate is another indication that left entirely to their own devices
people often fail to work things out in a satisfactory way.

>[T]he societal assumption is still that single men cannot cook and
>clean for themselves.  By your logic, since they aren't "forced" by
>society to do this, they won't - but they do.

Whatever the circumstances, most people get by after a fashion and some
people get by quite well.  If the goal is to determine the
circumstances in which people generally live best, though, it's worth
mentioning that of the men I've known the married men have usually
lived in less sordid surroundings than the bachelors.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)



-- 
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: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: stereotypes
Date: 8 Apr 92 05:01:46 GMT
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org


In article <rtq8cINNgup@agate.berkeley.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>[...] There's another trendy and chic stereotype of men that they are
>inherently rapacious.  This demonstrably causes a reaction of a prescriptive
>stereotype of men that they should be eternally wracked with shame.

This is interesting - I have never heard that men (i.e. males) are
supposed to be inherently greedy.  Females are, however, as evidenced by
the stereotype that women are most interested in rich men.  In any case,
I don't see why men are supposed to be "wracked with shame" for being
greedy, although it is one of the things Christians are supposed to feel
guilty about.

[In response to Victoria's statement that women are subject to "more"
 prescriptive stereotypes]
>[...]  I would be willing to bet a reasonable amount of money that,
>for every prescriptive stereotype of women that you could name, I could name
>a corresponding prescriptive stereotype of men that exists in the same mindset,
>complements the other stereotype, and is in its way as restrictive and 
>destructive.  This is not a coincidence; the traditional roles and expectations
>of men and women have evolved together and are similarly deformed.

I will agree with you that the *number* of stereotypes is probably very
similar, if not exactly the same.  However, the restrictiveness varies
greatly.  For example, men are supposed to "support the family" while
women "keep house and bear/raise children."  Now, there are quite a lot
of ways for men to earn money, but there are not all that many ways for
women to clean house, cook, bear children, and raise them.

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.
From: Jamie Andrews <jamie@cs.sfu.ca>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Marriage and well-being
Date: 8 Apr 1992 17:37:24 GMT
Organization: Simon Fraser University
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

[for soc.feminism]

In article <rtq7oINNgul@agate.berkeley.edu> Joseph Albert writes:
>Actually, there is research which has documented that married men `fare'
>better than single men, as measured by life expectancy, prevalence of
>medical and psychological disorders, and measures of life satisfaction, 
>while single women (who are not mothers) `fare' better than married women
>according to the same metrics. 
>
>I guess marriage is a better deal for men than for women.

     Or else the men who are more healthy and emotionally secure
in the first place are more likely to get married; and
conversely, the women who are less healthy and emotionally
secure are more likely to get married.

     Put this way, it says more about our perceptions of fitness
for marriage, and our reasons for getting married, than about
any benefit that people get out of marriage.

--Jamie.
  jamie@cs.sfu.ca


-- 
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: BICKIS@sask.usask.ca (Mikelis Bickis)
Subject: Taxonomy of stereotypes
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:13:05 GMT

On the subject of descriptive vs. prescriptive stereotypes as defined by
Victoria Nasman <<VNASMAN@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.MIL>> (Tori)
and discussed by Eric Pepke <<pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu>>:

I think a more important distinction, which hasn't been raised, is that
between positive and negative stereotypes.  Consider, for example, the
stereotype that "women are nurturing".  This could be either descriptive
or prescriptive.  As a description it leads us to expect all women to be
nurturing, and as a prescription it exhorts women to see "nurturing" as
an ideal quality towards which they should strive.  In this instance,
the descriptive stereotype is the more damaging.  A blind belief that
"women are nurturing" can cause one to disbelieve that a woman would
harm her child and could lead to inappropriate decisions in custody
cases.  However, the prescription that nurturing is expected of women is
not damaging, for to be nurturing is a positive quality.  The world is
not made worse by women striving to be nurturing.  I do not mean, of
course, that nurturing is not a positive quality for men as well, but
there is not (yet) a stereotype of the "nurturing man" with which we
have to deal.

On the other hand, the stereotype that "women are illogical" is damaging
in both descriptive and prescriptive modes.  As description, it will
lead one not to take a woman's arguments seriously; as prescription, it
will lead women to devalue their logical abilities, and will steer them
away from fields like mathematics or philosophy.

