regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/22/85)
> Andy Cohill >Out of one side of your mouth you waiving the flag for equal >treatment, freedom to compete with men, more power for women, etc., >and out of the other side you seem to be saying that you women just >don't have what it takes to "dominate" this forum, so we men should >"let" you dominate it. Well, Andy, you must have been mad, and let your anger color your posting. Karla was expressing a personal opinion, essentially (as I interpreted it -- another personal opinion) that she wasn't interested in hearing all the crap recently being posted to the net (you recall, while she did cite the number of articles posted, by sex, her REAL gripe was the trivial subject matter and the lack of information on the part of many of the posters). I also took her gripe about the relative numbers to be her interpretation as to WHY the subjects were trivial and/or lacking information. The collective we of net.women have been aware of the volume level for some time. Perhaps (just interpretation here) Karla is suggesting that the true relevant volume of the net is closer to the 39 articles women posted than the 143 that include the men's contributions. Frankly, I don't agree with her, and am as mindful of my sense of obligation to refute some of the stupider arguments of the uninformed as well as respond favorably to the arguments of those similarly educated to myself, BUT! she certainly is entitled to her opinion. IF I were a man, and IF my intent in reading net.women was to learn something I didn't already know about women, I might find a message in Karla's posting -- that there are women out there who don't post possibly interesting/intelligent stuff because they don't like the way this net works. IF I didn't care, then I'd probably 'n' past the rest of this argument. Adrienne Regard
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/26/85)
CHARLIE!!! Hold on a minute, there!!! >As others have said better than I can, If you, indeed, want to improve >the lot of women, like it or not, you will likely need the support of >men bsecause you obviously don't have the support of all women (who >are, I believe, still the majority in this country). This doesn't >mean that you have to bow & scrape, as many of you seem to believe. >It just means that it would make sense not to alienate people >unnecessarily (what else would you call calling men testosterone >poisoned assholes, or words to that effect?). There is some problem with selectivity here!!! It doesn't seem to me, with my *warped* view of reality, that to "alientate people unnecessarily" is any different aimed at men (testosterone poisoning) than at women (PMS)! This whole line of reasoning turns the "PMS incompetency" discussion into a purposeful alienation of the women on the net!!! ARE you claiming that was Ross's purpose? It's damned easy to forgive ourselves while we ream the other guy -- but it's damned unnecessary, too. This argument started up related to the PMS argu- ment (that went on too long and to no purpose, initiated by a man) and I'm afraid I'm gonna take issue with you if you now find women *as a class* at fault because some individuals came back with a sauce for the gander. DECIDE fer chrissake whether you're gonna respond personally, in which case we can all run your comments through a "personal opinion" filter, and make sure your rebuttals reflect that personal stance! If you decide to pose a generic stance -- *all* men, *all* women -- o.k., but then don't get other's _personal_ remarks messed up in it. >How about if we quit all of this name-calling and invective and get on >with some rational discussion? > Hear, hear (or rather, Here, here). Adrienne Regard
crs@lanl.ARPA (08/27/85)
> There is some problem with selectivity here!!! It doesn't seem to me, with > my *warped* view of reality, that to "alientate people unnecessarily" is > any different aimed at men (testosterone poisoning) than at women (PMS)! > This whole line of reasoning turns the "PMS incompetency" discussion into > a purposeful alienation of the women on the net!!! ARE you claiming that > was Ross's purpose? Come on, Adrienne. You seem to be missing the point. It is one thing to discuss something, even to disagree with others; it is quite another to engage in name calling. As you say, this discussion has gone on too long -- so long that I no longer recall Ross's exact words but I think I would if he had said something like "PMS poisoned asshole" which I assume would be analogous. In fact, I seem to recall that Ross asked a simple question; something like "There is some evidence that PMS causes ... Should this affect hiring practices?" [ALL OF MY 'QUOTES' ARE PARAPHRASES FROM FAULTY MEMORY.] I am not saying that anyone should refrain from disagreeing with anyone else. I am saying it would be nice if we could manage to do it without being disagreeable; that there is no reason and no excuse for name calling. As to purpose, I'm not claiming that alienation is anyone's *purpose* -- I am claiming that it is an *effect* that is at cross purposes with the *stated* objective of many who post here including some of the most extreme name callers. Hey, I cuss a lot, but calling someone who disagrees with you an ignorant son of a bitch or whatever your favorite expression is, is more likely to lose those who agree with you point than win those who don't. > It's damned easy to forgive ourselves while we ream the other guy -- but it's > damned unnecessary, too. This argument started up related to the PMS argu- > ment (that went on too long and to no purpose, initiated by a man) and I'm > afraid I'm gonna take issue with you if you now find women *as a class* at > fault because some individuals came back with a sauce for the gander. I'd hardly say that calling someone an asshole of any kind is "sauce for the gander" when it is a response to someone who simply had the gall to disagree. > DECIDE fer chrissake whether you're gonna respond personally, in which case > we can all run your comments through a "personal opinion" filter, and make > sure your rebuttals reflect that personal stance! If you decide to pose > a generic stance -- *all* men, *all* women -- o.k., but then don't get > other's _personal_ remarks messed up in it. I guess I must be dense today -- I have no idea what you are getting at in the above. Perhaps the net will be kind enough to read *all* of my article that prompted this, not just the paragraph that you've taken out of context and tell me what the above paragraph means in relation to my article. > >How about if we quit all of this name-calling and invective and get on > >with some rational discussion? > > > Hear, hear (or rather, Here, here). > > Adrienne Regard For, I hope, the last time: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISAGREEING WITH A PERSON AND CALLING NAMES. -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/28/85)
In article <710@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: > >This whole line of reasoning turns the "PMS incompetency" discussion into >a purposeful alienation of the women on the net!!! ARE you claiming that >was Ross's purpose? > Ahem...mind if I break in? I can state, for the record, the following: It sure as shit wasn't my intent or purpose! If I had the past to live over again, I surely would not have contributed to, nor initiated that discussion. It raised my own blood pressure, and destroyed what little credibility I had to begin with. It also hurt this newsgroup. Above all else, *that* is what I feel was wrong, and it is that which I am most sorry for. Let us try to pick up the pieces? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn