jdh@mtung.UUCP (Julia Harper) (07/12/85)
() one thing we should really all remember about women and their monthly cycles.... Men have cycles too, and men have ups and downs and periods of more or less concentration too. Women can at least tell better where in their cycle they are, and plan around it. Sounds like an advantage to me, not a disadvantage.... -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!mtung!jdh
amc@whuts.UUCP (COHILL) (07/17/85)
*** *** > > Women can at least tell > better where in their cycle they are, and plan around it. > -- > Julia Harper I have to be a bit skeptical of that statement. I have shared living quarters with three women, and in all three cases, I have been able to tell at least two to three days before them when their period is about to begin. Things usually go like this... (After observing peculiar behavior...) ME: Your period is about due, isn't it? SHE: How the hell would you know? ME: (I say nothing, having learned to keep my mouth shut) two days later... I'm sitting on the couch reading, about 9PM. She comes over and sits next to me. SHE: I'm depressed. ME: Your period started today, right? SHE: (in a petulant tone of voice) Yes! In *my* experience, the biggest problem women have with PMS is not the physical/psychological side effects, but just plain 'fessing up that there *are* some side effects.... Andy Cohill {allegra|ihnp4}whuts!amc
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/17/85)
In article <173@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (COHILL) writes: (Quoting Julia Harper): >> >> Women can at least tell >> better where in their cycle they are, and plan around it. > > >In *my* experience, the biggest problem women have with PMS is not >the physical/psychological side effects, but just plain 'fessing up >that there *are* some side effects.... > Well, it looks like the rules of the game have changed somewhat: many of the women in this group use the idea that 1) it is okay to have physical/psychological side effects due to their menstrual cycle, 2) that they are somehow better off than men, since they can "recognize" these side effects, 3) that these side effects have no effect on their work or personal performance or that they can *keep it under control*. I certainly agree with 1). I ask for *any* proof that men have *any* kind of cycle as per 2), and feel that a person that has to exert *any* effort to keep something under control is somehow less efficient in other concerns during that time. An interesting question: Let's assume that a women were to run for President, Prime Minister (Hi, Maggie!), or whatever. Should her PMS (or lack thereof) be taken into consideration? No flames here, please, but since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this be taken into account? This is a serious question! Given that we coulda had Geraldine in office, this hidden and lets-not-even-talk-about-it subject does have bearing on *my* life today. Before answering with letter bombs and denying that any women gets weird: please realize that I'm not attacking *all* women or even those that have strong PMS. I'm just wondering if such a thing should be taken into effect, and how does one go about "testing" for such things (I wouldn't take the word of a politician for *anything*!)? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel
gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) (07/20/85)
-- > An interesting question: Let's assume that a women were to run for > President, Prime Minister (Hi, Maggie!), or whatever. Should her > PMS (or lack thereof) be taken into consideration? > Since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women > (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing > weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this > be taken into account? > > Ross M. Greenberg Oh boy--more misogyny. First off, this did not seem to deter the British, Israelis or Indians from electing women, who certainly did not manifest any such problems carrying out their duties. Second, I'd take a woman's possible once a month weirdness to a man's permanently fragile ego, which loves to get into wars to "prove" its "manhood", any day. Third, just look at the string of male leaders we've had--how could it get any worse? -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 20 Jul 85 [2 Thermidor An CXCIII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** ***
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/22/85)
>I have shared living quarters with three women, and in all three cases, I >have been able to tell at least two to three days before them when their >period is about to begin. >In *my* experience, the biggest problem women have with PMS is not >the physical/psychological side effects, but just plain 'fessing up >that there *are* some side effects.... > > Andy Cohill Experience is an interesting thing, because it is one of the few influences that actually change our beliefs (often, a presentation of the "facts" just doesn't do it). However, I'd be reluctant to base my opinion of PMS on a sampling of three women. What is presently known is that SOME women suffer a great deal due to this "syndrome" (which includes a number of actual symptoms and medically verifiable chemical changes). What is also know is that SOME women do not suffer at all from it. And then there are other women who suffer in some specific manner and to some specific degree. I wouldn't really worry about it if the president of the US happened to suffer from a 2 lb. waterweight gain ever 30 days or so, or happened to have slight breast tenderness every so often. I'd have a little more trouble if the president suffered blinding headaches for 5 full days out of 30 (John Kennedy had such a problem, but it wasn't on a schedule), or was completely bedridden for weeks at a time (pick any of our past presidents who have suffered various illnesses that kept them from office for signifi- cant periods of time). The point is, it's rather useless worrying about a woman's capacity re PMS, since, if she's motivated, she's hardly likely to let it handicap her, and if she isn't motivated, she's hardly likely to be a desirable employee (or public servant) in other respects. The _mistake_ is to presume that PMS is uncontrollable, unpredictable, universal or unmanagable. If you take a small sampling, you may have found people who currently suffer from some facet of the syndrome and have not yet bothered to deal effectively with it. You may also find that the women you talk with have no trouble with it AT ALL. You may also get a kick out of generalizing from the specific to the whole world, so your opinions can march on undisturbed, but I hope not. Adrienne Regard
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/22/85)
In article <532@ihu1m.UUCP> gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: > >Oh boy--more misogyny. First off, this did not seem to deter the >British, Israelis or Indians from electing women, who certainly >did not manifest any such problems carrying out their duties. Notice the question. I asked whether such things as PMS should be taken into account. Nothing there would indicate any misogyny!! Just a question. I don't know it it has any validity --- that's why it was posed as a question! >Second, I'd take a woman's possible once a month weirdness to a man's >permanently fragile ego, which loves to get into wars to "prove" its >"manhood", any day. Third, just look at the string of male leaders >we've had--how could it get any worse? Sad but true.... Hence the answer to the aforementioned question becomes even more important! -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I was riding a wombat this morning, 'till it broke its leg. I had to shoot it" -- Ranger on Camel
gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) (07/22/85)
In article <173@whuts.UUCP> amc@whuts.UUCP (COHILL) writes: >*** >*** >> >> Women can at least tell >> better where in their cycle they are, and plan around it. >> -- >> Julia Harper > >I have to be a bit skeptical of that statement. I have shared living >quarters with three women, and in all three cases, I have been able >to tell at least two to three days before them when their period is >about to begin. > > Andy Cohill I think you missed Julia's point. What she was saying was that men have cycles too, but that men are less able to "predict" their cycles than women are. I'm inclined to agree with her on this. There are definitely times when I do have an "off day" several days running, or hit a "low period" or a "dry spell". I think that the "science" of bio-rhythms is based on the fact that people have some sorts of cycles to their lives. A woman is probably more aware of the cycles affecting her because of the fact that (at least) one of those cycles is physical. -- Geoff Loker Department of Computer Science University of Toronto Toronto, ON M5S 1A7 USENET: {ihnp4 decwrl utzoo uw-beaver}!utcsri!utai!gkloker CSNET: gkloker@toronto ARPANET: gkloker.toronto@csnet-relay
ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (07/23/85)
> -- > > An interesting question: Let's assume that a women were to run for > > President, Prime Minister (Hi, Maggie!), or whatever. Should her > > PMS (or lack thereof) be taken into consideration? > > Since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women > > (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing > > weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this > > be taken into account? > > > > Ross M. Greenberg Consiering the age of national leaders, both male and female, PMS is no longer a factor. 50 is considered young for a head of state, and most women have gone through menopause by then. And, like Ken Perlow says, how can women do worse than men have? Ariel Shattan ..!tektronix!orca!ariels
joel@peora.UUCP (Joel Upchurch) (07/23/85)
This may be a stupid question, but how many female heads of state, or male for that matter, have there been recently that were young enough for PMS to be a consideration. It seems to me that few heads of state are under 50.
