HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: uunet!cmcl2!panix.com!pw@ncar.ucar.EDU (Paul Wallich)
Subject: Re: Marriage and well-being
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: (Ha!)
Date: 15 Apr 92 18:29:44 GMT

In article <8206@sun13.scri.fsu.edu> Eric Pepke <pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU> writes:
>In article <MUFFY.92Apr9115714@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>
[eric?]:
>>>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.

>>Sure, glad to.  It's because of those charming "traditional roles"
>>we've been discussing.  If a woman is brought up to *believe* that
>>the best option for her is marriage, naturally she will be
>>enthusiastic about it.

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

Because it's embarassing, to say the least, for someone to turn around
at age 50 or 60 and say, "Gee, the way I've spent the best decades of
my life was really _not_ a good idea." Far more comfortable to massage
your perceptions than to confront the possibility that you may have
thrown away your life. I am NOT saying that a woman who has lived the
traditional lifestyle, as most of our mothers here have, has thrown
away her life, merely that it may be seriously unpleasant for her to
spend time thinking about the possibility that if she had made
different choices, or if social pressures had been less pervasive, her
life and that of those around her might have been much more
fulfilling.

I've watched this happen for my own mother, who did the 50s thing and
abandoned a serious career to stay (mostly) at home raising kids and
looking out for her husband's interests (mind you, she was the one who
did the carpentry around the house, and when I went to college she
gave me her copy of Iverson's original apl report...). As the years
have passed she has put a much more rosy glow on the joys of
childrearing and minimized memories of the amount of "real" work she
did and what she gave up to do the traditional-mother role. This is
particularly ironic because she always had lots of excess energy that
would have been much better spent in the world at large than vented on
her children.

In short, cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing.

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: tittle@alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle Moore)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Taxonomy of stereotypes
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:33:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: ics.29EB41AD.12430

In <01GIR8PRJUQO001UJU@SASK.USask.CA> BICKIS@sask.usask.ca (Mikelis Bickis) writes:

>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>>:

>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.

You might be missing an aspect of "prescription" -- what about
*outside* prescription?  That is, the women themselves do not try to
be more nurturing, but the people around them try to do so.  This
leads, in my view, to problems such as anti-abortion folks trying to
force women to bear children to term (for a variety of reasons, one of
which is the image of the nurturing female).  Other applications of
this prescription naturally extend to keeping females at home so they
can nurture the kids.

So I would say that, yes the prescription of nurturing women is
damaging.  And I would also say that the tandem absence of one for men
is what allows the extension I described above -- since it wouldn't be
the man, it'd be the woman.  In fact, coupled with the prescription
that men work to support their families, "women are nurturing" is a
damaging prescription for men as well.

How does that bit of datum affect your tables?

--Cindy


--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
From: levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Lenore Levine)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Reverence for Women: The Pop Quiz
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:33:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.scd44INN4bl
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

When examining the issue of "reverence for women," it may be useful
to shift the debate from theory, to practice. I therefore present the
following pop quiz (hints are provided).

Which woman really gets the reverence, in our culture? (Answer (a) or
(b).)

1. (a) A pot-bellied old farmer's wife, who has conspired with her
       husband to murder transients for economic reasons, and who is under
       sentence of death by the State of Missouri.

   (b) A pot-bellied old farmer's wife, who has nagged her daughter-
       in-law and eaten unpaid peaches in the supermarket, and who
       is under sentence of death by leukemia. 

   Which one will get thousands of sympathetic letters, some of
   them from feminists?

2. (a) Champaign-Urbana's Olympic-quality speed skater, Bonnie Blair.

   (b) Champaign-Urbana's Olympic-quality complex analyst, Jiang-Mei Wu.

   Which one is a household word in her home town?

3. (a) A social predator, who with an ingratiating manner and a cute
       smile gets benefits for herself that she does not deserve.

   (b) A social activist, who with persistence and a biting wit gets 
       benefits for others that they do deserve.

   Which one is thought of as the nice lady?

4. (a) A student, who has maintained a standard weight by keeping
       herself uncomfortably hungry, and who is working at 90% of
       her potential.

   (b) A student, who refuses to make herself uncomfortably hungry,
       and who works at 100% of her potential.

   When people say they want more women in the professions, which 
   woman do they really have in mind?


P.S. I mentioned this essay to a kind-hearted friend; and he reminded
me that the murderess mentioned on "60 Minutes" may deserve some sympathy,
being emotionally intimidated by her husband. True, but the
woman in the second situation would deserve at least as much sympathy
(if not more); and being considerably less glamorous, would get 
considerably less. 


-- 
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!cos!tango!bob1@ncar.ucar.EDU (Bob Blackshaw)
Subject: Different view
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Date: 8 Apr 92 21:46:42 GMT

Being without a newsfeed does give a different perspective to
this group. Since s.f arrives in bunches courtesy of the
archival service, it get printed out and read at leisure at
home rather than over lunch here at the office.

Being able to read, re-read, and compare offers some unique
advantages that serial scrolling on a SUN 3/50 does not offer.

A common, if unspoken (unwritten?) thread seems to be a simple
call for recognition by both men and women. A not unreasonable
nor totally unexpected desire.

A word never seen in any post is compromise. I know this has
different connotations as in having one's honor compromised,
but it also means simply agreeing on a solution amenable to
both parties when the individual solutions are not reach-
able.

Quite often the male attitude is "If you want the laws changed
run for office and change them." This even when the laws are
acknowledged as unfair. Since politics is at present male
dominated, this really means "To hell with you, I can't be
bothered."

Leisurly reading also has one other interesting aspect. One
poster (whose name is witheld to preserve his dignity) shows
the same uncanny ability as a now deceased Canadian politician
I recall. He could address the nation on TV for half-an-hour
using the most erudite and impressive language, and one was
very impressed. It was only 10 minutes after the end of the
broadcast that you realized he had not said a damn thing. :-)

Oh, BTW, for the poster who responded to my earlier comment
re homemaking being an honorable and demanding profession.
I believe your comment was that if it was that good, more
men would want to do it. Florence's reply is that damn few
would be competent enough, :-)

Ciao;

REB
|-)


--
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: reverence for women
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: PANIX - Public Access Unix Systems of NY
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 1992 17:08:21 GMT



jpl3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (Joe Lucia) writes:

>[C]hange doesn't come without pain, disruption, confusion, and the slow
>formation of new modes for conceptualizing and enacting social roles.

What's the reason to believe that the gain will be worth the pain? 

It sounds like your ideal for relations between a man and a woman is a
sort of cooperative friendship that the two parties develop for
themselves, based on their own particular purposes and inclinations and
without reference to other people's ideas about things.  Apparently, a
similar relationship could just as well exist between two men or two
women (as you say, "genitilia and minds are separate organs"), or it
could be extended to include several people.

To me, this ideal sounds like the equivalent in the personal sphere of
an anarchist utopia and would be about as practical.  The bond between
a man and a woman with children needs to be something durable that can
survive the wear and tear of day-to-day practicalities, hard times,
changes in the parties' interests and tastes, and so on.  How many
friendships are like that?  Should the well-being of children be left
to the chance that their parents will have such a friendship?

I should add that friendship is a social role that gets conceptualized
and enacted variously from time to time.  In America in 1992 it seems a
lot weaker than it has been in some times and places (foreigners
sometimes complain that there is no friendship here).  So a proposal
that traditional marriage be replaced by friendship seems a poor one.

>[F]rom where I sit, it sure looks to me like the end result of gender
>role stereotyping is distance, mystification, and alienation.

Gender role stereotyping does make it possible for people who are
rather distant and even alien to each other to have a stable and
productive relationship.  That's one of its great virtues.  I don't see
why it should be thought to cause distance and alienation, though.  The
rules of tennis or the procedures of an office are rather impersonal
and formal, and that's how they enable people who may not have much in
common to do something worthwhile together.  But they don't prevent the
people subject to them from becoming friends; rather, they provide a
stable setting in which friendship can grow.

I won't respond to your complaint about mystification because I take it
that such complaints depend on a prior judgement that a social
institution is unjust.  (Actually, I didn't respond to a lot in your
posting, although I hope I said enough to indicate what my response
would be at least on the main points.)


-- 
    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.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: "S.T.Hall" <sth@ukc.ac.uk>
Subject: Stereo Types
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: The Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, CA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:57:49 GMT


To start though male I am a realy equallist (male-female black-white young-old
etc) I find though that at my university the feminist organisations discrimanate
heavily against men, though there are alot of men out there/here who could 
be converted to equallism but instead they feel alienated and get the
"there all a bunch of lesbians" view instead.

What can be done about this??

On to the real reason for this posting.
Due to my genetics and like for sport I'm 6 foot and weigh some 215 pounds,due
to this I get real bad reactions from feminists. 
What can I do?, my body language is harmless (really it more of a teddy bear 
than anything else).

Thanks

Steve

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Depressingly I have found that al groups which band together against
oppresion oppress another group with enthusiasm

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Subject: Re: Marriage and well-being
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:57:14 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.

>Or else divorce is a better deal for women than for men.  Pick yer
>prejudice.

Well, it would help if the prejudice you picked was *relevant*.  He said
"single" men and women, not "divorced" men and women.  I suspect (and
seem to remember reading a study) that divorce is a bad deal all around
- lots of stress, financial problems, etc.

>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.

Sure, glad to.  It's because of those charming "traditional roles" we've
been discussing.  If a woman is brought up to *believe* that the best
option for her is marriage, naturally she will be enthusiastic about it.
In fact, as one of the posters here expressed, she will be regarded as
having somehow not "fulfilled an essential part of her womanhood" if she
doesn't get married and have children, so not only is she told that it
is particularly desirable for her to get married, but she is told that
she won't be very well regarded if she doesn't.

My mother was brought up with the idea that she was not only expected to
marry (rather than have a career - her parents wouldn't spend the money
on the good college she wanted to go to because it was a waste of money
since she was just going to get married anyway), but that she was
"nothing without a man."  Unfortunately, she can't undo this idea in
herself, but at least she didn't inflict it on me.  Many parents do,
though.

As far as the "pressure," I don't know too much about that - from movies
and books and such, it was my understanding that the father,
historically, tended to want to marry off his daughters so that he no
longer had to support them and didn't have to worry about their welfare.
Can you give some concrete examples of what you're talking about here?

Muffy
--

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

---
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments may be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
From: BICKIS@sask.usask.ca (Mikelis Bickis)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Reverence take two (& three)
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:50:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.sa0p3INNrgv
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

Lenore Levine <<levine@symcom.math.uiuc.edu>> writes:

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

You misunderstand the nature of this worldview.  The reverence is for 
women as a class.  It is not an attitude that individual women can 
evoke to supersede any of their failings as human beings.  Although I 
might feel contempt for the manipulative social predator, I would still 
respect her *as a woman*.  It would be improper, for example, to exploit 
her sexually, regardless of how low her esteem might be as a person.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>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: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Divorce stats
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:32:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: agate.shpcbINNpup
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

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

Well, maybe the statistic is just WRONG!

---
>From the Nov 9 1990 issue of the Chicago Sun Times.

"Divorce statistic misleads us", Jed H Abraham.

The finding that the average standard of living of divorced women
declines a cataclysmic 73 percent while that of a divorced man rises
a whoppeing 42 percent is probably the most famous divorce statistic
of the decade.

It has been rebroadcast far and wide by the media, and it was the prop
upon which much of the child-support legislation of the 1980s rests.

This statistic, however, is wrong.

The population sample from which the statistic came was small (228 people)
and geographically limited (California).  It was also biased.  It consisted
of a self-selected group of men and women drawn from divorce case
dockets.
----

Along with the other problems mentioned above, the study looks at first
year income only.  It's really not surprising that in the
first year after a divorce the woman's income (who may not have been working
at all, or maybe only part time) isn't very high.  In real life, though,
there is usually a lump sum sort of payment to compensate for this.  This
lump sum payment was omitted from the income reported in the study.

I'm not as sure about this as I am of the rest of what I wrote above, but
I belive that the 'high standard of living' found from this study was in real
life a high level of expense for the man in moving to a new residence.

In any event, it's (as far as I can tell) your standard 'garbage
statistic' sort of study.  A small unrepresentative population sample with
a lot of 'self-selection' of the population sample AND a poorly chosen,
axe-grinding methodology - the standard 'statistic from hell'.  If you can
dig up the rest of the referenced newspaper article, it was pretty good.




-- 
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