So I would like to extend Tori's taxonomy to two dimensions, with
adjectives to describe their effect:

                 Positive             Negative
               _____________________________________
Descriptive    |  deluding     |      derogatory   |
               |_______________|___________________|
Prescriptive   |  idealizing   |      inhibiting   |
               |_______________|___________________|


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>bickis@sask.usask.ca<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Mik Bickis       \,,,       .*#*.  \    University of Saskatchewan
Department of        \,,,  ^\\|//^  ```\   Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Mathematics & Statistics \   )|(        ```\   Canada      S7N 0W0
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<S|A|S|K|A|T|C|H|E|W|A|N|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

--
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: VNASMAN@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL (Tori)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: stereotypes
Date: 8 Apr 92 23:44:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.s00g7INNo5d
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

In response to EMP:

	I meant that women encounter prescriptive stereotypes more often than 
they do descriptive stereotypes.  I certainly would not argue that men face 
precisely the same problem.  My point was merely that prescriptive stereotypes 
are the more damaging.  That they are damaging to women does not mean that 
they are not just as damaging to men.  Unfortunately, the prescriptive 
stereotypes faced by women actively discourage most or all of the behaviors 
that are most critical to professional success.
	I agree completely that descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes are 
interdependent; one tends to provoke the other.  As I see it, the important 
distinction is with regard to how each type of stereotype operates.  
Descriptive stereotypes are used to characterize groups of people; as such, 
they are potentially dangerous because they mask variation.  But someone 
earlier presented a sort of defense of stereotyping on the grounds that it is 
an inevitable part of human culture.  Descriptive stereotyping IS inevitable 
in the sense that human beings think by categories; children identify and 
classify the world around them by grouping its objects and characters.  As 
they grown and learn, they begin to see variations and more precise groupings. 
Perhaps if they are very wise, they will eventually abandon categories 
altogether.  But certainly, categories do help us to see patterns in the world 
around us, and are not bad in and of themselves.
	What IS bad is when we demand that individuals CONFORM to our 
expectations (defined by descriptive stereotypes).  This is prescriptive 
stereotyping.  Whereas descriptive stereotypes refer (accurately or 
inaccurately) to "average" characteristics within groups, prescriptive 
stereotypes mandate that deviations from the average are "abnormal" somehow.  
Inevitably, this leads to a reaction that has punitive effects on the 
"deviant."  Whereas descriptive stereotypes are somewhat understandable from 
the viewpoint of human information processing, prescriptive stereotypes have 
more (I believe) to do with vested emotional and perhaps even economic/social 
interests ... the desire NOT to accept variation, because it upsets one's 
apple cart in a big way, and perhaps also because it threatens one's view of 
SELF, as well as of others.

I hope that clarifies my point in making the distinction.

Victoria Nasman
VNASMAN@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL


-- 
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!cmcl2!panix.com!jk@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Jim Kalb)
Subject: Re: Marriage and well-being
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 11:10:29 GMT


pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:

>Perhaps someday somebody can explain to me why, if it's such a great big
>solid gold deal for men to get married, in all the long-term couples
>that I've known, the woman is always more eager to get married than the
>man.  Perhaps the same person can explain to me why pressure to get
>married more often comes from the mother than the father.

Mr. Albert mentioned studies that show that men seem to benefit more
from marriage than women without children.  Such studies are
interesting, but are not directly relevant to the situation in which
most women (who want to have children) find themselves.
-- 
    Jim Kalb (jk@panix.com)


---
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: uunet!cmcl2!panix.com!pw@ncar.ucar.EDU (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Reverence for Women and Others
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: (Ha!)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:55:31 GMT

In article <rdosbINNi5o@agate.berkeley.edu> levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine) writes:
>I've seen a lot of postings to this newsgroup on the theme, "Reverence
>for Women." The concept really disturbs me. Why should I get reverence
>just for being a woman?

