HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cathy@octel.com (Cathy Kearns)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:56:19 GMT
Organization: Octel Communications Inc., Milpitas Ca.

In article <1992Sep7.154918.11940@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:


Gordon Fitch writes that he believes before programing became software
engineering and engineering degrees became derigour(sp?) that a larger
percentage of programmers were women.  I don't have the longevity in
the industry that Gordon has, but I wouldn't be suprised if that 
were true.  After having been a "software engineer" (with an EE degree
yet) for 10 years, I've come to believe that a good software author
does not need a degree, or any calculus, or physics, or much science.
What a really good "software engineer" need is common sense, or rather,
the ability to reason things through.  I believe this is not something
that is more innate in males or females, nor is it something that 
parents would tend to nuture out of their children of either sex.
This would tend to make those who could program well be evenly 
distributed among both sexes.  However, I still couldn't make a
good arguement in either the nature or nuture direction for why
most recent software engineering grads are men.  I just know we
can't necessarily train them to be good programmers.

							Cathy
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women
From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Subject: Re: Statistical "proofs" (Was Re: women in engineering ( help..))
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 92 18:18:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Sep15.163123.4171@mahendo.jpl.nasa.gov> julie@eddie.jpl.nasa.gov (Julie Kangas) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.140159.15153@linus.mitre.org> cgates@mitre.org (Curt Gates) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep14.145504.9949@uoft02.utoledo.edu> 
>>dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu writes:
>>> .the prof didn't walk in on the first day and say...
>>> 
>>> "no girls allowed"
>>> 
>>> he came in and said..."75% of you will flunk this class...now open your
>>> books to page...."
>>
>>Different words, but same message.  Every person in the class should have 
>
>Not entirely.  I majored in Astronomy and Physics as an undergrad.
>At the first day of the Intro Astronomy course, the professor said
>(to a crowd of about 100) something like 'only 3 of you will 
>graduate with a B.S. in Astronomy and Physics'.  He was right.
>
>There were 2 women (myself included) and one man.

Hmmm, then (as has been claimed by other posters), Astronomy and Physics
must have been de-valued recently. Anybody noticed any pay drops in the
field? :^)

>Julie
>#include "std_disclaimer.h"
>#include "witty_sig.h"

Rich

payner@netcom.com


Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 04:57:54 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

[ long story, go back and read it ]
In article <ATAYLOR.92Sep7142601@gauss.nmsu.edu> ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy) writes:
| 	Which 'crap', please? The "credentialism" which
| 	has become entrenched in U.S. society (along
| 	with bureaucracy) over the last 30 years, or what?

Is the credentialism pushing sexism into the programmer part
of the workforce, or not?  It is if 90% the "engineers" are
male, isn't it?  Are my figures wrong?  I'm just making an
observation on what I've read here, and from daily life.

1.  Once upon a time from one-third to one-half of the
programmers I observed were female.
2.  Credentialism happened and programmers became "engineers."
3.  90% of the new "engineers" are male.
4.  Programmer workforce will become more skewed toward males
than it was.

So or not so?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
Subject: Re: Sexist Incidents
Date: 07 Sep 92 08:13:22 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation


>> In article <1992Aug25.183639.16010@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu> mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
>> 
>>    Has anyone had any experience with blatant sexism?  By this I mean some
>>    decision making that was OBVIOUSLY based on sex where sex had no logical
>>    part in the decision.  I am trying to find out what this is, because all
>>    through school, university, and now graduate school I have never really
>>    witnessed what I thought was sexist (other than on TV, books, etc).  I
>>    am particularly interested in sexism in universities.
>> 

Well, Paul.......

First day at university, first computer class, there's 12 men
and me. Professor comes into the room, writes his name, the
course info (comp 1??, intro to programming with pascal) and
the room # on the board, smiles at everyone, begins to organize
his books/etc on the table at the front of the room. Then he
comes over to me and asks if I'm sure I'm in the right room.