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/24/85)
> > An interesting question: Let's assume that a women were to run for > President, Prime Minister (Hi, Maggie!), or whatever. Should her > PMS (or lack thereof) be taken into consideration? No flames here, please, > but since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women > (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing > weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this > be taken into account? > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Unknowns don't usually get into high office. They usually are not even considered for such. For example, Geraldine Ferraro was a legislator before she was a vice-presidential candidate. If she had any history of "weirdness" due to PMS, it would have become public knowledge long before she had any chance of being nominated for the vice-presidency (that is, the "weirdness" would have become known, not necessarily the PMS, if she had any). Politicians are constantly under public scrutiny, and erratic behavior is hard to keep hidden. While I know of no proof that some men have organically induced personality cycles, we all know that some men are extremely erratic and others are quite stable. That is, some men are too emotionally unstable to be trusted with important responsibilities. The same is true for some women. What difference does if make if the erratic behavior comes from a known cause (PMS, for example), or an unknown cause? Some might argue statistically, saying some women suffer from PMS, but no men do, the implication being that one takes a greater risk in electing a woman to high office than in electing a man. I have two responses to this. First, there is no proof that, on the average, women are less emotionally stable than men (even given PMS). Second, nobody votes statistically (I should hope). One votes for the candidate one thinks would do the better job, based on the expressed policies and political affiliations of the candidate, and one's impression of the intelligence, personality, etc., of the particular candidate. There are two traps we have to avoid. One is judging individuals by the statistics of the groups they belong to. The other is assuming we know what those statistics are when we have no real evidence. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/24/85)
> In article <532@ihu1m.UUCP> gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: > > > >Oh boy--more misogyny. First off, this did not seem to deter the > >British, Israelis or Indians from electing women, who certainly > >did not manifest any such problems carrying out their duties. > > Notice the question. I asked whether such things as PMS should be > taken into account. Nothing there would indicate any misogyny!! > Just a question. I don't know it it has any validity --- that's why > it was posed as a question! [ROSS GREENBERG] Baloney, Ross! If you had no opinion, you would have said, "Hey, guys, do you think PMS should be taken into account...?" Instead, you said (and I quote): > An interesting question: Let's assume that a women were to run for > President, Prime Minister (Hi, Maggie!), or whatever. Should her > PMS (or lack thereof) be taken into consideration? (fine, this is a reasonable question, but you couldn't stop there, could you, Ross?) > Since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women > (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing > weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this > be taken into account? ^^^^^^^^^ Make up your mind, Ross, do you have an opinion or don't you? If not, you should learn how to phrase a question properly, so as to avoid any confusion (seems this gets you in trouble over and over, doesn't it?) If so, then for Chrissakes just say what you think, and if you get flamed for it then take it like a man instead of constantly backing down and whining "I didn't mean THAT!" marie desjardins park
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (07/24/85)
>but since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women >(if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing >weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this >be taken into account? Men, of course, never have their emotions doing weird things during important decision processes. They never make misteaks, either. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (07/24/85)
In article <532@ihu1m.UUCP> gadfly@ihu1m.UUCP (Gadfly) writes: >-- >> An interesting question: Let's assume that a women were to run for >> President, Prime Minister (Hi, Maggie!), or whatever. Should her >> PMS (or lack thereof) be taken into consideration? >> Since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women >> (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing >> weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this >> be taken into account? >> >> Ross M. Greenberg > >Oh boy--more misogyny. First off, this did not seem to deter the >British, Israelis or Indians from electing women, who certainly >did not manifest any such problems carrying out their duties. >Second, I'd take a woman's possible once a month weirdness to a man's >permanently fragile ego, which loves to get into wars to "prove" its >"manhood", any day. Third, just look at the string of male leaders >we've had--how could it get any worse? >-- > *** *** >JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** > ****** ****** 20 Jul 85 [2 Thermidor An CXCIII] >ken perlow ***** ***** >(312)979-7753 ** ** ** ** >..ihnp4!iwsl8!ken *** *** And, may I add, women *know* when their hormones are going to be acting up--men's are completely unpredictable (ever wonder why academic men wear such baggy pants? It's pretty embarassing when a cute co-ed struts in late and the guy's hormones make his favorite organs do funny things! It's hard to cover up the sudden confusion that enters his brain, though!) I think men should be kept at home, because they clearly have a hard time dealing with the presence of attractive, capable, intelligent women! Besides, if men all worked, who would keep the house painted and the cars in good repair? Who would watch the children? Girls are nice and can pretty much take care of themselves, but a boy and his budding hormonal problems, agression, tendency to wreck cars, get into fights, NEED the presence of a man at home to provide discipline, show him how to fix cars, etc. I think all this nonsense about men working outside the home should stop immediately! Cheryl Stewart --
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (07/25/85)
>Second, I'd take a woman's possible once a month weirdness to a man's >permanently fragile ego, which loves to get into wars to "prove" its >"manhood", any day. Third, just look at the string of male leaders >we've had--how could it get any worse? It may not get any worse but the few female leaders we have had have shown that it won't necessarily get any better. Women are just as capable as men to have a "permanently fragile ego". Farzin Mokhtarian ubc-vision!mokhtar
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/25/85)
> > This may be a stupid question, but how many female heads of > state, or male for that matter, have there been recently > that were young enough for PMS to be a consideration. It > seems to me that few heads of state are under 50. Just because you're so logical doesn't mean that you're that smart.. We've already got your argument covered. You see, after PMS is over, comes : MENOPAUSE!!!!!! so women will never be free of RHC (the Ragin Hormones Condition) Anyway, who'd want a president with a dry vagina. (ok, ok, I'll add my <-: <-: for those obtuse people out there) -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/27/85)
In article <462@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: > >(fine, this is a reasonable question, but you couldn't stop there, >could you, Ross?) > (Quoting me): >> Since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women >> (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing >> weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this >> be taken into account? ^^^^^^^^^ > >Make up your mind, Ross, do you have an opinion or don't you? If >not, you should learn how to phrase a question properly, so as to >avoid any confusion (seems this gets you in trouble over and over, >doesn't it?) If so, then for Chrissakes just say what you think, >and if you get flamed for it then take it like a man instead of >constantly backing down and whining "I didn't mean THAT!" I'll try not to back down, that wouldn't be a manly thing, you claim. My mind is made up: if a *person* is gonna act weird and have responsibility thrown on them, then I want to make damn sure that (since this has never happened before) they don't do something weird that affects *my* life. Perhaps I should take a break from this question for a while: What started off as a simple question is suddenly turning into flames, and that wasn't what I intended. Oh.....BTW, I usually say what I want to say. Sometimes people don't read it carefully enough. Like in the original question, I think you could have read it (as intended) as "If PMS does weird things, then should we take that into account". No statement that we should or shouldn't, which I *think* is what you jumped all over. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I saw _Lassie_. It took me four shows to figure out why the hairy kid never spoke. I mean, he could roll over and all that, but did that deserve a series?"
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/30/85)
I feel myself to be unusually qualified to answer this issue: Speaking from experience, I find that being under the influence of male hormones tends to result in some percentage loss of ability to focus on the work at hand, 100 percent of the time. Being under the influence of female hormones tends to result in some less percentage loss of ability to focus on the work at hand, some percentage of the time. Men tend to be always operating with sexual interest as a high-priority background function which keeps intruding on their work. Women tend to have a few really emotional days, and a few days of physical pain associated with menstrual cramps, and the monthly fluctuations in their hormones. I don't suffer from cramps in my internal plumbing, but I do experience swings in emotionality associated with my monthly hormone cycle. On the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex than men are. Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. Why am I qualified to say these things? Because I am a male-to-female transsexual who has experienced first hand the effects of both types of hormones. To be perfectly honest, there is a lot of truth in the concept of "testosterone poisoning". It totally clouds the mind. So please, enough of this debate about women's incompetence related to PMS symptoms. It's all a tempest in a teapot. Men are in no way less affected by their sex. The big difference between the sexes is in pregnancy. Men are seldom affected by one for longer than an hour after the causative intercourse, while the woman *is* affected for about 9 months (considering the initial couple months have little affect, but nursing after birth makes up for that). NOTE: I am speaking of stereotypes... the average male, the average female. I am *NOT* referring to one Ross M. Greenber as an individual. In the future, I *shouldn't* have to point out that when I say "men" or "women" I am referring to a stereotype or an average which encompasses roughly half the population, and therefore *has* to have many exceptions which are totally in opposition to the stereotype, yet which are outnumbered in the stereotypical average. I personally seldom refer to individuals in net.* forums, responding rather to the concepts presented, not who presented them. Thus, Ross, you will find in your mailbox a personal response to your net.women flames at me, while I'll continue to deal here with less personal issues. Is this clear enough? If my attitudes in this forum appear sexist, remember they're *not* a personal attack, and that it *is* my belief that *most* net.citizens have risen above the stereotypical sexist problems (e.g. rape) being discussed here. Please remember, that when I say "men" I'm referring to an average which includes all males from the honorable Ronald Regan all the way down to your local wino who sleeps in the gutter. Likewise, "women" refers to a stereotype which includes people all the way from the power behind the president (Nancy Regan) down to your local streetwalker. I *do* believe that most of the "men" and "women" in this forum are very much above average, and that as one male pointed out in the past, trying to deal with social issues in net.* forums is much like preaching to the converted. > In article <5392@fortune.UUCP> polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard) writes: > >Men, of course, never have their emotions doing weird things > >during important decision processes. They never make misteaks, > >either. > > > > Henry, if we assume that men and women both have the same emotional > baggage and weirdness, then are we saying that this is without > considering potential PMS problems (in which case women would have > *more* emotional strangness), or are we saying that things are > equal *with* PMS. > > If things are equal with PMS, then just consider what great leaders > women would make *after* menopause. If things are equal without > taking PMS into consideration, think what lousy leaders women would make > *before* menopause. > > Which is it? > > Or should PMS not be an issue and, if this is the case, why? > > BTW, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with any credible (sp?) > evidence regarding these supposed male cycles we keep hearing about. > Or is that a non-issue? > > Honest questions, waiting for honest answers....... > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/30/85)
> > ... if we assume that men and women both have the same emotional > baggage and weirdness, then are we saying that this is without > considering potential PMS problems (in which case women would have > *more* emotional strangness), or are we saying that things are > equal *with* PMS. > > If things are equal with PMS, then just consider what great leaders > women would make *after* menopause. If things are equal without > taking PMS into consideration, think what lousy leaders women would make > *before* menopause. > > Which is it? > > Or should PMS not be an issue and, if this is the case, why? > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Here we go again... We don't know how many women have PMS. We don't know how much it affects each of them. We don't know whether some men also have biological cycles. We don't know whether, on the average, women are more emotionally stable than men or vice versa; I doubt that emotional stability can even be defined well enough to be measured. We don't know how much of behavior is biologically determined and how much of it is learned. In addition, common sense tells us that there is tremendous variation among individuals within their gender, race, national origin, etc. That is, even if we knew all the statistics on behavior as absolute fact, it would still not tell us much about individuals; the standard deviation is too great. Also, it is possible to judge people as individuals without any reliance on statistics. If you want to learn about a person, you can talk to that person, or watch how he or she behaves in various situations. Even is you have a limited amount of time to observe the person, or are limited in what you can ask (as in a job interview), you can still learn a lot about a person in a short amount of time. Some people are better at this than others. Still, I maintain that this ability is a fundamental part of being a human being. What this adds up to is that statistics are a lousy way of judging individuals because: - We don't know what the statistics are. - Even if we did know, individual variance is so great that the statistics wouldn't be worth much for single persons. - Other, better methods exist for judging individuals. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/31/85)
> In article <462@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: > >> Since *some* women get VERY weird due to PMS, and these women > >> (if elected to office) would conceivable have their emotions doing > >> weird things during some important decision process, shouldn't this > >> be taken into account? ^^^^^^^^^ > > > >Make up your mind, Ross, do you have an opinion or don't you? If > >not, you should learn how to phrase a question properly, so as to > >avoid any confusion (seems this gets you in trouble over and over, > >doesn't it?) If so, then for Chrissakes just say what you think, > >and if you get flamed for it then take it like a man instead of > >constantly backing down and whining "I didn't mean THAT!" > > I'll try not to back down, that wouldn't be a manly thing, you claim. Touche, I should have said "Like a person who has thought out what he (she/it/etc.) has to say carefully." However, I really do think you should go back and reread your article. This time, look at it from the perspective of a woman who is tired of having people say "gee, I dunno if we should hire a woman, what if she has -- y'know, problems -- every month?" It's not an easy thing to deal with, especially since about 1/2 of the population has had absolutely no experience, and doesn't seem to realize that most women are NOT severely affected by PMS. Maybe about as many as there are men with uncontrollable sexual urges, or men with a macho-image problem (no, I'm not referring to you -- I hope). The point is that the catch- phrase "PMS" is used as a justification for a lot of unfair things, and whether or not you were trying to use it in that way, I really think it would make all of us feel a lot better if you tried to be more sensitive to the problem. Wouldn't it have been equally useful for your purposes to phrase your question as: "Do you think that PMS is a severe enough problem in some cases that it could affect women's decision processes? If so, should this be a consideration in choosing (for example) elected officials, and if so, how do make this determination?" I think the above is much more neutral than your original article. marie desjardins park
