HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: peri@cco.caltech.edu (Michal Leah Peri)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Date: 2 Oct 1992 00:59:21 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: sandman.caltech.edu

clong@remus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long) writes:

>> 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.

OK, so math isn't fun for everyone.  How about Barbi saying
"math can be fun"....

						--  Michal
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: a question for wives...
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Sunday, 27 Sep 1992 07:57:32 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

I am amazed - and then again, not amazed - at the responses that this
query to `wives' has received.  There are a number of feminist responses,
amounting to `why do you want to get married?' and one from a bitter man
who believes that the only reason a woman might want to get married is
to get at his money and exploit him.  My advice would be `don't look to
soc.women for any useful advice about your problem.  Ask your friends.'

Rohit Parikh
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.culture.indian
From: angrish@hickory.cis.ohio-state.edu (yogesh angrish)
Subject: Re: You and Me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept. of Computer and Info. Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 01:41:01 GMT

In article <1992Sep28.165054.9146@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> sdp@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (sunil.d.patil) writes:
>
>To all those beautiful, loving and compassionate girls,
>
>LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>As I turned to leave in friendship.
>You touched my spirit.
>Then you turned again and kissed me. 
>You touched my heart.
>
>True love is as a river; while
>it takes many turns and
>crosses over many rocks, it
>never ceases to flow.
>
>One of the problems with
>life today, is that some
>people want to make love
>first, then fall in love as
>an option.
>
>Some people say that love is 
>blind - I think it is those
>people who do not love
>that are blind.
>
>If I told you that I will love
>you forever,
>Forever is only the beginning.
>
>I have tried and tried to
>define what love is - and
>all the while the answer
>was easy - YOU!
>
>
>Sunil.
>
>Devilish minded and satanic headeds need not add
>anything to these lovely thoughts.


YOU MAKE ME MAD........
GET A LIFE YOU JERK....OR POST THIS BULLSHIT IN SOME OTHER NEWSGROUP.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.feminism
From: linda@wendy.net.com (Linda Hill)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: Network Equipment Technologies
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 19:40:38 GMT

In article <gthomas.717911648@unixg.ubc.ca> gthomas@unixg.ubc.ca (Guy R Thomas) writes:
>In <1992Sep29.203919.2777@zip.eecs.umich.edu> charles@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Charles Jacob Cohen) writes:
>
>>I think this got posted elsewhere, but just in case:
>
>>     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".  I can't imagine a product better
>
>But realy, college educated individuals, some of whom, almost certainly,
>were female, had at some point, a meeting or probably several, to decide 
>the four phrases that "Teen Talk Barbie" (tm) would have as a repertoire.
>
>What do these women tell their daughters when they get home?

We can write and ask this question of Mattel's president:

 Ms. Jill Barad
 President, Mattel Corporation

or

 Ms. Catherine Blaine
 Assistant to the President

 300 Continental Blvd.
 El Secundo, Ca. 90245
-- 
Linda V. Hill                           Email: linda@net.com
Network Equipment Technologies          Phone: (415) 780-5785
800 Saginaw Drive, 23.2.3               Fax:   (415) 780-5001
Redwood City, CA 94063 
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Guilty of ... Thoughtcrime!
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 00:46:26 GMT
Reply-To: margoli@watson.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: The Village Waterbed
Followup-To: talk.abortion

In  <nyikos.717798089@milo.math.scarolina.edu>  nyikos@math.scarolina.edu (Peter Nyikos) writes:
> In <1992Sep27.085848.166097@watson.ibm.com> Larry Margolis <margoli@watson.ibm.c
>
> >In  <1992Sep26.010844.3042@zooid.guild.org>  Will Steeves <goid@zooid.guild.org
> >>
> >> Actually, I've seen many statistics showing that pregnancy is no greater a
> >> risk for women than the operation to terminate one.
>
> >Where have you seen these statistics?  Everything I've seen says that
> >the risk for carrying to term is much higher.
>
> it is impossible to tell how far removed these
> other sources are from the PRIMARY sources by the little info you give.

Nevertheless, I gave lots of statistics from lots of sources.  All the
numbers I've seen say that an early term abortion is an order of magnitude
safer than carrying to term.  Mr. Steeves said he's seen many statistics
that say otherwise.  I'm still waiting to hear his references.  If you
have any contradictory numbers, feel free to present them.  (And, since
you object to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, I assume you'll only quote
from unbiased sources.  That's why I gave *lots* of sources.)

> >--     the risk of complications with abortion is minimal --
>
> And how do they know, when so many women are understandably
> reluctant to return to a place that butchered them in the first
> place?

If they went somewhere else, it would still be reported.

> >You seem to be confused.  Pro-choice is not pro-abortion.  Pro-choice does
> >not mean that you're in favor of abortions at all.  It means that you're
> >in favor of letting the woman make her own choice as to what's best for her.
> >You can oppose abortion for sex selection, or abortion for any reason at
> >all, as long as you don't want to *legislate* your opposition.
>
> That's a pretty good definition of pro-choice, actually.  Trouble is, the
> pro-choicers who are this uncomfortable with abortion are the exception
> rather than the rule in this newsgroup.

What evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), margoli@watson.IBM.com (Internet)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: The Politics Of Appeasement
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:09:38 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.011341.2517@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
)I found this post in soc.men and thought it was interesting, so I'm
)including the complete text.

<omitted - twice is enough :-)>

)Something like 40,000 American women die each year from breast cancer.
)Are you saying that it's wrong to fund a disease that mainly strikes
)women (although breast cancer can also strike men)?  Do you feel the
)same way about cancers that only strike men--penile cancer, testicular
)cancer, prostate cancer?  Should research and treatment of them not be
)funded because these are cancers of a special interest group--men?
)
)Since women suffer less from cardiovascular disease when they're of
)child-bearing years, should we only research such disease in older
)people and forget about younger men with these diseases?  We don't
)want to appeal to the special interest group of younger men with such
)diseases.
)
)Do you have any figures that "so much more money (is) spent on women's
)health" other than the breast cancer figure?  Do you have any figures
)on the percentage of women used in research studies?  Do you know, for
)example, if the "aspirin-a-day helps cardiac patients" claim works for
)women, since no women were included in this study?

From Science, the December 29 1991 issue. These figures are approximate, as
they are read from a graph, interpolated by my eyeball. 
The source of the figures is a 'recent GAO report', but I don't have any more
specifics.

                    Total Funding (millions)   Funding per Death (thousands)
Stroke                   75                        .5
Lung cancer              80                        .5
Prostate cancer          30                        1
Breast cancer            120                       2.5
Aids                     350                       15  

Conclusion: Breast cancer is funded at over 2.5x the rate of any other
cancer per death, and is also the leading in absolute funding.

It *is* interesting that prostate cancer is second place in fuding per
death, but it's the lowest in absolute terms.  (There may be a threshold
effect here).

I think the remark that breast cancer funding is politically motivated
is right on target, myself.

For example 120/2.5 gives 48,000 deaths per hear for breast cancer
from these approximate figures (close to your number), while
80/.5 gives 160,000 deaths for lung cancer per year.  Yet breast
cancer receives more funding than lung cancer.

I don't have any statistics on general health funding issues for women,
but certainly 'extra' funding for breast cancer isn't going to address
any broader problems that women may have.

Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,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: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 19:23:24 GMT

> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:
>> mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
>>> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

(statutory rape...)

>>>  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.
>
>  Well, you have my sympathies for what appears to have been a very negative
>experience for you (else why complain) but from purely statistical point of
>view, your single experience does not justify making any conclusions about
>a nation of 240,000,000 people. 

Hello?  Are you there?  First, I was NOT complaining.  Second, wrong 
assumption on your part: it was not a very negative experience.  Contrarily,
it was positive.  Third, I did not make any conclusions about a nation of 
240,000,000 people based on my single experience either.  Have you READ 
my posts?

I said "Three years seems like a long time for a crime that is rarely 
prosecuted" (or something along those lines.)  I have NO problem
that it is rarely prosecuted.  In fact, I think that's probably a good
thing.  No complaints here.  What WOULD bother me, however, would be if
the minimum sentence for statutory rape was more than three years.  That
seems excessive to me.

I do not consider consensual sex "rape".  I'm all for prosecuting rapists,
however.  There are plenty out there who should be locked away.

>|  Michael Rivero        rivero@dev8j.mdcbbs.com     "A Human's Human!"  |

rini
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.abortion.inequity,talk.abortion,soc.men
From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Support for young women in science
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 92 23:05:35 GMT

In article <92270.073307RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET> writes:
>   Suppose that a group is set up which enables young women to contact other
>women scientists to get help and advice, but men are excluded from giving
>or receiving advice.  Why is there any harm?  I won't respond to the personal
>attacks of farthing@leland, but I WILL respond to the issue.

You have repeatedly distorted the original poster's proposal.  If
telling you that you're doing this is a personal attack, so be it.  

>   Let us suppose that there is such a group for Computer Science.
>Now, in Computer Science, the highest award is the Turing award, named by
>the way after Alan Turing, a gay male.  To my knowledge, none of these awards
>have ever been won by a woman.  If I am wrong, then perhaps one or two.  Now,
>by excluding men from GIVING advice, you are excluding young women from
>RECEIVING advice from Turing award winners.  I fail to see how this helps them.
>Of course, a woman may primarily emphasise her emotional needs, and it so
>happens that with HER, they are best met by a woman.  If so, this is fine.
>But why on earth should the group IMPOSE this on her by its very structure?

Why does this impose this?  If it's a group to have young women see
other women as scientists and engineers, what is wrong with that?  Is
the only group the young women are to have access to is the group for
women?  No, no one said that.  It's a newsgroup or mailing list for
young women to talk with other women.  It isn't the only cs group in
existence.  If the purpose is to show female engineers and scientists
as role models for young women, why _should_ men be included?  Aren't
male engineers and scientists nearly all they do see?  (Maybe Stanford
is different from most American universities, but nearly all the
engineering profs here are white men.)

Xref: sparky soc.women:17041 soc.men:16933
From: garvin+@cs.cmu.edu (Susan Garvin)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Amy Fischer: The Circus Continues
Date: 26 Sep 92 05:38:46 GMT
Followup-To: alt.flame
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1992Sep25.112152.1@mdcbbs.com> rivero@mdcbbs.com writes:

[lots of text deleted and my apologies to other readers]

#  The "rarely prosecuted" is not accurate. While many feminists like to
#dump all versions of rape into the "rarely prosecuted" catagory along
#with date rape, alcohol rape, and can't parallel-park rape, 

Other people may feel sympathy for you, Rivero, but I don't.  
If your current behavior is any indication of your past
behavior, no human being could be expected to associate with
you.

Back in the killfile you go.

Susan
Newsgroups: soc.women
From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:05:43 GMT

dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
>farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:

>>"It's a subtle form of brainwashing," said Nancy Metx, a math teacher
>>in Gaithersburg, Md.  "It's a very young person hearing that, and
>>that's not what we want young women to hear."
                                                                                
>I think that I've come over to the "this is bad" side of this argument,
>but doesn't the above statement strike you as kinda odd?  Chances are that
>the women didn't even realize what she was saying.

What do you mean?   That the girls who play with this don't understand
English?  I don't get your point.

rini
From: erik@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Erik Lode)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:51:55 GMT
Subject: Article:  Female prisoners up 560%
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Fort Collins, CO, USA
From: CENG51@maccvm.corp.mot.com (Craig Witkowski)
Subject: Re: Mattel and math avoidance in girls
Organization: Motorola
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:39:32 CDT

>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.

If Barbie want's to be a doctor she better be good at math.  How else can she
expect to figure out how many patients she needs to get her BMW! {:^)
(not a joke about women, just about doctors in *general*!)


Craig Witkowski, CENG51@maccvm.corp.mot.com
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Biological Sex Differences? ("Women only" excusable ?)
From: <RIPBC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 26 Sep 1992 07:24:22 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


-From: sam@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Vicky Hansen)
-
-    In soc.women, johnhall@microsoft.com (John Hall) writes:
-
-    In the case of achieving a PhD, the work load required to the
-    exclusion of all other facets of life is something more common
-    amoung men than women.
-
-The schools sometimes hold this view as well.  It is unfortunate if a
-woman is passed over because of it.  It seems to me that someone who
-has a more balance life would just take a little longer, not necessarily
-fail.

     There ARE many universities, CUNY is one, which are more understanding
and tolerant of the fact that someone who leads a fuller life may take a
bit longer (not TOO much longer, please!) to finish a Ph.D.  However, event-
ually, doing the dissertation is like climbing a mountain - you have to
give it your all for a year or so.  I have found that even married male
students have difficulty with this because wives and children do have their
(legitimate) claims.

Rohit Parikh


Xref: sparky soc.women:17145 soc.men:17060
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.men
Subject: Re: Amy Fischer: The Circus Continues
From: rivero@mdcbbs.com
Date: 29 Sep 92 09:48:26 GMT
 <1992Sep25.112152.1@mdcbbs.com> <1992Sep26.164812.27989@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Electronic Data Systems, Unigraphics Division, Cypress CA
Nntp-Posting-User: rivero

In article <1992Sep26.164812.27989@midway.uchicago.edu>, mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (Rini Clarkberg) writes:
> 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.

  Well, you have my sympathies for what appears to have been a very negative
experience for you (else why complain) but from purely statistical point of
view, your single experience does not justify making any conclusions about
a nation of 240,000,000 people. 


> 
> 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.)

  In many states, California included, it's rape only if the victim is female.
That led to a situation here in Los Angeles where several parents tried to
press charges against a woman who has been having sex with young boys in her
neighborhood, only to be told that the woman was committing no crime and was
free to continue.

> 
> 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...


  Well, I have to pause here and admit I haven't a clear idea on this.
While I hold that what two concenting lovers do in the privacy of their own
bedroom is their own business (as long as they don't do it in the streets
and terrify the robots). However, like most other people, I'm concerned
that children, of either gender, not be exploited sexually at too young
an age. That forces a comprimise at some point, IMHO.


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

Xref: sparky soc.women:17129 alt.sex:31176 soc.men:17037
From: rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings)
Newsgroups: soc.women,alt.sex,soc.men
Subject: Re: Female "Wiring"
Date: 28 Sep 92 19:19:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.0elwh9y00Uzx47PN5=
Organization: Sophomore, Architecture, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

>>     The reason most women don't orgasm (even
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>tho they say that they do) is because they don't
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>have _freedom of motion_.  A woman would have to be "on top" and would
have to >>assume the "I'm fucking him" mental attitude.  And many women
>>just don't think this way.
 
>What unmitigated bullshit.
    Indeed.  I have some of my best orgasms when I'm lying flat on my
back, with no "freedom of motion," with a "Wow, my SO is really doing a
great job of making me feel fantastic" mental attitude. :)  Lots of
different techniques and attitudes work, and not all females are "wired"
the same way.
        ---'Becca at Carnegie Mellon
From: Laurie Mann
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: Perot and women
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:00:13 GMT
Reply-To: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com

ljf writes
>Did anyone else find Perot's comments about the two female NBC
>reporters being too harsh on him, and that "they're trying to prove
>their manhood" bizarre?

Sadly, no. It's a common attitude among men who don't know better. 
But Perot has that sort of attitude misogynistic attitude.  

*  NeXT: lmann@vineland.pubs.stratus.com * GEnie:  Laurie.Mann  *
**** Bush or Perot, Just Say NO! **  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 *
From: ci022@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Richard Kirby)
Newsgroups: soc.women
Subject: Re: CONDOMS! and AIDS
Date: 5 Oct 92 03:58:05 GMT
Reply-To: ci022@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, noraa@cbnewsk.cb.att.com (aaron.l.hoffmeyer) says:

>                      And if you ever want to get away from using
>such devices, then you have to have one another checked twice - because
>there is a period in which HIV tests tend to be negative but the person
>is really infected.  

The procedure I've heard of before is to take two tests 6 months
apart because it takes 6 months from the time a person is exposed to
HIV before the test will detect it.  But I don't understand what
the first test is for.  Why not just wait 6 months and do one test?
If the first test is positive, the second will also be positive
and then you will know.  If the first is negative you base your
actions on the results of the second test. 
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.culture.indian
From: 890530m@dragon.acadiau.ca (The Doctor)
Subject: Re: LOVE!!!!!LOVE!!!!!!!LOVE!!!!!!!!MORE LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 18:42:52 GMT

Junish.Arora@dartmouth.edu (Junish Arora) writes:

>In article <1992Sep24.164400.20244@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>
>sdp@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (sunil.d.patil) writes:

>> To all those beautiful, loving and compassionate girls,

>i think you should be careful when you appropriate the concept of
>beauty, especially in poetry, for in poetry words carry a tremendous
>weight.  i assume you mean transcendental and not physical beauty, but
>this is not an assumption one should have to make while reading poetry.
> this is even more important considering our cultural context and the
>emphasis our society places upon women to be physically attractive and
>in particular fair.  specificity would be appropriate when dealing with
>a topic like beauty.

Most likely physical beauty was intended, since other 'beauties' were also
specified.
-Doc

Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.culture.indian