Yes, "Jennifer Kilmer" was on the class list.

In that class and at least 3 others, there was comment over
my good scores. (whisper:"how does she do so well?" "maybe
private study..." [snort snort] "yeah, but on _what_?")

I'm a large person - 5'8", wore a size 24 at the time. Big
bust and hips, though in porportion to the rest of the bod.
So some of this could be attributed to weightism, I suppose.

I found with certain profs I'd get called on more if I wore
my glasses, even if I really didn't need them much. (ah, the
days of being able to see)

For the past 2 years and 3 months (but who's counting) I've
been primarily a telephone support person at a software company.
This gets fun.

"Microsoft DOS support, this is Jennifer. How can I help you?"

"Yeah, I need to talk to someone about DOS"
"Hi, honey, could you transfer me to a technician" (well, okay,
 if you want...actually, I was one 'til I got promoted to engineer) 
"Umm...is this technical support?" 

Then there's when people feel the need to threaten. It happens
to all of us, but the men don't get...

"Listen, honey..."
"Look, little girl..." (you call a 300 pound 26-year old woman little??
 okay, this I gotta hear. How big are you??)

And of course I get called things like 'cunt', 'bitch', 'whore', 'dyke',
to which I respond to right out of the Microsoft policy manual (abusive 
language is not tolerated; give 1 warning, if it doesn't stop, hang up.)

And it's amazing how many callers who start out questioning my 'techie-ness'
tend to drop the little question..

"So, what kind of training do you get for this job?"

-jen
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,rec.arts.startrek
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: STNG episode about homosexuality
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:18:07 GMT

ljf writes:

> Nothing to do with feminism, but this is alt.feminism.  :)  The one
> thing Roddenberry didn't seem open to is including lesbigay people in
> the series.  I can understand that for the original, but not ST:TNG.

They did do an episode on homosexuality.  It had some problems (IMO).
A brief plot outline - there is a planet where having a gender identity
is looked on as an illness.  One of the aliens is 'ill' in this manner,
and has a relationship with Riker.  She is found out, and cured via
'psychotectic therapy'.  Riker tries to rescue her, but she's already
been 'cured' and says she's glad she's normal now and she can't understand
why she avoided getting help.  Riker goes away pissed.  End of story.

(I've xposted to rec.arts.startrek but not followed up there)
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 5 Sep 92 18:28:33 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <Bu2AzD.D04@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> asurpren@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (aimee surprenant) writes:
>I see this as a way for us to change our own personal biases that we
>try so hard to get rid of but that are pervasive. A personal example
>is my changing to using the word "woman" when referring to female
>persons over 18.  At first it seemed quite awkward but then it 
>started to change my attitude towards most undergraduates.  When
>I was calling them "girls" it rarely occurred to me that they had
>opinions that might be valuable.  Now, however, I tend to think of
>undergraduates (both men and women) as adults (instead of children
>as I believe most faculty do) and treat them accordingly. 

Ok, but what if I'm not biased against children in that way?
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:1139 soc.men:16413
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: birth control [Was: Re: Choice for men]
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:02:19 GMT

zen@death.corp.sun.com (d) writes:
>
>  What does this all lead to...?  It seems to me, in my less than vast
>experience and perceptions, that during fairly casual sex condoms are
>often used, but during longer relationships the burden of birth control
>is often placed on the woman's shoulders, er...  well, you know :-)
>Note -- I'm not saying that this is the absolute truth!  I'd welcome any
>references or stats from anyone, rather than (the typical?)  responses
>from men posting and saying "well *I* always use a condom and love it
>and my partners have *never* had to use birth control methods...  blah
>blah blah."  

Well, I don't have any statistics, but I have had a couple of conversations
with female friends where the consensus was that the pill makes sense
when you are 'dating', and condoms make more sense when you're married.
The rationale was that 1) hopefully dating is relatively short term
(less than 10 years?) and during younger ages, when the pill is less of 
a risk 2) it's too much of a pain to negotiate birth control with someone
you don't know incredibly well.  During marriage, on the other hand,
you know your partner well enough and you've been with him long enough
that 1) spontaneity passes with the honeymoon :) 2) you don't want to
risk long term hormonal changes at older ages 3) you are intimate enough
to not let putting on a condom be any kind of a 'problem'.

>But since men traditionally have had more power in
>relationships, it would seem likely that something as important to them
>as the decreased sensitivity of their manhood would be enough of an
>issue to put a significant amount of pressure on their partner to take
>care of this matter, if possible.

I've heard men say they like condoms *because* of the decreased sensitivity...
takes longer to cum.  And who's a Real Man that prematurely ejaculates? :)

>  I think that there is a great deal of pressure for women to use birth
>control methods rather than the man (as I've said, fairly recently, due
>to various diseases, this might be shifting.)  Aside from partner
>pressure, she also has to live in her body and deal directly with any
>consequences of the union, so it becomes an even greater issue.  

Especially outside of marriage -- a good reason for the pill again, when
you're an unmarried female.

rini
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:720 soc.women:16249
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:49:18 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| In <16858F0E2.FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu> FM010201@ysub.ysu.edu writes:
| >I am a graduate student in engineering, a minority, doing a thesis on
| >" women , engineering and creativity". I am interested in knowing
| >about the opinion of others about why there is not much interest in
| >women about becoming engineer. I am pursuing two traditional line of search:
| > 1. Nature: ...
| >2. Nurture: ...

laura@vipunen.hut.fi (Laura Tiilikainen) writes:
| I'm apt to believe on the both alternatives. I'm student in
| electrical engineering, in which 90 percent of the students are men.
| ....

There's something I'd like to find out relevant to this
thread.

When I got into the computer software field, 27 years ago,
I was just about off the street.  They called us "programmers"
and there was no talk of engineering.  Degrees were not
particularly liked, because people without them seemed to be
as good as, or better than, people with them, especially
people with Math or EE degrees, who had not been taught
anything like programming.  Basically, the commercial world
took up a lot of middle-class dropout types, people with
education in music or classical languages, and so on.  About
a third of these people were women.  I've been in offices
where half the programmers were women.

About fifteen years ago, maybe a little less, Academia
finally figured out how to teach people to program -- give
them access to computers -- and started reconquering the
field.  Now, apparently, it's very hard to get into unless
you have a bunch of degrees.  And, since "programmer"
didn't carry the kind of weight you can charge a lot of
tuition money for, they started calling programmers
"engineers."  So programming became engineering.

Lo and behold, 90% of the students in the field are male,
just like it spoze to be in Engineering!  The field has
been made sexist, where it was once a shining example of 
a place where women could get along just like the guys!

Do I have this completely wrong?  If not, what happened?
How are we going to get rid of this crap by going
backwards?
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de (Julia Simon)
Subject: Re: "Sexist" Comedy
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, U of Saarland, FRG
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 11:49:40 GMT

mackenzi@McRCIM.McGill.EDU (Paul Mackenzie) writes:
> 
> Are these jokes really sexist, or are they just poking fun at the
> stereotypical attitudes involved?
> 

What's the difference?

			Julia 8-)

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
				Julia Simon

 Fachschaftsrat Computerlinguistik	DIaLOGIKa GmbH
 Fachbereich 8.7, Bau 17, Zi. 201
 Universita"t des Saarlandes		Albertstr., Pascalschacht
 D-W-6600 Saarbru"cken, Germany		D-W-6602 Dudweiler, Germany

			email: simon@fsinfo.cs.uni-sb.de
			       sileas@coli.uni-sb.de
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Pro-LIFE feminists???
Date: 7 Sep 92 15:36:32 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| In article<1992Sep7.042253.8942@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| 
| >True; but I was writing on the basis of the liberal principle
|                                              ^^^^^^^!
| >that state power must be justified by some strong public interest

In article <715868749@lear.cs.duke.edu> gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel) writes:
| 1) Thanks for the laugh.
| 
| 2) Have you ever heard about "tax and spend" liberals?
| 
| 3) What is more liberal than giving pork-barrels to the
|    people who vote to the right party?