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (07/31/85)
> > This is a serious question! Given that we coulda had Geraldine in > office, this hidden and lets-not-even-talk-about-it subject > does have bearing on *my* life today. Before answering with > letter bombs and denying that any women gets weird: please > realize that I'm not attacking *all* women or even those that > have strong PMS. I'm just wondering if such a thing should > be taken into effect, and how does one go about "testing" for > such things (I wouldn't take the word of a politician for *anything*!)? There is a "test" - just look at the person's past performance. Men can have health problems interfering with their work too. Anyone can have any number of kinds of problems interfering with work. Speaking of Geraldine... at her age PMS may not be a factor for us to worry about anymore. And her past performance indicates that she has not had medical problems interfering with her work.
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (07/31/85)
In article <356@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >In article <5392@fortune.UUCP> polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard) writes: >>Men, of course, never have their emotions doing weird things >>during important decision processes. They never make misteaks, >>either. > >Henry, if we assume that men and women both have the same emotional >baggage and weirdness, then are we saying that this is without >considering potential PMS problems (in which case women would have >*more* emotional strangness), or are we saying that things are >equal *with* PMS. Ross, I was highlighting the notion that PMS might be a factor of minor significance. When a woman is competent at anything, be it as a nurse, homemaker, or prime minister, it indicates that she has come to terms with her emotional and physical baggage and weirdness. The same is true of men. We trust women with positions of great responsibility without regard to PMS when it is convenient. During the world wars, women took over from men quite capably even in such male preserves as heavy industry. Was PMS an issue then? I would prefer to be lead by a woman who suffers greatly from PMS but is competent, intelligent and honest than by a male who has no physical problems but is incompetent, stupid and dishonest. >If things are equal with PMS, then just consider what great leaders >women would make *after* menopause. If things are equal without >taking PMS into consideration, think what lousy leaders women would make >*before* menopause. >Which is it? According to the above lines, women would be lousy leaders before menopause and great leaders after. Methinks thou loadest the question. >Or should PMS not be an issue and, if this is the case, why? For me, the main issue is whether a person is competent or not, whether as a secretary (which was a man's job a century ago) or as a leader (which many claim is a man's job now). As far as I can see, women have demostrated that they are as competent and as incompetent as men at being leaders. -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (07/31/85)
Sunny writes: > I feel myself to be unusually qualified to answer this issue: Speaking > from experience, I find that being under the influence of male hormones > tends to result in some percentage loss of ability to focus on the work > at hand, 100 percent of the time. Being under the influence of female > hormones tends to result in some less percentage loss of ability to > focus on the work at hand, some percentage of the time. And in case there's anyone still out there who doesn't know *why* Sunny feels specially qualified to speak on this subject: > Why am I qualified to say these things? Because I am a male-to-female > transsexual who has experienced first hand the effects of both types of > hormones. To be perfectly honest, there is a lot of truth in the concept > of "testosterone poisoning". It totally clouds the mind. Or at least - it used to totally cloud *your* mind, right? I would think that it's obvious that someone who used to belong to that tiny minority of men who think that they should have been women would be much less qualified than ordinary males to determine the effect of testosterone on the average male. What makes you think that your experience of 'mind clouding' was due to testosterone rather than to your unhappiness with your sex? To say that testosterone is a mind-clouding poison is the same as saying that men are biologically inferior to women. And saying that *any* group is biologically inferior to another is usually frowned on in this group. Frankly, I find this 'Being-a-woman-is-so-much-superior-to-being-a-man' variety of claptrap just as offensive as the opposite variety of claptrap. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Well I've been burned before, and I know the score, so you won't hear me complain. Are you willing to risk it all, or is your love in vain?"-Dylan
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/01/85)
In article <5417@fortune.UUCP> polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard) writes: > >Ross, I was highlighting the notion that PMS might be a factor of >minor significance. When a woman is competent at anything, be it >as a nurse, homemaker, or prime minister, it indicates that she has >come to terms with her emotional and physical baggage and weirdness. >The same is true of men. > Sigh. Ok. I didn't want to bring this up 'cause there will be *so* much hate mail in my mbox when I log in tommorrow. But okay: Not so long ago, a women somewhere in England used PMS as a defense for her murdering of a man. She used it as a "temporary insanity" plea. I KNOW IT IS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE, AND THAT IT WAS JUST LEGAL TRICKERY. PUT THE FLAME THROWER DOWN! That's better! But we still have a case here. Law is based on precedence, and this set precedence. I know that the National Org. of Women thought it was horrendous just for the reason that a person like myself would bring it up. Okay. I brought it up. Here is a case where *some* woman thought that her own PMS was not a factor of "minor significance". Let's give her a '10' on the "PMS causes weirdness" scale. And there are many women out there that PMS virtually doesn't affect. Let's give them a '0' on that same scale. Now, most women probably fall somewhere in between. Your mission, Mr. Phelphs, is to decide where on that scale an "unacceptable" leader is. Certainly not a '1'. Certainly a '9'. Where do *you* draw the line. Now, the women in England could have been anything from a prostitute to the PM --- it really is of no matter. Consider that this women was [probably] living an ordinary, regular life, probably successful in whatever her endeavors were when suddenly -- BANG! --- she murders someone due to (her claim) some pretty nasty PMS. So, once again, I ask: is PMS relevant? I would consider PMS like the above to be something to consider. I would be interested in knowing the biological agent(s) responsible for a given "strength" of PMS, and how one goes about measuring where a peson falls on my fictional scale. (Quoting me): > >>If things are equal with PMS, then just consider what great leaders >>women would make *after* menopause. If things are equal without >>taking PMS into consideration, think what lousy leaders women would make >>*before* menopause. >>Which is it? > >According to the above lines, women would be lousy leaders before menopause and >great leaders after. Methinks thou loadest the question. > Methinks thou typest fasteth then thou readeth. Look at the above carefully: If things are equal with PMS, then men and women would make equal leaders before a women reaches menopause. Then she would be a better leader afterwards. Of course, the inverse applies if a women is equal only after menopause (note --- this is logic here, opinions can go out to lunch, please). Please arrange for your flames to arrive after my third cup of coffee. Thank you. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died. Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl "Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Death
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/01/85)
In article <5392@fortune.UUCP> polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry polard) writes: >Men, of course, never have their emotions doing weird things >during important decision processes. They never make misteaks, >either. > Henry, if we assume that men and women both have the same emotional baggage and weirdness, then are we saying that this is without considering potential PMS problems (in which case women would have *more* emotional strangness), or are we saying that things are equal *with* PMS. If things are equal with PMS, then just consider what great leaders women would make *after* menopause. If things are equal without taking PMS into consideration, think what lousy leaders women would make *before* menopause. Which is it? Or should PMS not be an issue and, if this is the case, why? BTW, I'm still waiting for anyone to come up with any credible (sp?) evidence regarding these supposed male cycles we keep hearing about. Or is that a non-issue? Honest questions, waiting for honest answers....... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I saw _Lassie_. It took me four shows to figure out why the hairy kid never spoke. I mean, he could roll over and all that, but did that deserve a series?"
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/01/85)
>I consider it unlikely that most men react similarly to the >"effects of male hormones." >Oded Feingold I consider it unlikely that most women react similarly to the "effects of female hormones". I mean to say, isn't that the crux of the question/argument? We can no more make sweeping generalizations about female hormones (and PMS) than we can about male hormones (and testosterone poisoning) than we can about low blood sugar or actions under pressure. Female hormones aren't an "extra" burden that only women carry above the "norm" of male chemistry. Rather, they are elements of a complex chemical makeup that accomplishes certain differentiated characteristics. Which is exactly what male hormones are, too. It is only because certain symptoms are cyclical that they are able to be studied en masse and labeled (PMS), and incidentally, controlled. The symptoms of other hormones (non- cyclical, and, fer instance, male hormones) may be more difficult to study, label, and incidentally, control. Now -- which hand would you rather have on the nuke button? Is this a real question?
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/02/85)
Reply-T#khhollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: The Cat Factory Keywords: In article <2517@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: > ... Men tend to be >always operating with sexual interest as a high-priority background >function which keeps intruding on their work. ... > ... Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously >intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to >blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd >disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" >rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This >behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence >of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting >between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. I'm wondering about the average age of those groups of men you watched. I'm familiar with the attitude from my own experience. For me, at least, the phenomenon started to fade out about my early thirties and is now almost completely gone (I'm 37). This is not to say that I've lost interest in sex (far from it). However, the urgency that made it "a high- priority background job" is gone. In a manner of speaking, my brain has finally wrested control from my gonads (and has no intention of letting go). For the younger men on the net who may be reading this and looking forward with horror let me add that, all in all, it's a vast relief. Relationships run much more smoothly, dates are no longer sabotaged by wondering "will we or won't we" for hours, and going home alone from a party is no longer cause for frustration/mourning (-:. Likewise there are far fewer distractions in the work place (to return to the original subject). Interestingly, many women I've known report the opposite effect with age. They frequently complain of increasing horniness and fewer interested men (and people wonder why I prefer older women (-:{ ). Just adding fuel to the discussion ... -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/02/85)
In article <483@h-sc1.UUCP> desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) writes: >Wouldn't it be more useful for your purposes to phrase your question as: > >"Do you think that PMS is a severe enough problem in some cases >that it could affect women's decision processes? If so, should >this be a consideration in choosing (for example) elected officials, >and if so, how do make this determination?" > >I think the above is much more neutral than your original article. > Agreed. Well? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died. Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl "Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Death
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (08/02/85)
> Sunny writes: > > I feel myself to be unusually qualified to answer this issue: Speaking > > from experience, I find that being under the influence of male hormones > > tends to result in some percentage loss of ability to focus on the work > > at hand, 100 percent of the time. Being under the influence of female > > hormones tends to result in some less percentage loss of ability to > > focus on the work at hand, some percentage of the time. > > > > To be perfectly honest, there is a lot of truth in the concept > > of "testosterone poisoning". It totally clouds the mind. To which Jeff Sontag responds: > > What makes you think that your experience of 'mind clouding' was due > to testosterone rather than to your unhappiness with your sex? To say that > testosterone is a mind-clouding poison is the same as saying that men are > biologically inferior to women. And saying that *any* group is biologically > inferior to another is usually frowned on in this group. > Frankly, I find this 'Being-a-woman-is-so-much-superior-to-being-a-man' > variety of claptrap just as offensive as the opposite variety of claptrap. > -- To which I respond: Very well said, Jeff. Sunny had a personal experience that made her take - what was for her - a very natural step. Now, to extrapolate that to even a larger percentage of people then herself is uncalled for. I have a sex drive that I concider perfectly comfortable for me. When I am working on the job, at a hobby, or whatever, my mind does not wander on to sex. If a woman that I concider attractive enters my environment while I am working, that may sidetrack my thoughts, but - if the woman has appeared for work related reasons - my thoughts wander back to work relatively quickly. ...life is funny, people are different... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo "...That's enough, that's enough! Television's takin' its toll. Turn it off, turn it off! Give me the remote control! I've been nice! I've been good! Please don't do this to me! I've been nice, turn it off, I don't wanna hav'ta see... ...'The Brady Bunch!'"
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (08/02/85)
> > >I consider it unlikely that most men react similarly to the > >"effects of male hormones." > >Oded Feingold To which Adrienne Regard responds: > > I consider it unlikely that most women react similarly to the "effects > of female hormones". > > I mean to say, isn't that the crux of the question/argument? We can no > more make sweeping generalizations about female hormones (and PMS) than > we can about male hormones (and testosterone poisoning) than we can about > low blood sugar or actions under pressure. > ...gosh, I like what people are saying on this net lately. It sorta restores my faith in humanity.... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo "...That's enough, that's enough! Television's takin' its toll. Turn it off, turn it off! Give me the remote control! I've been nice! I've been good! Please don't do this to me! I've been nice, turn it off, I don't wanna hav'ta see... ...'The Brady Bunch!'"
CJC@psuvm.BITNET (08/03/85)
PMS is rare enough so that until women made an issue of it within the
last few years, the medical profession denied that any such thing existed.
Some 15 years ago I asked a gynacologist (sp?) if there was anything better
than aspirin for the increased tension I felt at that time (we had two tiny
children & had just moved to a foreign country - I didn't need *any* avoidable
stress); he replied to the effect that although a few neurotics thought they
felt 'unwell' at that time, there was nothing to cause it.
Now PMS is a fashionable ailment and everyone wants something to do with it,
but sometime the fad will pass.
Another point: Sunny posted an article comparing some experiences from both
sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that
Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to
answer this section of Sunny's posting:
> On
>the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd
>have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex
>than men are. Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously
>intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to
>blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd
>disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability"
>rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This
>behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence
----------------------------------
>of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting
>between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest.
>
I'm a woman. Obviously I've never been in a group of *only men*. All I
know about how men act when no women are around is what I hear or read.
I don't recall observing a group women stopping their talk to ogle a passing
male, at least not since high school, nor discussing the possible sexual
merits of such a passer-by. Is this a real difference or isn't it?
--Carolyn J. Clark
Bitnet: CJC at PSUVM
UUCP : {allegra, akgua, ihnp4}!psuvax!CJC@PSUVM.BITNET
ARPA : cjc%psuvm.BITNET@Berkeley
demillo@uwmacc.UUCP (Rob DeMillo) (08/03/85)
> > Another point: Sunny posted an article comparing some experiences from both > sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that > Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to > answer this section of Sunny's posting: > > > On > >the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd > >have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex > >than men are. Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously > >intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to > >blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd > >disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" > >rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This > >behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence > ---------------------------------- > >of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting > >between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. > > > I'm a woman. Obviously I've never been in a group of *only men*. All I > know about how men act when no women are around is what I hear or read. > I don't recall observing a group women stopping their talk to ogle a passing > male, at least not since high school, nor discussing the possible sexual ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > merits of such a passer-by. Is this a real difference or isn't it? > > --Carolyn J. Clark > Bingo! We have no idea how old Sunny was when she was male and with her friends. Juvinality (sp?) may count towards a large part of this...although, I will admit that "group machoness" will prolong those "high school instincts" longer in men. But, as Carolyn points out, we all, at one time or another, ogle or have ogled MOTAS. ("...have ogled...?") Anyway, just a comment.... -- --- Rob DeMillo Madison Academic Computer Center ...seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!demillo "...That's enough, that's enough! Television's takin' its toll. Turn it off, turn it off! Give me the remote control! I've been nice! I've been good! Please don't do this to me! I've been nice, turn it off, I don't wanna hav'ta see... ...'The Brady Bunch!'"
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/05/85)
> > >behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence > > ---------------------------------- > > I don't recall observing a group women stopping their talk to ogle a passing > > male, at least not since high school, nor discussing the possible sexual > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > Bingo! We have no idea how old Sunny was when she was male and > with her friends. Juvinality (sp?) may count towards a large part of > this...although, I will admit that "group machoness" will prolong those > "high school instincts" longer in men. But, as Carolyn points out, > we all, at one time or another, ogle or have ogled MOTAS. Try 34 (decimal) Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
polard@fortune.UUCP (Henry Polard) (08/05/85)
In article <380@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: >Not so long ago, a women somewhere in England used PMS as a defense >for her murdering of a man. She used it as a "temporary insanity" >plea. I KNOW IT IS ONLY ONE EXAMPLE, AND THAT IT WAS JUST LEGAL >TRICKERY. PUT THE FLAME THROWER DOWN! >Now, the women in England could have been anything from a prostitute >to the PM --- it really is of no matter. Consider that this >women was [probably] living an ordinary, regular life, probably successful >in whatever her endeavors were when suddenly -- BANG! --- she >murders someone due to (her claim) some pretty nasty PMS. > >So, once again, I ask: is PMS relevant? I would consider PMS >like the above to be something to consider. >Please arrange for your flames to arrive after my third cup >of coffee. Thank you. Got your third cup of coffee? Good. Would you please find out if the woman who used the PMS defense was as you conjecture? She may, with equal probability(since we have no facts to go on), have been psychotic and a failure. Perhaps we should first find out whether PMS has a significant sudden effect on women who are successful, etc. Is there a doctor on the net? Beware of the TOS (Twinkies and Orange soda Syndrome). -- Henry Polard (You bring the flames - I'll bring the marshmallows.) {ihnp4,cbosgd,amd}!fortune!polard N.B: The words in this posting do not necessarily express the opinions of me, my employer, or any AI project.
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/06/85)
Sunny talks about her experiences as a man. Jeff talks about why these experiences may not have validated Sunny's point. Then speaks: Rob DeMillo >Very well said, Jeff. Sunny had a personal experience that made her >take - what was for her - a very natural step. Now, to extrapolate >that to even a larger percentage of people then herself is uncalled >for. Ah, but the subject line supposedly is "PMS and incompetence", which has excited numerous postings about generic "women" as in plural, as in not-personal-experiences, but an extrapolation to a larger percentage of people. Rob, you might have pointed this out, too. You and Jeff are certainly locked on to a reasonable point, to wit: One can hardly discount a personal comment and personal rebuttal -- these are experiences of the posters, and one must assume them to be somewhat based in fact-- but one can avoid making generalizations about it. but the whole subject lacks validity by this criteria. It is no more reasonable to ask if PMS affects competence than it is to ask if testosterone poisoning affects competence.
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/06/85)
> > Another point: Sunny posted an article comparing some experiences from both > > sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that > > Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to > > answer this section of Sunny's posting: > > > On > > >the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd > > >have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex > > >than men are. Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously > > >intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to > > >blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd > > >disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" > > >rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This > > >behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence > > ---------------------------------- > > >of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting > > >between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. Personally, I haven't seen this type of behavior since high school. I have seen conversations temporarily halted while a head or two swiveled at lunch, but not during work. And on those occasions the conversation would be picked up where it left off; never since high school have I seen the conversation turn to her 'fuckability' as Sunny so nicely puts it. I *did* observe this kind of behavior in high school and working construction during the summers in high school. It seems that Sunny used to hang out with a pretty sleazy bunch of guys. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "You've got a lot of nerve, to say you are my friend. When I was down, you just stood there grinning." - Dylan
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (08/06/85)
>Another point: Sunny posted an article comparing some experiences from both >sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that >Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to >answer this section of Sunny's posting: > >>blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd >>disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" >>rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This >>behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence >>of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting >>between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. >> Well, I'll respond to this. I think it is representative. I know I have been in situations as described. Fortunately it happens less and less, and I am more and more uncomfortable when it does (there, I've patted myself on the back). I just read Jerry saying that this sexual preoccupation has declined for him with increasing age, I agree. And it feels better. Now if I could just learn to lick my eyebrows |-). Peter B
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (08/07/85)
Re Ross Greenberg's mention of the British woman who pleaded PMS as an excuse for murder: >Here is a case where *some* woman thought that her own >PMS was not a factor of "minor significance". Let's give her a '10' on >the "PMS causes weirdness" scale. Whoooooo up, there, Ross. This doesn't necessarily follow. She, _or_ her attorney, might have thought: here's a possible defense that would get me (my client) off! This has been in the news lately, maybe it would work! Maybe this old fogey judge we have to deal with doesn't like women, but would completely buy this "women as lesser animals" crap. Maybe we'd have a hard time proving "temporary insanity". Maybe I'd (she'd) get life instead of a death sentance, and could write a book about it. I wouldn't give her a 10 on the weirdness scale, I'd give her a 10 on the "getting out of a murder-rap" scale. Unfortunately, it does set a precedent, as you say. So did the twinkie murder defense. So did decades of the "crime of passion" defenses. Well, maybe not -- they were usually thinly disguised "testosterone poisoning" cases that survived the court process, and still do. Does that mean men are "admitting" to their masculine weirdnesses? Somehow I don't think you would take it that far. Men have been arguing that their gonads made em do it (rape) for years. Is that a legitimate defense, and does it contribute to their competence or lack thereof as working members of the populice? Is this an important question? I wonder why not? Not specifically aimed at Ross: I answered mail on this issue, and thought I'd bring it up here: A man was telling me about an SO who had significant PMS symptoms, and saying he got tired of "tiptoeing around her" four days of the month. I responded with a similar anecdote about an XSO of my own who had a similar problem. He reacted very strongly to his eating cycles (blood sugar fluctuation presumably). Whenever we went to dinner and had to wait (either from late scheduling, or the place was crowded), he would turn into a monster (or a little kid, take your pick) and we'd have a fight right in the middle of the restaurant--all because he was hungry. It took me quite a few meals to figure this one out -- after all, the argument was always about SOMETHING, and I didn't have any way of knowing what kind of snacking he did or didn't do before we met for dinner -- but once I _DID_ figure it out, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. (Stupid, huh?) I didn't sit down with him after he had eaten, and was cheerful again, to talk about the blow-up. I didn't suggest we make sure we scheduled our dinners earlier. I didn't make a point of bringing a few chocolates in my purse. NOTHING. And the person who wrote to me about his SO's PMS also (presumably) was doing nothing. This man was a corporate lawyer. Can you imagine the advice he gave to people when a pre-lunch meeting ran late? I shudder to think. I'm not advocating legislative action -- or even any action. I shudder worse to think what that kind of "control" would imply to our society. What I mean to point out is two-fold: 1. Cyclical responses to hormones, enzymes, weather, god-knows-what affects both sexes of the species, and we have yet to separate the effects into individual components that justify stereotyping; and 2. Using a label to justify a prejudice is just a power play. PMS is a collective term for a number of symptoms that a percentage of women may suffer to some degree. And that's about all it is. It isn't a disease, it isn't a "mind-set" problem, and it only affects competency in people who are a. irresponsible enough to let it b. uninformed enough to let it, or c. the _very_ rare individual whose chemistry is so unbalanced that current technology doesn't allow for treatment. Universal reactors (allergy sufferers) don't have their "competence" called into being by virtue of sneezing constantly. We don't question the com- petence of diabetics and hypoglycemics, though their symptoms are cyclical and predictable. We no longer judge (hopefully) competence on the basis of skin color, or measured canial capacity. Anyone care to postulate why PMS is being singled out? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. Anyway, Ross, ol' buddy, to answer your question: I don't think it's an issue. My opinion. Adrienne Regard
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy ) (08/07/85)
In article <2030CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: >sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that >Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to >answer this section of Sunny's posting: > >> On p>>the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd >>have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex >>than men are. Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously >>intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to >>blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd >>disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" >>rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This >>behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence > ---------------------------------- >>of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting >> > >I don't recall observing a group women stopping their talk to ogle a passing >male, at least not since high school, nor discussing the possible sexual >merits of such a passer-by. Is this a real difference or isn't it? > My experience, both in male only groups and in thoughtful coversations with women, leads me to believe that the difference is real. The book "The Sex Contract" by Helen Fischer leads me to believe that the difference is a result of culturally conditioned genetic differences.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (08/08/85)
In article <380@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >Not so long ago, a women somewhere in England used PMS as a defense >for her murdering of a man. She used it as a "temporary insanity" >plea. > >I know that the National Org. of Women thought it was horrendous just >for the reason that a person like myself would bring it up. Okay. >I brought it up. Here is a case where *some* woman thought that her own >PMS was not a factor of "minor significance". > >Now, the women in England could have been anything from a prostitute >to the PM --- it really is of no matter. Consider that this >women was [probably] living an ordinary, regular life, probably successful >in whatever her endeavors were when suddenly -- BANG! --- she >murders someone due to (her claim) some pretty nasty PMS. > >So, once again, I ask: is PMS relevant? I would consider PMS >like the above to be something to consider. I support NOW's position fully. I don't think that PMS should be relevant, and I doubt that PMS can cause someone to murder someone else. I think the whole case was a piece of crock and the murderess, just that, a murderess who decided to capitalise on the current trend back to "biology is destiny". I haven't heard of any bad cases of PMS that appear without any warning symptoms. Has anybody else? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) (08/09/85)
I must be incredibly dense, because I've never recognized any symptoms of Pre-Menstrual Syndrome in women I've worked with. As a matter of fact, I've never recognized any symptoms of Menstrual or Post-Menstrual Syndrome either. That's not to say that the women I've worked with never got cranky or irritable--they got just as cranky as the men I've worked with--but I'm reluctant to ascribe this behavior to PMS. Has anyone really worked with a woman whose job performance suffered so noticeably when she was about to have her period? Somehow, I doubt it. I think the notion of "PMS and Incompetence" is absurd. -- Bob Kaplan "No gift is too great for my people."
