Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rti-sel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ncsu!mcnc!rti-sel!wfi
From: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <684@rti-sel.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Feb-86 11:20:43 EST
Article-I.D.: rti-sel.684
Posted: Mon Feb 24 11:20:43 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Feb-86 21:08:38 EST
References: <125@ttidcc.UUCP> <215@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <1951@hao.UUCP> <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: wfi@rti-sel.UUCP (William Ingogly)
Organization: Research Triangle Institute, NC
Lines: 81
Xref: linus net.women:8913 net.singles:9433

In article <251@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> cheryl@batcomputer.UUCP () writes:

>	No it is not.  I've seen male graduate students say
>	of a fellow female graduate student, "she should be
>	having kids by now."  

Jeez, Cheryl, I've been in graduate school in two disciplines
(environmental sciences and computer science) and I've NEVER heard a
male grad student say anything like that of a female student. And a
grad student who did make a comment like that would have been shouted
down by his fellow students, male and female alike. Maybe these people
were deliberately pulling your chain ... or maybe the graduate
students I've been around are a little more mature than the group you
seem to know.

>       She wasn't even married.  She
>	had no intention of ever doing so.  She was also a
>	hell of a lot brighter than them -- her undergraduate
>	degree was in physics, theirs in meteorology.  She
>	was working in atmospheric physics, they, chasing
>	tornadoes.  

Ahem. Well. This is nothing less than academic snobbery, Cheryl. Perhaps
you mean she had an undergraduate degree that demanded more rigorous
mathematics than her male peers'. I've certainly known physics majors 
that were uncreative dim bulbs in my time (read: mathematical rigor
ain't the only thing that contributes to 'brightness').

>       They hurt her because she threatened their
>	macho-scientist masculinity thing because she so
>	clearly outclassed them.  They were merciless towards
>	her.  You may know her -- Theresa Schulz.  

Sorry, doesn't ring a bell. Is this an 'in' thing, perhaps from
net.women? You should remember this is going out to net.singles as
well before you start referencing people we haven't heard of.
 
>	...Have you read Joanne Simpson's article?

Again, I assume you're referring to something mentioned in net.women,
a newsgroup I don't subscribe to. If people are going to cross-post to
other newsgroups in the middle of an exchange they should keep this in
mind.

As to Joanne Simpson, I took a graduate seminar in weather
modification from her while I was a grad student at the University of
Virginia. She told a story about her advisor when she was working on a
PhD who asked her what she was insterested in. She said "cloud
physics," and he told her that was a good field for a girl to go into
because it wasn't very important and she wouldn't have much
competition from men. This fellow was a famous meteorologist, Rossby I
think. 

Joanne was known for going to bat for her graduate students, male as
well as female. She went out of her way to make sure her people were
progressing in their careers, and helped many female graduate students
survive in a male-dominated field. Politically, however, she and her
husband Robert are less than fully enlightened. They've received
massive grants over the years from the Phillipine and South African
governments for weather modification studies, and I once heard Robert
Simpson make the following comment in a seminar:

         "...Some say Ferdinand Marcos is a dictator.
          Well, I say if he's a dictator the world
          needs more dictators like him..."

Although Joanne is compassionate and caring where feminist issues are
concerned, she seems sometimes to adjust her politics for maximum
personal benefit.
 
>	Oh, I get it.  Men are allowed to be sexist in defense of
>	their dominance, but women aren't allowed to be sexist when
>	challenging that dominance.  

Nope. NOBODY'S allowed to be sexist, because ANY sexism is wrong. To
believe otherwise is to be a hypocrite, Cheryl. It's as though Desmond
Tutu were preaching that blacks should exploit whites in South Africa
for 200 years (or whatever) to 'make up' somehow for white domination.
Suppression is WRONG no matter who's doing it.
 
                         -- Cheers, Bill Ingogly