I was using the term _liberal_ in its classical sense; the
sense in which Adam Smith, for example, was a liberal.  The
Declaration of Independence, for example, and the works of
John Locke, on which it is based, are prime examples of
liberalism.  The basic idea of liberalism -- a revolutionary
one in its time -- was, as I said, that freedom is inherently
a good thing.  Thus, the powers of the state, like all 
entities with the power to coerce, should be carefully 
limited.

The fact that you know only the propagandistic or journalistic
meaning of the word shows that you have not read much 
political theory, even of the most basic sort, which ill
equips you to understand or comment on feminism or other
political developments.  Or if you have read the material,
it seems to have been to find one-liners and knock-off 
points.

Could I suggest that you look into a few books on the
subject, with an intent to understand, rather than win or
control?  Even reading talk.politics.theory for awhile
would help you out.  Winning isn't the only thing, in
spite of what football coaches say.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
From: sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer)
Subject: Re: Born a Feminist? (was: Sweeping Generalizations About Men By Feminis
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 92 21:16:36 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <BuB6wB.Bs6@encore.com> aaldrich@encore.com (Al Aldrich) writes:
>
>That is a silly argument. One is born a Jew.. I don't think anyone is
>born a feminist..

Well, I can think of *one* such person: Randle Terry. He was born and
raised in an all-female household of true-believing feminists.

And look where HE ended up! (Chief honcho of "Operation Rescue".)

Maybe all these Murphy Brown households are raising an entire generation
of Randle Terrys without realizing it!!!!!!!!!!!




-- 
  
        Robert Sheaffer - Scepticus Maximus - sheaffer@netcom.com
  
 Past Chairman, The Bay Area Skeptics - for whom I speak only when authorized!

       "Beware when the great God lets loose a thinker on this planet.
        Then all things are at risk. It is as when a conflagration has
        broken out in a great city, and no man knows what is safe, or
        where it will end."
                               - Emerson: Essay, "Circles"
From: gazit@duke.cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Sexism: Defined
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:20:45 GMT
Reply-To: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel)
Organization: The Piranha Club

In article <7489@skye.ed.ac.uk> diana@aiai.UUCP (Diana Bental) writes:

>This is fair enough. Dworkin and McKinnon are trying to come up with a
>formulation that would work even if implemented by sexist/anti-sex
>courts. 

Fortunately, there are more than enough non-liberal justices 
in the US Supreme Court to throw out their censorship laws. 

>I'd say they don't have a cat's chance -- but I don't blame
>them for trying. 

You don't blame them for trying to limit *my* freedom of speech.
How very nice of you...

>And it *has* been suggested (Spare Rib a few months
>ag) that rules based on the Dworkin/McKinnon ordinance would at least
>make a fairer, more rational and more liberal basis for censorship
                                       ^^^^^^^
No doubt about that.

>views of feminism to Dworkin's, I may perhaps be waspish and suggest
>that it would help if people knew what Dworkin's ideas were before
>they make the decision. 

I suggest that people will read the legislation that Dworkin pushes
before they make their decision.  The important point is that she
tries to limit my freedom of speech and, regardless of her reasons
for doing so, that is enough for defining her as an enemy.

>And yes, I really am afraid that it *does*
>mean reading her books since her views seem to be reported with
>unerring inaccuracy in much of the press and all of the net.  I do my
>best, but there's only one of me and I have a thesis to write on an
>unrelated topic.

Just a small question: why is she against all-male gay porno?
(The anti-porno legislation she pushes would out-law that.)
The answer will not change my opinion about Dworkin, but
I'm sure that it will provide some bizarre feminist "logic."

>Diana Bental,                      JANET: diana@uk.ac.ed.aisb

Hillel                                                 gazit@cs.duke.edu

"WAVMP has yet to make any public statements in support of gay rights, sex
education in schools, birth control and abortion, children's right to sexual
information and freedom, decriminalization of prostitution or civil rights of
sexual minorities.  They continue to grow larger to grow larger, more powerful
and more pro-censorship and antisex in their positions.  Few members of the
liberal press will risk opposing or criticizing them because they travel under
the protective, self-applied label `feminist'.  It is obvious that no one in
the conservative press will oppose them, either - unless they get too public
about having a large lesbian membership." 
   --  ("AMONG US, AGAINST US the new puritans", Pat Califia)
From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Bathroom symbols
Date: 14 Sep 92 22:44:50 GMT
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri) writes:
>
>Well, lets think -- what are the primary gross-scale physical differences?
>
>Women tend to be larger in the hips with narrower shoulders.  Men tend to 
>have narrower hips and broader shoulders.  So use equilateral triangles
>with tip pointing up for females and tip pointing down for males.
>
>								--  Michal

The upward triangle denotes fire and the downward water.
Are we ready to embrace these associations?
interesting archetypal gender reversal, else it must refer to the
subconscious.
Xref: sparky alt.feminism:968 soc.women:16450
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.women
Subject: Re: women in engineering ( help..)
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:24:36 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

| |>9125113g@lux.latrobe.edu.au (Mitch Davis) writes:
| |>| ...
| |>| All the women programmers and project leaders I have known have been
| |>| absolutely first rate.
|               [...]

gcf@panix.com (Gordon  Fitch) writes:
| |>I've observed the same thing, and wondered why it was so.  The
| |>best thing I could come up with was that the women were more
| |>businesslike, and less likely to use the machines for games or
| |>to show off.  That may be cultural, because women don't seem
| |>less playful than men to me, but they do seem less taken with
| |>machines; when it comes to play, they seem to prefer social
| |>games.

cook@dollar.crd.ge.com (Cathi Cook) writes:
| Ummmmm, we're talking about women in the workplace.  Do you seriously
| think that any woman is going to post an article from her employer's
| site saying "Hey, I play games JUST AS MUCH on my machine!  In fact,
| whole months go by where I hardly work at all!  I had to take a break
| from blasting aliens into little gobbets of green slime just to
| write this!"

But I was talking about observation, not testimony.  _Nobody_
would admit to playing games or writing Usenet articles from
their work machine, but it doesn't take long to find out who's
doing it.  Just ease around the office and notice who hits
the TBIC key when they realize they're being observed.

| Hmmmmmm, maybe women _are_ smarter than men.  :-)

That's what they say, but this morning going to work I
noticed not one, but _two_ women playing those stupid hand-
held video games, and really earnestly, too.  Maybe you
all are deteriorating....
|                      -rocker
|                       who would NEVER post from her desk, nooooooooo


-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Star Trek Opening
Date: 9 Sep 92 20:42:56 GMT
Reply-To: hillyard@msc.cornell.edu
Organization: Cornell-Materials-Science-Center
Originator: hillyard@groo.msc.cornell.edu


>>>- >     (Bryan Lepine) writes...
>>>- [text deleted]
>>>-
>>>- >>	I LIKED THE STAR TREK OPENING BETTER BEFORE THEY WERE PRESSURED
>>>- >>	INTO CHANGING IT! 
>>

Although its not worth argueing about, let me state that I liked the old
opening better also.

The reason is that in the star trek universe no one (to me at least) can
refer to any of the various races; Klingon, Vulcan, etc.  Combining
this with 'seek out new life and new civilizations' doesn't quite
click with me.  Who built the new civilization if 'no one' has been there?

Man refers to humans specifically (at least to me) and makes more sense.

SEH
Newsgroups: alt.feminism