Hi,
> >
> > it's the fact that to BECOME competant you often have to spend lots of
> > time not having a social life, and often neglecting such things as
> > friends, clothes, makeup, proms, classes... er... anyway, just
generally
> > being somewhat isolated and obsessive, which is not as accepta
Susannah Rosenberg wrote:
>
> it's the fact that to BECOME competant you often have to spend lots of
> time not having a social life, and often neglecting such things as
> friends, clothes, makeup, proms, classes... er... anyway, just generally
> being somewhat isolated and obsessive, which is no
Doug Vogt wrote:
>
> My fear is that temporal myopia (the propensity not to see trends from
> the past to extrapolate into the future) would combine with
> intimidations now. I think that women who are competent with computers
> perceive disdain from others and also see in others the high levels
On Tue, 11 Apr 2000, Terri Oda wrote:
> However, I've been told *many* times that I shouldn't even consider going
> to a job interview in anything less than a skirt or dress. Anyone else get
> that?
i haven't gotten it but i live in boston. i grew up in atlanta, and from
what i saw growing up t
Rock on! :)
/"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
\ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/
/ \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>I wonder how much of this comes from the "corporate atmosphere" ie. in
>dance groups men who are more "feminine" seem to be more respected then
>those that are not... perhaps the environment (perhaps shapped by xyz male
>syndrom) leads to an expectation of a certian dress for a "techie"
The most
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Terri Oda wrote:
> However, I've been told *many* times that I shouldn't go to a job interview
> in pants and occasionally got frowns from co-op advisors and such.
I *always* go to interviews in pants. However, in CA, women are not
allowed to be discriminated against for w
>I wonder how much of this comes from the "corporate atmosphere" ie. in
>dance groups men who are more "feminine" seem to be more respected then
>those that are not... perhaps the environment (perhaps shapped by xyz male
>syndrom) leads to an expectation of a certian dress for a "techie"
The most
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, curious wrote:
> I wonder how much of this comes from the "corporate atmosphere" ie. in
> dance groups men who are more "feminine" seem to be more respected then
> those that are not... perhaps the environment (perhaps shapped by xyz male
> syndrom) leads to an expectation of
curious wrote:
>
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, srl wrote:
> > For some reason, there's a prevailing assumption that feminine =
> > non-technical. Either that, or male geeks get along better with people
> > like them
I find that this assumption tends to hold, as well.
> I wonder how much of th
Hi, Susannah,
> in a technical job (or situation such as staying
> up all night coding in your garage), feminine clothing just really isn't
> suited. just /try/ putting together a box while wearing panty-hose, i
> dare ya.
I've done it. Many times. I used to work for a Catholic organization.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Susannah Rosenberg wrote:
> hrm. that would depend on whether or not optimizing for
> "unattractiveness"
> counts. (i know of someone who apparently does this -- hi amanda!).
> personally, it's rather pathetic that women even have to *bother* to do
> this, but i know quite a
Hi,
>
> I wonder how much of this comes from the "corporate atmosphere" ie. in
> dance groups men who are more "feminine" seem to be more respected then
> those that are not... perhaps the environment (perhaps shapped by xyz
male
> syndrom) leads to an expectation of a certian dress for a "techie
quoting srl:
> > *nod* i've found that being "one of the guys"--- wearing jeans or khakis,
> > sport shirts (cotton, non-flannel), and boots--- gets me places with
> > technical people that I wouldn't get if i dressed more "feminine".
> > I've discussed this with my butch acquaintances and th
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, srl wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Susannah Rosenberg wrote:
> >
> > > Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're
> > > sexually interested in; at least, not consciously.
> >
> > Some of us have made a
Hi, Shane, and everyone else,
>
> For some reason, there's a prevailing assumption that feminine =
> non-technical. Either that, or male geeks get along better with people
> like them
>
IMHO, that stinks and needs to be fought. My personality, the way I am
comfortable, is feminine. I'm
Hi, Susannah, and everyone,
> >
> > > Because it's incorrect, and traditionally the burden of
'desireability'
> > > is on females.
> > >
> > > Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're
> > > sexually interested in; at least, not consciously.
When I dress better for work, it
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Susannah Rosenberg wrote:
>
> > Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're
> > sexually interested in; at least, not consciously.
>
> Some of us have made a deliberate point of being OUTSIDE as much of the
Deirdre Saoirse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Some of us have made a deliberate point of being OUTSIDE as much of the
> norms as possible *because* we didn't like the sexist attention. Thus, I
> don't even think the statement that we optimize for attractiveness is
> true. (Unless, of course, you consi
Deirdre Saoirse wrote:
>
> > Because it's incorrect, and traditionally the burden of 'desireability'
> > is on females.
> >
> > Not everyone tries to make themselves desirable to those they're
> > sexually interested in; at least, not consciously.
>
> Some of us have made a deliberate point of be
On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Susannah Rosenberg wrote:
> > To some degree men and women try to make themselves "desirable" to the
> > gender they are intrested in... Other then the statement being
> > hetrosexist what is wrong with this assumption?
>
> Because it's incorrect, and traditionally the burde
curious wrote:
>
> > Doug Vogt wrote:
> > >
> > > You can certainly be irritated by the attention that Playboy's Playmate
> > > of the Month steals.
> >
> > This line clarified something I specifically wanted to refute.
> >
> > There /appears/ to be an underlying theme in your argument that
> > '
> Doug Vogt wrote:
> >
> > You can certainly be irritated by the attention that Playboy's Playmate
> > of the Month steals.
>
> This line clarified something I specifically wanted to refute.
>
> There /appears/ to be an underlying theme in your argument that
> 'women want to be desirable to men
Doug Vogt wrote:
>
> You can certainly be irritated by the attention that Playboy's Playmate
> of the Month steals.
This line clarified something I specifically wanted to refute.
There /appears/ to be an underlying theme in your argument that
'women want to be desirable to men'. It comes acro
Aak!
In my email box I only got so far as to read one email. Someone asked
for clarification.
Um. That would be good.
It helps to clarify after I write something with sparse and seemingly
accidental coherence.
To make matters worse, and put a hugemongous lump in my throat, that
posting I sen
25 matches
Mail list logo