Well, there are those who think that every _person_ deserves a certain
amount of reverence simply for existing despite all the ridiculous
improbabilities attendant on same. But that's not what you mean, or
what most of the other people in this thread were talking about.
<explicating-the-patriarchy-mode> I think that the position of many
men (and some women) is that women deserve reverence (often aka
confinement on a pedestal) because of their special role as bearers of
children and (traditionally) primary nurturers and caretakers of same.
A lot of feminist theorists (e.g. Dinnerstein) will tell you that this
awe tinged with just a little bit of fear comes from early experiences
(due to the primary caretaker role) of Woman as all-powerful being and
so puts an irrational edge on the very real debate over the necessary
consequences of the fact that women have uteruses and men don't. The
workings-out of this you have seen here & innumerable elsehweres.
<end explicating-the-patriarchy-mode>

>I think what they really mean, is that they have reverence for women who
>make them horny.

I'm not sure about this -- in fact, I think it might in many cases
be the other way around: that they have reverence for women who
_don't_ make them horny, or for whom they are able to suppress
their libido, e.g. the madonnna/whore syndrome.

>... But I would like to point out that maturity brings a change in
>those feelings.
>In our childhood, we used to like hot dogs and Hostess Twinkies. Now
>we might prefer steak and prawns and fresh-baked French bread, thank
>you.
>In the same way, young people seem to have reverence for those who
>make them horny. But when they grow up, it may be more a matter
>of being horny for those we feel reverence for.

Hmmm. Is this what happens when people fall in love over the net,
seduced by the sheer gorgeousness of each others' works and intellect? :-)

paul




--
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: manda@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (Manda Lynch)
Subject: Re: Marriage and well-being
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: University of Melbourne
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:14:45 GMT

In article <s234oINN2e4@agate.berkeley.edu> pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.edu (Eric Pepke) writes:
>In article <rtq7oINNgul@agate.berkeley.edu> albert@cs.wisc.edu (Joseph Albert) writes:
>>
>>I guess marriage is a better deal for men than for women.
>
>Perhaps someday somebody can explain to me why, if it's such a great big
>solid gold deal for men to get married, in all the long-term couples
>that I've known, the woman is always more eager to get married than the
>man.  Perhaps the same person can explain to me why pressure to get
>married more often comes from the mother than the father.

Don't you believe it!  My experience, the experiences of my friends,
and what I've gleaned from my reading all suggest that it is men who
are most eager to get married, and in fact, who remarry more often and
sooner after divorce.  The stereotype of a woman "trapping" or
"wheedling" a man into marriage is by far the minority.  The example
from my own experience - every long-term relationship I've had has
involved, at some point, a proposal of marriage, (which I've refused
until now). Now that I am getting married, it is father who is the
most excited, (relieved, dare I say?).  However, I've also found that
these same men will play-act to the outside world that they don't want
to get married, EVER! I don't think that this is unusual.

Manda.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
manda@mullara.met.unimelb.edu.au                    We are confronted by
manda@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au                  insurmountable opportunities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
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)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Reverence take two (& three)
Date: 10 Apr 1992 23:36:56 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Mikelis Bickis <BICKIS@sask.usask.ca> writes:


>I will answer 3. in conjunction with a question by (Lenore Levine):

>> Question: Why have a woman revering world view at all? There are many
>> women who do not deserve reverence -- and many men who do. Is it fair
>> or nice to women not to hold them up to the same ethical standards as
>> men? 

>Do I need a reason?  So many of recent posts have been defending the 
>right of people to adopt their own lifestyles/roles/values without the 
>imposition of traditional stereotypes.  Why shouldn't I be able to adopt 
>this worldview if I like it?

To be more specific. Does your woman-revering worldview involve giving
reverence to a murderess, or a vicious, manipulative social predator?
Or a woman who brings children into the world without making reasonable
plans for their care? 

Does it, on the other hand, involve *not* giving reverence to a man
like Nelson Mandela?

If so, then your world view is indeed patronizing to women. If not, 
then how is the reverence you give women really any different from
that you give men?
 
Lenore Levine


-- 
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: jym@mica.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: harrassment
Date: 13 Apr 92 18:53:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sclbuINN5mc
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

--text follows this line--
> You cannot compare the systematic and organized hate involved
> in cross- burning to sexual harassment.

=-= While there is no "systematic and organized" group like
the KKK working against women, that's hardly relevant.  What's
relevant is that misogynists, as disorganized as they are, are
so very effective.

=-= Indeed, I'd say they're more effective at achieving their
goals then organized groups like the KKK are at achieving
theirs.  There are far more victims of rape and sexual assault
than there are of cross-burnings.
    <_Jym_>


-- 
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