Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site stcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!stcvax!crp From: crp@stcvax.UUCP (Charlie Price) Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: "And They Called it YUPpie Love..." Message-ID: <275@stcvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 28-May-84 17:05:00 EDT Article-I.D.: stcvax.275 Posted: Mon May 28 17:05:00 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Jun-84 00:05:08 EDT References: <16600001@hp-pcd.UUCP> <1945@mit-eddie.UUCP>, <974@nsc.UUCP> Organization: Storage Technology Corp. Louisville, CO Lines: 186 > (Wendy P. Nather) > Excuse me. I humbly ask permission from the males on > this net to take *offense*. Who says that women are only > interested in men with computers because they will make > enough money to support them in style? Excuse ME, Wendy, but I don't think you need to take offense at all (and if you did, then "the males on this net" is hardly a good description of Nathan Meyers and/or Randy Haskins who are the only other people in the discussion (till me, of course).) This is NOT a flame, so I would appreciate it if you would read it. The original article simply pointed to an article and provided a very brief comment about some of the content in the article. >> (Nathan Meyers) >> "Knowing a Computer Can Be Fastest Way to a Woman's Heart" is >> one of the feature (i.e., front page) stories in the Wall >> Street Journal of 18 May. >> According to the article, "geeks" and "nerds" are supplanting >> athletes as the Big Men on Campus. I found this entirely inexplicable, and I think Randy Haskins did too. *IF* this is true, how could it possibly be explained? The emphasis in the article was on women, though it is obvious that "Big Man on Campus" is something that men contribute to as well. The interesting question is what could possibly be appealing about computer types that would lead them to supplant athletes as the Big Men on Campus? It certainly isn't their (our) wit and charm since the relative amounts of wit and charm of "nerds" and "athletes" probably hasn't changed in the recent past. There might be a broader spectrum of personalities in computers these days (i.e. some of the computer types might approach normality) but that should make the class "computer type" more acceptable but not positively appealing. Why were athletes ever "Big Men on Campus" anyway? I don't know, but I am willing to speculate. They had something that other people regarded as important qualities. They had fame, and they were exclusive (and I suppose being in great physical shape didn't hurt). Why should computer types suddenly become an especially attractive group (to women, which was what the first article said the story was about)? Randy's conjectures are: >>> (Randwulf (Randy Haskins)) >>> Now, why would women go for men who know computers? Two reasons >>> come immediately to mind: the men are going to make money, or >>> they might do other people's homework. You don't seem to like these conjectures, Wendy, but you don't offer any of your own. Lets take a look at Randy's. It is generally agreed that today's college students are more conservative and more concerned about the practical aspects of education, like earning money, than the students of, say, the sixties. A troubled economy has had a nontrivial effect on the character of effort in higher education. Money has become more important in relation to some of the intangibles. *IF* it is true that "nerds" are the "Big Men on Campus" it is a reasonable conjecture to make that economic considerations of computer jobs might play a part. Remember, we are talking about the same group of people that made athletes be "Big Men on Campus" in the first place, not about everyone. The real "hacker" (as in UNIX hacker) is also a powerful and fairly exclusive breed -- they have qualities that a general populace might regard, now, as important. It is true that some women go to college to "find a husband". When I lived in the dorms I had a young woman who seemed inordinately interested in me (something I am *not* used to). In the course of a discussion one day she seemed not very interested in either her classes or major and I asked her why she was in school. She was at least straightforward about it -- she said "to find a husband"; I never once considered that she was joking, either. She didn't seem to be looking for a man to share a stimulating intellectual relationship with, but she was interested in someone who could make money. Homework? Might be. Is there more computer-related homework in schools these days than when I was a student? If so, then there are a lot more complete novices using computers. They don't know anything about computers, they just have to use them to get something done for a class. I used to help friends with computer stuff in school and my women friends who were only on the periphery of computing were the ones who most needed some help. Usually they ended up doing whatever it was they were supposed to do and I was along to negotiate the problems with the timesharing system, editors, utilities, and compilers. The guys I helped always seemed to simply have a more "engineering" or maybe I mean "algorithmic" outlook on problem solving. This was just part of the great socialization gap (which is narrowing?) Nobody became my friend for this help, but it surely was useful. If there is more of this to do, I can see that a serious computer type would have some attractive qualities as a friend -- and at the point that a friend will give up in disgust, a more ummm.. intimate friend will be willing to grit teeth and continue. This holds both ways, of course, but there are *still* more men than women available as gurus. So, this MIGHT make sense as an explanation. Randy goes on: >>> (Randy) >>> If the women find computers fascinating, *they* should learn about them. and you say: > WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK I'M DOING ON THIS NET? > The fact that I read this article and followed it up > proves that I 1) know enough about computers to have my > own account; 2) am interested enough in computers myself > to have learned enough to have my own account; Right! Randy's generalization obviously doesn't hold for you -- you are doing exactly what he thinks is reasonable. You go on: > 3) and am interested in getting to know other people regardless of > whether they work with computers or not. > I assume that this follows for the other women on this > net as well--which, if you stop to think about it, are > the only women who will read that article. What good > is it doing being posted at all? I thought maybe it was a discussion of the original article. Since I expect female computer-type people aren't making male computer-type people "Big Men on Campus" then it wasn't a discussion *directed* at anyone on the net, and it wasn't intended to characterize women on the net. I figured we were all just people who could be interested in this phenomenon that was related to computer types. You say: > I don't NEED to fawn all over someone with a computer. > I have my own access. Besides, it would be a ridiculous > reason to get involved with anyone. I agree again -- and Randy must agree too, because he says: >>> (Randy) >>> Sorry, but this concept disgusts me. You conclude: > Give us a little more credit for being reasonable > human beings. Geez, Randy was talking about this article -- NOT about *you* personally, Wendy. Who is this "us" you want Randy to give more credit to? Women with accounts on ut-sally? Women on the net? Women in computers? Women on college campuses? Women? Men and women on the net? Men and women on college campuses? I thought that Randy was making some very general conjectures about the people who might be making the phenomenon mentioned in the first article true -- he wasn't talking about women on the net or women in general. You're a woman on a college campus, right? You have a viewpoint I can't hope to duplicate and I would be fascinated if you could make more sense of the assertion that computer "nerds" are replacing athletes as the "Big Men on Campus". Randy's conjectures make some sense, and they may even be generally applicable, but they hardly seem compelling enough to make a trend worthy of news comment. What else is going on out there in college land???? Could you college-based observers give us a report? [of course almost everyone just graduated or got out of school so lots of people are likely not to be reading or posting news] By the way, Wendy, thanks for bringing some energy and thought to this group -- you help make it worth reading and I adamantly DON'T want you to quit participating. -- Charlie Price - STC (disk division) uucp: { hao, ihnp4, decvax}!stcvax!crp { allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!crp USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028 DDD: (303) 673-5698