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (08/09/85)
> >>blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd > >>disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" > >>rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This > >>behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence > >>of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting > >>between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. > >> > Well, I'll respond to this. I think it is representative. I know I have been > in situations as described. Fortunately it happens less and less, and I am > more and more uncomfortable when it does (there, I've patted myself on the > back). > > I just read Jerry saying that this sexual preoccupation has declined for him > with increasing age, I agree. And it feels better. Now if I could just learn > to lick my eyebrows |-). Is this a cultural phenomenon? I can't imagine this type of conversation coming up in a group of middle class or upper class men from Japan or China, or India. I've never seen men from these countries display pin-ups in their offices either. Here, I don't know if it's common, but one time I was in a lab, and the professor didn't know I was there. He was walking out of the room with another man and was telling him about women's diseases and laughing uncontrollably. This professor had always projected a manner of being very smooth and polite in my presence and I was quite shocked. (This man was American).
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (08/12/85)
In article <641@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes: Some excellent stuff regarding PMS: >I wouldn't give her a 10 on the weirdness scale, I'd give her a 10 on the >"getting out of a murder-rap" scale. > >Unfortunately, it does set a precedent, as you say. So did the twinkie >murder defense. So did decades of the "crime of passion" defenses. Well, >maybe not -- they were usually thinly disguised "testosterone poisoning" >cases that survived the court process, and still do. Does that mean men >are "admitting" to their masculine weirdnesses? Somehow I don't think you >would take it that far. Men have been arguing that their gonads made >em do it (rape) for years. Is that a legitimate defense, and does it >contribute to their competence or lack thereof as working members of the >populice? Is this an important question? I wonder why not? > Very valid, and you blow my case to smithereens. Damn it, I hate it when you're right!!! :-) (Adrienne then goes on to talk about an XSO that is even weirder than mine was. First, I give her a copy of my Purple Heart, and second, a round of applause for bringing the following valid point to this discussion): > >1. Cyclical responses to hormones, enzymes, weather, god-knows-what >affects both sexes of the species, and we have yet to separate the effects >into individual components that justify stereotyping; and > >2. Using a label to justify a prejudice is just a power play. PMS is a >collective term for a number of symptoms that a percentage of women may >suffer to some degree. And that's about all it is. It isn't a >disease, it isn't a "mind-set" problem, and it only affects competency >in people who are > a. irresponsible enough to let it > b. uninformed enough to let it, or > c. the _very_ rare individual whose chemistry is so unbalanced > that current technology doesn't allow for treatment. > Only thing that I'll point ot above that is false (at least in my case) is that using the term PMS to talk about competency is not a power play of any sort. Perhaps just ramblings from my keyboard? I think so. > >Anyway, Ross, ol' buddy, to answer your question: I don't think it's >an issue. My opinion. > And a valid one at that. Not a flame in the referenced article, just some well though out criticism of my *former* beliefs. Thanks for the insight. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. ---- "I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died. Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl "Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Death
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (08/13/85)
In article <773@cadovax.UUCP> bob@cadovax.UUCP (Bob "Kat" Kaplan) writes: > >Has anyone really worked with a woman whose job performance suffered so >noticeably when she was about to have her period? Somehow, I doubt it. Off hand I can think of one instance in my experience. This was when I was working part time with a trapeze act (I was their publicity photographer and sometimes truck driver and roustabout). One of the women in the act did have a problem with her period. It would throw her performance off and she would be extremely grouchy and hard to get along with. I note that this was an unusual situation. The woman involved was a professional athlete and unusually attuned to the workings of her body. Her job made her physical condition a critical factor for her. On the other hand, none of the other women in the troupe seemed to be as strongly affected (it was an all-female act). -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI Common Sense is what tells you that a ten 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. pound weight falls ten times as fast as a Santa Monica, CA 90405 one pound weight. (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) (08/13/85)
In article <2030CJC@psuvm> CJC@psuvm.BITNET writes: > ... Sunny posted an article comparing some experiences from both >sides; so far I've seen two responses from men, both of whom stated that >Sunny's experience couldn't be representative. However neither tried to >answer this section of Sunny's posting: > >> On >>the whole, from my observations of myself, and of other people, I'd >>have to say that on the average, women are less bothered by their sex >>than men are. Taking this one piece at a time: I can't say I've known that many people of *either* sex that are that uncomfortable about it. And I tend to be the sort that folks ``open up'' to (in person), so it's not just a matter of my own ignorance. However, women have by far been the most self- deprecating in terms of their sexuality (can you think of a male equivalent to ``the curse''?) >>Back in the old days, I all to often watched previously >>intelligent conversations between men grind to a total halt, or to >>blithering idiocy, as some nice looking woman walked by, and when she'd >>disappeared from sight, would turn to discussion of her "fuckability" >>rather than back to work. (was that blunt enough? no, not really). This >>behavior pattern is most observable in a group of only men. The presence > ---------------------------------- >>of women reduces it's effects. Much of it is a very animalistic jousting >>between the men to prove to each other who is the horniest. I'd say about 15% of the men I work with are this way, though I've been in other environments where it was a lot worse. But I'll certainly confirm the existance of the phenomenon. And I'll also offer the opinion that it has little to do with ``testosterone poisoning'', but is rather an unfortunate component of male culture. As for myself, I don't engage in such games, and though I have a healthy sex drive it is quite rare that it interferes with my work. On the contrary, I've found that I'm at my most creative when I'm horny, and can get into a good session of power-coding unless it's the rare case when I'm just *too* distracted. Now to Carolyn's comments: > I'm a woman. Obviously I've never been in a group of *only men*. All I >know about how men act when no women are around is what I hear or read. >I don't recall observing a group women stopping their talk to ogle a passing >male, at least not since high school, nor discussing the possible sexual >merits of such a passer-by. Is this a real difference or isn't it? Based on my experience there *is* a difference. Men tend to do this a lot more, and tend to be a lot more gross about it when they do. But I've overheard women making comments about passing men before, and I'll even hear such things directly from my female friends. However, a man is a lot more likely to be called a ``hunk'' than ``fuckable'' (though I've heard a few things about ``nice buns''). > --Carolyn J. Clark -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall