moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/02/85)
In article <257@timeinc.UUCP> Ross M. Greenberg writes: > >Certainly the items that I brought up do not qualify as legitimate >major concerns --- when each is considered by itself. However when >they are all taken as a package, it means that I (for example) still >haven't figured out how to deal with the *new* women, and still >be me. Don't worry about figuring anything out, just be you. Because you can't win by trying to figure us out (no smiley-face here!). There's nothing to figure. We've all had different experiences and will have different reactions to your actions. (eg. Pam and I have the same attitude about opening doors: a laissez-faire, not something to make a big deal of, kind of attitude. Some women would imperiously wait for you to open the door. Some women would give you a tongue lashing for presuming they were not capable of opening a door for themselves. Pam and I react differently to some of the other situations). So, the only way you can win is to *be you*. Then, if a woman reacts negatively to who you are and/or how you are, you can choose to discuss the situation openly with her (or not), and choose to change (or not, depending on how it fits for you). >There is a portion of me that says that I should treat women as total >equals in the home, at the job site, and in bed. Then there is >another portion of me that keeps on wondering how I can do that >when women (or at least the ones on the net) keep on talking about >womens' superior this and that (i.e. who says women are more >closely in tune with their emotions?). There is no getting around the fact that the differences between men and women go beyond the anatomical to the social. To say that women are more closely in tune with their emotions is not to say that they are superior, just different. If it sometimes seems there is a higher than average emphasis placed on that trait in this forum, perhaps it is to compensate for the lower value placed on it out there in the real world. > Or the other portion that >says that women do not have a need to be protected (as they >can protect themselves), and then the women on the net tell me that *I* >must educate my fellow *men* to the idea that (as example) rape is >wrong. I don't see a contradiction here, Ross. Some women do not feel a need to be protected. Some women would rather risk walking alone than risk putting themselves in a situation (with a man they don't know well) that may turn dangerous. It *is* prejudice, but you know, it is also called learning from experience. I have less of a victim attitude about my experiences than some others, but only someone who has been in peril of his/her life can know what terror that brings, and how the feeling haunts. I have been in situations where I felt warm and open and trustful one moment and fearful the next, not because of the way the man was, but because those feelings came up. Don't you see that it is not *you* I don't trust. It is ME. I don't trust myself to make correct character analysis in a short period of time. And the stakes are too high to take the risk. So, instead of taking it as a personal affront and feeling misunderstood, use it as an opportunity to express your appreciation for her concern. None of this negates the need for education about rape in this society. >There is a whole bunch of contradictions that men must now deal with >for the first time. Welcome to the real world. What is really at the crux of all this is that it ain't the way they always said it would be. We are *all* at the effect of this to some degree. That's hard, and it's painful, because the illusions carry the rosy glow of happy-ever-after. >Since I am male, I can legitimately only tell you of the feelings >that I attribute to my maleness. We have a choice:allow the attribution >as sex dependant, which indicates that there are differences >between the sexes, or reject the idea that feelings and/or thoughts are >sex dependant, in which case we're all the same (I'm not :-)). No, there is a third choice: to attribute feelings and thoughts to decisions you made because of the experiences you, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, have had. If some of them seem sex dependant, it is because boys have been treated differently than girls; there have been different expecta- tions of boys than of girls. Those of us who have interactions with children can work to change the early conditioning; we can all choose to change our own reactions. >It is wonderfull to discuss the idea of education in the future solving >all the problems that we consider sex based. But I have to live today. So >when I see a pretty women crossing the street, and I wouldn't mind >getting to know her better (she "appeals to me"), I would >love to say: "I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee", and expect her to >think "What the hell", instead of me saying to myself "She might >take that as a sexual come on. I wonder what I should say to her instead". The problem is with the expectation. Expect her to act genuinely, and you have a lesser chance of being disappointed. Deal with others as individuals, not as occupants of pigeon holes. Yes, it is a lot more work, because you can't put yourself on automatic pilot. So, go ahead. Invite the attractive woman out for a cup of coffee. And take what you get at face value. If she declines, for whatever reason, know that it has so much more to do with her than to do with you. So, Ross, I leave you with this quote: "Don't take any of this personally. I'm only reacting to you the way I'd react to ANYBODY who represents to me what you represent to me." Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/03/85)
In article <5467@tektronix.UUCP> moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) writes: >..... So, the only way you can win is to *be you*. Then, if >a woman reacts negatively to who you are and/or how you are, you >can choose to discuss the situation openly with her (or not), and >choose to change (or not, depending on how it fits for you). > The point here is that the true me says to open a door for anybody who happens to be behind or aside me. And the truth of the matter is that I'm getting damned tired of being the real me and getting those nasty looks from the feminists who feel that my opening a door for them somehow is paramount to me keeping them in their place. I don't want to discuss their screwed up feelings about it --- the idea that someone can take an innocent gesture like opening a door, or letting someone into the taxi first as so damnable important is ridiculous. So, in todays society, I feel that there is a large portion that says that "be you....as long as *I* approve". Hogwash! I'd prefer to be me as long as *I* approve --- somebody who takes an innocent and harmless gesture of societal politness so seriously probably isn't a fun person to be with, anyway! > >..... To say >that women are more closely in tune with their emotions is not >to say that they are superior, just different. If it sometimes >seems there is a higher than average emphasis placed on that trait >in this forum, perhaps it is to compensate for the lower value >placed on it out there in the real world. > The problem here, of course, is that first you must accept the claim that there is any value to your emotions! I'm not saying that there isn't: I value mine more and more as I get used to them. But who says that there is any use for them outside of an emotional context. In the feminist mailing list there is a current discussion about crying in the workplace. Quite a few people equate a women's tears with a man pounding on the desk in anger and/or frustration. Nobody has said that any such display of emotionalism in the workplace is out of place. I happen to feel that there is great value to being able to control these self-same emotions. Does that mean that women don't measure up in my book? No --- I take people on an individual basis, and not as a member of a class. At least I try to. Too many of the people in this group see me as representing some class, instead of just being me. I happen to resent that! (Quoting me) >> Or the other portion that >>says that women do not have a need to be protected (as they >>can protect themselves), and then the women on the net tell me that *I* >>must educate my fellow *men* to the idea that (as example) rape is >>wrong. > >I don't see a contradiction here, Ross..... [lines about persons being walked home at night, and about being (sometimes) a bad judge of character] Eeekks! I guess I didn't make myself understood. I hate sloppy writing like that, but at least I get to practice :-). What I was trying to say is that there are women in this group who talk about being self-dependant, and about not needing any of the traditional male support stuff, who then come back, after insulting every male in this group (and perhaps the ones in their day-to-day life?), and think that now we should actually help them in obtaining something they desire! This is not to downplay the issue of rape, BTW. But after being told that I, as a member of a class, am not trustworthy to walk you home, what makes you think that I am capable of educating my fellow "men" in issues regarding rape to your satisfaction? How can a person who is incapable of even understanding the issues of rape (how often have you read that in this news group?), understand them enough to convince anyone that it is, indeed, a horrible thing? If I'm not capable or desired AS A MEMBER OF A CLASS of doing one thing, then what gives you the right to assume that I'm capable of doing anything? Trying to have your cake and eat it, too? > >>It is wonderfull to discuss the idea of education in the future solving >>all the problems that we consider sex based. But I have to live today. So >>when I see a pretty women crossing the street, and I wouldn't mind >>getting to know her better (she "appeals to me"), I would >>love to say: "I'd like to buy you a cup of coffee", and expect her to >>think "What the hell", instead of me saying to myself "She might >>take that as a sexual come on. I wonder what I should say to her instead". > >The problem is with the expectation. Expect her to act genuinely, and >you have a lesser chance of being disappointed. Deal with others as >individuals, not as occupants of pigeon holes. Yes, it is a lot more >work, because you can't put yourself on automatic pilot. So, go ahead. >Invite the attractive woman out for a cup of coffee. And take what you >get at face value. If she declines, for whatever reason, know that it >has so much more to do with her than to do with you. Expect her to act genuinely? Without meaning to point fingers at anyone in particular, I would expect certain of the members of this newsgroup to take that as a rape threat and blow me away. And that is only with half a :-)!! I have seen the people in this group (and we are far more open than society as a whole, right?) class persons according to whether they have a sex organ that goes in or out! And you are asking me *not* to classify people according to their sex organ? If you read my postings, I think you'll find that what riles me is when a woman, demanding her equality, starts to classify men as being "like this, or like that". > > >So, Ross, I leave you with this quote: >"Don't take any of this personally. I'm only reacting to you the way >I'd react to ANYBODY who represents to me what you represent to me." > >Moira Mallison I don't know how to take this, Moira. If I somehow represent the "class" of men, then all of your arguments above are utter hogwash, you sexist pig! So I have to ask you outright: What do I represent to you?? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian) (07/04/85)
> There is no getting around the fact that the differences between > men and women go beyond the anatomical to the social. To say > that women are more closely in tune with their emotions is not > to say that they are superior, just different. If it sometimes > seems there is a higher than average emphasis placed on that trait > in this forum, perhaps it is to compensate for the lower value > placed on it out there in the real world. > Moira Mallison > tektronix!moiram Quite interesting to see this come from a woman who stands for women's rights. Do you really believe that women are simply "just different"? Do you know that the respected psychologists and thinkers of the last century also argued that women were not inferior, just different. Each sex was best fit/suited for specific things. Women's difference made them more suitable for being housewives and taking care of the children and men's differences made them more suitable for the outside world and more "intellectual" activities. To say that men were more intelectually inclined was not to say that they were superior, "just different". No differences between men and women (other than the physical) have been proven. Saying that women are "just different" is the kind of thing that helps to strengthen the "feminine mystique" that women (and men as a result) have been suffering from for a long time. Farzin Mokhtarian ubc-vision!mokhtar -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "- The heroes?" "- Ah, the horses are all aging."
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/09/85)
>>> Ross >> Moira (me) > Ross >>So, Ross, I leave you with this quote: >>"Don't take any of this personally. I'm only reacting to you the way >>I'd react to ANYBODY who represents to me what you represent to me." > >I don't know how to take this, Moira. If I somehow represent the >"class" of men, then all of your arguments above are utter hogwash, >you sexist pig! > >So I have to ask you outright: What do I represent to you?? What you represented to me in your previous posting was *a* man with some sincere questions about the problems we *all* have about dealing with changing roles. I assure you there are few (if any) qualities that I would ascribe to the whole class of males. What I responded to was the Ross as I know you, from your previous postings here and in net.singles. I replied from a sincere *personal* perspective. It is clear from your response that it was not what *I represented to you*... so we both get to practice :-) >The point here is that the true me says to open a door for anybody >who happens to be behind or aside me. And the truth of the matter >is that I'm getting damned tired of being the real me and getting >those nasty looks from the feminists who feel that my opening a door >for them somehow is paramount to me keeping them in their place. I >don't want to discuss their screwed up feelings about it --- the idea >that someone can take an innocent gesture like opening a door, or letting >someone into the taxi first as so damnable important is ridiculous. > >So, in todays society, I feel that there is a large portion that says >that "be you....as long as *I* approve". Hogwash! I'd prefer to be >me as long as *I* approve --- somebody who takes an innocent and harmless >gesture of societal politness so seriously probably isn't a fun person >to be with, anyway! You just answered your own question. Don't take it *personally*. If someone is insulted because you open the door for her, her anger is *her* problem. If you let her anger affect you, and how you behave, it's *your* problem. So while you're being you and opening doors, allow her to be her and get insulted. You have less control over others' behavior than how you are affected by it. > I take people on >an individual basis, and not as a member of a class. At least I >try to. Too many of the people in this group see me as representing >some class, instead of just being me. I happen to resent that! Funny thing, I responded to *you* personally. Nowhere in the article did I talk about how *men* are as a group; I did talk about women generically, and all of society. But your response has a flavor of lumping me in with all of antagonistic feminists of net.women. (Please note that I use antagonistic as a qualifier, not a general descriptor). >What I was trying to say is that there are women in this group who >talk about being self-dependant, and about not needing any >of the traditional male support stuff, who then come back, after >insulting every male in this group (and perhaps the ones in their >day-to-day life?), and think that now we should actually help them >in obtaining something they desire! Yes, I can see how this would rankle. >This is not to downplay the issue of rape, BTW. But after being told >that I, as a member of a class, am not trustworthy to walk you home, >what makes you think that I am capable of educating my fellow "men" >in issues regarding rape to your satisfaction? Ross, I think you are missing the point. I did not say that no man is trustworthy of walking me home. I said that I might not want to make that decision based on a few minutes of conversation. On the other I hand, I *might*...and there are a few people who read this group who can testify that indeed, I *have*. But I have to make this decision based on my interactions with *you*, and if I'm less likely to accept your invitation now than I was ten years ago, I'm not going to apologize for it. No, it is *not* fair to you or to me that this situation exists in our society. But until people are educated about rape, and it becomes less prevalent in our society, we are *all* at the effect of the consequences, and that is why you may want to get involved in educational issues. In the same way, I am at the effect of the danger to children in our society. I like to respond to friendly children, but I also want to know that the parent is comfortable with it. Is this fair? Is it good? NO, but it IS. Whining about it reactively won't change a thing. Telling parents they should be more trustful of people they don't know isn't wise. The only solution is proactively working to change the situation. >Expect her to act genuinely? Without meaning to point fingers >at anyone in particular, I would expect certain of the >members of this newsgroup to take that as a rape threat and >blow me away. And that is only with half a :-)!! If she takes a simple invitation to a cup of coffee as a rape threat, that is her problem. If she blows you away, well, admittedly the both of you have a problem :-). Seriously, Ross, it is the most radical members of this newsgroup who treat you as simply a member of a class. While you may not get an affirmative answer to such an invitation, I doubt that most readers would assume a real threat of rape in such a situation. (So why not answer in the affirmative, I ask myself. Hmmm. I don't know. I have to think on this one.) >I have seen the people in this group (and we are far more open than >society as a whole, right?) class persons according to whether they >have a sex organ that goes in or out! And you are asking me *not* to >classify people according to their sex organ? At the risk of overgeneralizing [:-)], I would venture to say that we are all guilty of overgeneralization sometimes. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (07/09/85)
In article <993@ubc-vision.CDN>, mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: > > Quite interesting to see this come from a woman who stands for women's > rights. Do you really believe that women are simply "just different"? > Do you know that the respected psychologists and thinkers of the last > century also argued that women were not inferior, just different. Each > sex was best fit/suited for specific things. > No differences between men and women (other than the physical) have been > proven. Saying that women are "just different" is the kind of thing that > helps to strengthen the "feminine mystique" that women (and men as a result) > have been suffering from for a long time. The trap in this rebuttal is the assumption that women deserve equal rights because they're *JUST LIKE MEN*. If it turned out that there *WERE* some significant differences, on average, between men and women, would you change your mind about equal rights? The talk about various groups DESERVING equal rights misses the point entirely; equal rights are deserved by anybody who can honestly answer "Yes" to the question "Are you sentient?" Even if all the stereotypical beliefs about women and minorities were true, they deserve equal rights ANYWAY! Equal rights aren't a prize you get for outstanding achievement, but the right of every human being. -- -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/09/85)
> > > There is no getting around the fact that the differences between > > men and women go beyond the anatomical to the social. To say > > that women are more closely in tune with their emotions is not > > to say that they are superior, just different. If it sometimes > > > Moira Mallison > > > No differences between men and women (other than the physical) have been > proven. Saying that women are "just different" is the kind of thing that > helps to strengthen the "feminine mystique" that women (and men as a result) > have been suffering from for a long time. > > Farzin Mokhtarian > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- While there is truth to this ( it has been the rallying cry of many who would keep women *** in their place ***, It is also true that men and women are more different that the obvious physical body which houses them. Some of this difference is acquired and can be changed some of it is not and is due to the world view which the individual develops from behind their eyeballs. Our bodies (male or female) react to different stimuli uniquely and those reactions are what makes us different. Women by nature are more bound by their bodies than are men. From an ability standpoint there is no eveidence that a woman can or will be any less or more than a man in the same situation (all other factors like education etc., being equal). If the natural differences between men and women could be eliminated there would of course be no way to distinguish between either group and then people could progress as best they could based on what they were capable of doing. All that is asked by most women I know is that men overlook the purely physical differences, forget they exist for the purposes of conducting business or producing profitable work. The trouble is is that a lot of men take a single look at a woman and establish an opinion as to her abilities and goals before they even know her name. I once worked for a man who could tell you the **measurements** of any woman he met even though he might not remember her name if she was introduced to him. (He also hired his secretary for her bust size.) I know, I know not every man is like that but the fact remains many are. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/09/85)
In article <5481@tektronix.UUCP> moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) writes: (Quoting me) > >>So I have to ask you outright: What do I represent to you?? > >... I assure you there are few (if any) qualities >that I would ascribe to the whole class of males. What I responded >to was the Ross as I know you, from your previous postings here and >in net.singles. I replied from a sincere *personal* perspective. >It is clear from your response that it was not what *I represented >to you*... so we both get to practice :-) > Okey doke .... I can accept that: you responded as you know me from what I have said, and not on generalities. Hell, that's the only request I usually have from people. If I fail in that regard, then I have only myself to blame! Thank you. (Regarding my anger at people turning their noses up on me holding open a door for them): > >You just answered your own question. Don't take it *personally*. If >someone is insulted because you open the door for her, her anger >is *her* problem. If you let her anger affect you, and how you behave, >it's *your* problem..... > It just doesn't feel good: there I am, going out of my way to be nice, and I have to take it on head. And then my only response is to sit back and turn the other check, or mix some more metaphors! The silly thing is that this same woman might be at my next meeting and might comment on sexist policies of men, whilst she herself is sexist! >Funny thing, I responded to *you* personally.... >..... But your response has a flavor of >lumping me in with all of antagonistic feminists of net.women. (Please >note that I use antagonistic as a qualifier, not a general descriptor). > Hmmmmm. He who knows how to make words say exactly what is desired may cast the first stone.... As my ex-wife (a writer) would say: "Damn these words! They don't say what I want them to!" Certainly I had no desire to appear to be classing *you* as a member of any group. Remember that when I write to you in this public forum, I expect this to be read by many (and flamed by a few, but oh well). > >>This is not to downplay the issue of rape, BTW. But after being told >>that I, as a member of a class, am not trustworthy to walk you home, >>what makes you think that I am capable of educating my fellow "men" >>in issues regarding rape to your satisfaction? > >Ross, I think you are missing the point. I did not say that no man >is trustworthy of walking me home. I said that I might not want to >make that decision based on a few minutes of conversation. As the above mentioned wife would say:"When someone says that you've missed the point, it means you haven't expressed yourself clearly!". I'll give it another shot: The majority of postings in this group tend to say such things as "Men will never understand what it feels like to be raped." I agree with that, but many posters feel that this means that men's opinions on rape are not valid. But these same posters will turn around and expect that the horror of rape can somehow be alleviated by this same men talking to their fellow men. It just doesn't seem to be consisent with the attitudes displayed. In fact it seems to be (dare I say it? Sure!) hypocritical! >.... Whining about it reactively won't change a thing. .... This is not a whine, BTW. Just some comments on the postings in this group generally, and on being a male specifically.... > >Seriously, Ross, it is the most radical members of this newsgroup >who treat you as simply a member of a class.... But it is these same members here that demand the most and are willing to insult to get it. Again, I say:"Hypocrit!" to these radical members. You know who you are! > >At the risk of overgeneralizing [:-)], I would venture to say that we are >all guilty of overgeneralization sometimes. > Who me??? I have never OVERgeneralized in my life :-) But then I'm really cool....... >Moira Mallison >tektronix!moiram -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/09/85)
In article <202@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >> >Our bodies (male or female) react to different stimuli uniquely and >those reactions are what makes us different. Women by nature are more >bound by their bodies than are men. Er, Jeanette, are you sure you want to say this? I've seen too many people indicate that this same "ultra"-bound is enough not to hire a women on: you know, who needs those PMS types around when non-emotional decisions have to made?? Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each month) *might* not be as effective as a man? >All that is asked by most women I know is that men overlook the purely >physical differences, forget they exist for the purposes of conducting >business or producing profitable work. But what about the above?? -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/10/85)
> Er, Jeanette, are you sure you want to say this? I've seen too many > people indicate that this same "ultra"-bound is enough not to hire a > women on: you know, who needs those PMS types around when non-emotional > decisions have to made?? > > Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her > job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a > hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each > month) *might* not be as effective as a man? While there are women who have "monthly difficulties" thre are many more who do not or who manage to be job effective regardless. The point I was trying to make is that the so called differences between men and women are really only differences between individuals. That is all people men or women or whatever - (in case there is a group I missed) develop their own uniquness (sp) and by and large sex has only a small part in that development > > >All that is asked by most women I know is that men overlook the purely > >physical differences, forget they exist for the purposes of conducting > >business or producing profitable work. > > But what about the above?? > Just that - If I am given a job to do I dont let anything short of mayhem or a major mishap stop me from performing to the best of my abilities and I think a lot of women (more than might be expected considering your comments about PMS) approach their jobs the same way I re-iterate: All that is asked by most women I know is that men overlook the purely physical differences, forget they exist for the purposes of conducting business or producing profitable work. > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York ALL Opinions expressed belong to me - unless you want them than they're free! -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/10/85)
In article <993@ubc-vision.CDN> mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian) writes: > >> There is no getting around the fact that the differences between >> men and women go beyond the anatomical to the social. To say >> that women are more closely in tune with their emotions is not >> to say that they are superior, just different. > >> Moira Mallison >> tektronix!moiram > >Quite interesting to see this come from a woman who stands for women's >rights. Do you really believe that women are simply "just different"? >Do you know that the respected psychologists and thinkers of the last >century also argued that women were not inferior, just different. Each >sex was best fit/suited for specific things. Women's difference made >them more suitable for being housewives and taking care of the children >and men's differences made them more suitable for the outside world and >more "intellectual" activities. To say that men were more intelectually >inclined was not to say that they were superior, "just different". > I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. I stand for *people's* rights. To say that there are no differences between men and women (apart from the anatomical) is absurd. Your implication is that all differences are inherent to the sex of a person. Rather, they are a part of the gender role learning that begins at the moment our parents learn our sex. And therefore, these characteristics are somewhat more easily modified. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/10/85)
In article <281@timeinc.UUCP> greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) writes: > >The majority of postings in this group tend to say such things >as "Men will never understand what it feels like to be raped." I would go so far as to say that a woman who hasn't been raped will never understand what it feels like to be raped. > >I agree with that, but many posters feel that this means that men's >opinions on rape are not valid. But these same posters will turn >around and expect that the horror of rape can somehow be alleviated >by this same men talking to their fellow men. It just doesn't seem >to be consisent with the attitudes displayed. > >In fact it seems to be (dare I say it? Sure!) hypocritical! I agree with that assessment. Does this mean that a person has to be raped in order to have a valid opinion on the subject? (Thanks but given the choice, I'd rather not :-) Then again, I wasn't :-[ given the choice.) Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/11/85)
In article <206@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: >I re-iterate: >All that is asked by most women I know is that men overlook the purely >physical differences, forget they exist for the purposes of conducting >business or producing profitable work. > I'll tell you an interesting story that happened to me a while ago. You tell me afterwards to "overlook the purely physical differences", ok? I'm a consultant. I had this major contract that required me to hire a couple of people. I ended up hiring two people: one male and one female. Due to a learning curve, I had to pay their salaries to get them up to speed before the client was willing to pick up the cost. The learning curve was about two months. I had them each sign the kind of contract you don't dream about in your worst nightmares. Basically, if they walked off the job for any reason, then they would owe me the monies that I had paid them, plus they would have to pay for the learning curve of the next person to get hired, or pay me for lost income if the client pulled the plug on the project because they had walked. They were both excellent! And then the women walked about three months into the contract. She had gotten pregnant *before* she had signed up with me. Of course I, as an employer, am not allowed to ask such silly questions as "Are you pregnant now? Do you plan to get pregnant during the term of the assignment?". That is discriminatory and against the law, you see. Anyway, she walked off and said "Go ahead! Try to sue me. You can't -- I'm pregnant!". And you know what: she was right! I had no hold over her: my lawyer told me to piss into the wind for better results. It seems that to sue her for any reason *based* on her pregnancy would be discriminatory, and therefore not valid grounds for a suit. Now, that obviously couldn't happen to a man :-) Before you guys start telling me what could happen to a man, allow me to explain that each of the contractors had been forced (by me) to take out large health insurance and job continuation insurance policies, in the event of illness or whatnot. I was the benificiary of these insurance policies for the term of their assignment. Of course, pregnancy is not an illness. So I got royally screwed. Now, should I make an effort next time to "overlook" the physical differences? And get screwed again? Or should I instead not overlook them, and opt to hire only those that can not get pregnant: men. If this was any fun to read, you can imagine how much fun it was to live through. Total cost of the above: $18,000 ---- of MY money. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/11/85)
> Our bodies (male or female) react to different stimuli uniquely and > those reactions are what makes us different. Women by nature are more > bound by their bodies than are men. Hmmm, I don't know whether I really believe this. What exactly do you mean by "bound" Jeannette? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) (07/13/85)
> In article <202@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > >> > >Our bodies (male or female) react to different stimuli uniquely and > >those reactions are what makes us different. Women by nature are more > >bound by their bodies than are men. > > Er, Jeanette, are you sure you want to say this? I've seen too many > people indicate that this same "ultra"-bound is enough not to hire a > women on: you know, who needs those PMS types around when non-emotional > decisions have to made?? > > Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her > job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a > hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each > month) *might* not be as effective as a man? > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York I feel that, despite the differences between the sexes (learned or inborn), we owe it to each other to treat each other as individuals, and not jump to conclusions. There is variation between the sexes, but it is overwhelmed by individual variation. To take your example, it's conceivable (although it hasn't been proved to me) that, on the average, women on the average have more ineffective work days per month than do men. What effect should this have on you when you interview a woman? I feel that it should have almost no effect, because you are interviewing a woman, and not women on the average. Unless she is fresh out of school, it should be possible to tell something about her general effectiveness from her past employment record, references, accomplishments, etc. I know that judging someone's effectiveness based on a job interview is pretty tough, but that's the system we've got. Would you prefer that employers take an "insurance company" approach by looking up factors such as gender, race, age, religion, etc. in actuarial tables to determine the statistically expected effectiveness of each candidate? I prefer to take my chances with personal human judgement. (I know that Ross was not really advocating the "insurance company" approach; I was exaggerating to make a point). Also, I suspect that PMS has gotten much more publicity than it deserves. It's a common claim that women can't be trusted with responsibility because they lose their ability to think clearly once a month. All the attention that PMS has gotten reinforces this belief, and I suspect that those who already believed in the "bitch once a month" syndrome are the ones who generated the publicity. What I'd like to know is: what percentage of women suffer from PMS, and how great are its effects on them? Has anyone ever done any research to find out whether some men have emotional or physical cycles which cause them to be ineffective occasionally? By the way, Ross, what would you do if, based on intensive research on the differences between men and women and their effects on job performance, you were forced to conclude that women on the average were *more* effective than men in most jobs, despite PMS? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (07/14/85)
> They were both excellent! And then the women walked about three months > into the contract. She had gotten pregnant *before* she had signed > up with me. > > Anyway, she walked off and said "Go ahead! Try to sue me. You can't -- > I'm pregnant!". And you know what: she was right! I had no hold over > her: my lawyer told me to piss into the wind for better results. > It seems that to sue her for any reason *based* on her pregnancy would > be discriminatory, and therefore not valid grounds for a suit. > > Now, that obviously couldn't happen to a man :-) > > Now, should I make an effort next time to "overlook" the physical > differences? And get screwed again? Or should I instead not > overlook them, and opt to hire only those that can not get pregnant: men. > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York There are always a few people who will manage to ruin it for everybody else, aren't there? I can sympathise with your position. It is amazing how one personal experience can really affect one's judgement of a lot of people. YOur distrust of women workers is probably just as justified now as some women's distrust of men. What more can be said? This is very sad for everybody, sad that innocent women will not be refused jobs because of the mistakes of others, sad that innocent men will not be trusted by women because there are so many rapists and sad that there are people who abuse others in such fashions. As a side note: it is interesting that pregnancy is considered an illness depending on how much money there is to be made out of it. Hospitals and hospitals certainly treats them as illnesses, but insurance companies don't. In your case, I still find it strange that there is no way this woman could be pinned. If she intended to work throughout her pregnancy and didn't succeed to, it must have been because her pregnancy somehow disabled her (in which case she should have qualified as sick). If not, then she left even though she was capable of working? that sounds like a breach of contract to me. Or was it all a question of cutting it too close, the contract lasting longer than expected? -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/15/85)
In article <551@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: > >By the way, Ross, what would you do if, based on intensive research on >the differences between men and women and their effects on job performance, >you were forced to conclude that women on the average were *more* effective >than men in most jobs, despite PMS? Hire more women, of course! Until the guv'mint decided that they had to, once again, disrupt my hiring practices, and make me hire people who are not as qualified for the job! But then (as they say) that's another story..... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{ihnp4 | vax135}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. they would make me their spokesperson.
mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (Farzin Mokhtarian) (07/16/85)
>> Quite interesting to see this come from a woman who stands for women's >> rights. Do you really believe that women are simply "just different"? >> Do you know that the respected psychologists and thinkers of the last >> century also argued that women were not inferior, just different. Each >> sex was best fit/suited for specific things. Women's difference made >> them more suitable for being housewives and taking care of the children >> and men's differences made them more suitable for the outside world and >> more "intellectual" activities. To say that men were more intelectually >> inclined was not to say that they were superior, "just different". > I am not a feminist. I am a humanist. I stand for *people's* rights. Well, I did not say that you were a feminist. I did say that you stood for women's rights and that is included in `people', isn't it? > To say that there are no differences between men and women (apart from > the anatomical) is absurd. Why is it absurd? > Your implication is that all differences > are inherent to the sex of a person. Rather, they are a part of the > gender role learning that begins at the moment our parents learn our > sex. And therefore, these characteristics are somewhat more easily > modified. > Moira Mallison > tektronix!moiram If you believe that these differences are due to gender role learning, (which I agree with), then you can't say that women are `just different' because that implies that the reasons for the difference can not even be explained. Farzin Mokhtarian ubc-vision!mokhtar
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/16/85)
> In article <206@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > > >I re-iterate: > >All that is asked by most women I know is that men overlook the purely > >physical differences, forget they exist for the purposes of conducting > >business or producing profitable work. > > > > They were both excellent! And then the women walked about three months > into the contract. She had gotten pregnant *before* she had signed > up with me. Of course I, as an employer, am not allowed to ask such > silly questions as "Are you pregnant now? Do you plan to get pregnant > during the term of the assignment?". That is discriminatory and > against the law, you see. The ethics and morals of individuals will (being self-deterimined) always leave room for those people male or female who will do or say anything in oder to get what they want. I do not condone this type of activity and I feel that women who indulge in this particular trick are only working to the detriment of all other women While it may be discriminatory to ask it is ethically and morally (mine anyhow) to be open about such items and try to find a way towork them into the state of negotiations if possible. If it costs me the job well at least I was honest about it and may be next time that honesty will get me the position I want over someone else who although as qualified as I is an unknown factor in that area. > > > Anyway, she walked off and said "Go ahead! Try to sue me. You can't -- > I'm pregnant!". And you know what: she was right! I had no hold over > her: my lawyer told me to piss into the wind for better results. > It seems that to sue her for any reason *based* on her pregnancy would > be discriminatory, and therefore not valid grounds for a suit. > This obviously shows that perhaps not all of your selection process was as good as you thought it to be because the selfishness the this person as you describe her (are you being as honest as you might be if you were not so financially involved ('=)( /2 ) is a major character flaw which should have shown up in the screening process. Honesty and professional pride are hard quantities to subjectively test for today but selfishness is not perhaps you should reevlauate the means by which you determine employability. > > Total cost of the above: $18,000 ---- of MY money. > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > One last thought. One woman who takes a job knowing that because of a pregnancy she will not be able to complete it or who becomes pregnant and deliberately hides the issue untill she has to leave and then tell t to sue her for it does not mean all women will do the same thing. What is your opinion than of a man who takes on such a project and then accepts a better position with another employer and tells you to sue him. While your chances of recovering your money may be better would the fact that it was a man and he was moving up in his profession make any difference to you? ( I really would be interested in your thoughts.) -30- -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (07/16/85)
> > Our bodies (male or female) react to different stimuli uniquely and > > those reactions are what makes us different. Women by nature are more > > bound by their bodies than are men. > > Hmmm, I don't know whether I really believe this. What exactly do you > mean by "bound" Jeannette? > -- > Sophie Quigley > {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie I only point out that women are aware of the way their bodies respond periodically while men are not. Perhaps if the male equivalent of a menstural cylce (I don't think there is formal name for it) were as obvious men would also be more aware of their bodies. I think the word "bound" was misued a better word would have been more "aware". Bound haveing in it a definition of enslavement or entrapment. -- Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/16/85)
In article <217@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > >>(Quoting me): >> >> Anyway, she walked off and said "Go ahead! Try to sue me. You can't -- >> I'm pregnant!". ... >> >This obviously shows that perhaps not all of your selection process was >as good as you thought it to be because the selfishness the this person >as you describe her (are you being as honest as you might be if you >were not so financially involved ('=)( /2 ) is a major character >flaw which should have shown up in the screening process. I admit it! I wasn't SuperEmployer, All-Knowing and All-Seeing. Then I didn't expect this to ever be something that would (or should) happen in the workplace. > Honesty and >professional pride are hard quantities to subjectively test for today >but selfishness is not. Really? What is the foolproof test? >One last thought. > >One woman who takes a job knowing that because of a pregnancy she will >not be able to complete it or who becomes pregnant and deliberately >hides the issue untill she has to leave and then tell t to sue her for it >does not mean all women will do the same thing. Of this, of course, I am aware. >What is your opinion than of a man who takes on such a project and >then accepts a better position with another employer and tells you >to sue him. While your chances of recovering your money may be better >would the fact that it was a man and he was moving up in his profession make >any difference to you? ( I really would be interested in your thoughts.) > Certainly this is one of the risks that *any* employer has with *any* employee. Of course, by you asking me to break it down on a man-women basis, you must think that I would treat such individuals differently as per their sex. This would be sexism, which I do not practice. Any employee foolish enough to leave my wonderful employ (Free trips to Europe, all the nose-candy they can toot, bare-breasted nuabian maidens to fan them when the AC goes out, personal Vax8600, and only one hour of work per week required (the rest devoted to netnews!) ) simply because the grass was greener elsewhere would be expected to perform in a workperchildlike (Gimme a break! "workmanlike!") manner: enough notice to hire someone to replace them, and the possibility of them staying on until project completion. I have hired both women and men, and have found that there are, in fact, differences between the sexes. Some indicate that I should hire more women for certain fields of endeaver, some say less. But that (as they say) is another story. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
moiram@tektronix.UUCP (Moira Mallison ) (07/18/85)
In article <551@rtech.UUCP> jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) writes: >What I'd like to know is: what percentage of >women suffer from PMS, and how great are its effects on them? PMS (pre-menstural syndrome) is a catch-all term to describe a variety of effects the hormonal cycle may have on a woman. Various women suffer various symptoms to varying degrees, and they are all attributed to PMS (as far as I can tell). It's the "in" thing these days - sort of like hypoglycemia ten years ago. Everybody's writing about it, researching it, trying to come up with methods to alleviate the symptoms. It's kind of a Catch-22 situation. We were told for years that women weren't as capable as men because we were "at effect of our hormones" once a month. Then with the rising popularity of feminism, the charge was denied. We were *not* at effect. Women who couldn't maintain complete equanimity had other "emotional" problems. Now, women are starting to come back out of the closet about the effect their hormones have on their lives, but to what cost? I don't know. Moira Mallison tektronix!moiram
reh@aplvax.UUCP (Ron E. Hall) (07/18/85)
Jeanette Zobjeck in reply to Ross Greenburg: > One last thought. > > One woman who takes a job knowing that because of a pregnancy she will > not be able to complete it or who becomes pregnant and deliberately > hides the issue untill she has to leave and then tell t to sue her for it > does not mean all women will do the same thing. > What is your opinion than of a man who takes on such a project and > then accepts a better position with another employer and tells you > to sue him. While your chances of recovering your money may be better > would the fact that it was a man and he was moving up in his profession make > any difference to you? ( I really would be interested in your thoughts.) 1. No, it doesn't mean that all women (or even most women) would do the same thing, but it does mean that an employer who hires a woman of childbearing age is taking on an additional risk, and an employer (male or female) who has had Greenburg's experience will give that risk additional weight. 2. The woman lied to Greenburg, signed a contract she had no intention of honoring, and hiding behind her pregnancy laughed in his face because she knew she would not have to suffer the consequences of her bad faith. The man signed the contract in good faith and will have to suffer the economic consequences of breaking the contract. The fact that the contract is being broken by a man leaving to better himself is relatively unimportant (I would feel the same about a woman breaking the contract to better herself by leaving). Ron Hall JHU/APL ...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!reh ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!reh -- Ron Hall JHU/APL ...decvax!harpo!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!reh ...rlgvax!cvl!umcp-cs!aplvax!reh
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (07/18/85)
> Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- > Any employee foolish enough to leave my wonderful employ (Free trips > to Europe, all the nose-candy they can toot, bare-breasted nuabian Two articles in a row, no less, with mention of cocaine. I think it highly inappropriate to tout tooting of same. It's dangerously addictive, as are nicotine and caffeine, regardless of the legalities involved. Though legal nicotine is actually the most addictive substance known to mankind, cocaine can be more devastating to your life, especially because its illegality means that addiction is so much more expensive. > maidens to fan them when the AC goes out, personal Vax8600, and only Since the Nubians saw their heyday from the 6th to 14th centuries, and were composed of Negroid tribes between Egypt and Ethiopia, and since slavery has been outlawed in the US for quite a while, this can only be construed as a slur against women, relegating them to the position of sex-object and servant. You certainly chose the right forum for that. > one hour of work per week required (the rest devoted to netnews!) ) > simply because the grass was greener elsewhere would be expected to > perform in a workperchildlike (Gimme a break! "workmanlike!") manner: give us a break... what's wrong with "responsible" > enough notice to hire someone to replace them, and the possibility > of them staying on until project completion. Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
miche@masscomp.UUCP (Harvey) (07/19/85)
>Any employee foolish enough to leave my wonderful employ (Free trips >to Europe, all the nose-candy they can toot, bare-breasted nuabian >maidens to fan them when the AC goes out, personal Vax8600, and only >one hour of work per week required (the rest devoted to netnews!) ) >simply because the grass was greener elsewhere would be expected to >perform in a workperchildlike (Gimme a break! "workmanlike!") manner: >enough notice to hire someone to replace them, and the possibility >of them staying on until project completion. > >-- >------------------------------------------------------------------ >Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Yeah, Ross, those bare-breasted nuabian maidens sure are an enticement. They're going to make me feel real comfortable when the AC goes out. I wonder if it occurred to you that this might offend, even though it was obviously meant as a joke? Miche Baker-Harvey {decvax|ihnp4}!masscomp!miche
pc@hplabsb.UUCP (07/19/85)
> > Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her > job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a > hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each > month) *might* not be as effective as a man? > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York Interesting leap here! PMS can make you retain water, get teary-eyed, and be grumpy, but unless your job is to be a smiling, slender airhead, I don't think PMS would make you "ineffective." Let's face it, everybody has bad days. Women's may just be more cyclic... not necessarily more frequent. And besides, there is that wonderfully "in tune" phase in some women's cycles that includes high energy, high focus, and VERY positive vibes. [ (- ; ] From an AA/EEO point of view, the main legal contention is that one cannot discriminate against an INDIVIDUAL based on stereotypes about a CLASS of people when that class sort is based on sex, age, ethnic background, religion, or race. Patricia Collins -- {ucbvax|duke|hao|allegra}!hplabs!pc
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/21/85)
In article <1293@mnetor.UUCP> sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) writes: (I talk about a pregnant women taking advantage of me, through some shenanigans based on her pregnancy) > >There are always a few people who will manage to ruin it for everybody >else, aren't there? I can sympathise with your position. It is amazing >how one personal experience can really affect one's judgement of a lot of >people. YOur distrust of women workers is probably just as justified now >as some women's distrust of men. I don't distrust women, I'm happy to say. And what this women did for me I consider eye-opening, but it doesn't really affect my judgement of women. I worked *very* hard not to let it! >.... In your case, I still find it strange that there is >no way this woman could be pinned. If she intended to work throughout >her pregnancy and didn't succeed to, it must have been because her >pregnancy somehow disabled her (in which case she should have qualified >as sick). If not, then she left even though she was capable of working? >that sounds like a breach of contract to me. Or was it all a question >of cutting it too close, the contract lasting longer than expected? Although I have nothing to base it on, I feel the women just decided to screw me: take the money and run. She was a healthy women (caveat: I'm no doctor), and had just been telling me about a tennis game she had played a few weeks before she walked. >-- >Sophie Quigley >{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (07/21/85)
In article <738@masscomp.UUCP> miche@masscomp.UUCP (Miche Baker-Harvey) writes: (I talk about how wonderful it is to be in my employ.): > >Yeah, Ross, those bare-breasted nuabian maidens sure are an enticement. >They're going to make me feel real comfortable when the AC goes out. > >I wonder if it occurred to you that this might offend, even though >it was obviously meant as a joke? No, I am ashamed to say, it never occurred to me that it might offend anyone. If it did, please accept my very sincere apologies: it was only meant as a joke, and no harm was intended. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/23/85)
> > > > Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her > > job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a > > hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each > > month) *might* not be as effective as a man? > > > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > > Interesting leap here! PMS can make you retain water, get teary-eyed, and be > grumpy, but unless your job is to be a smiling, slender airhead, I don't > think PMS would make you "ineffective." > My wife experienced severe PMS after our daughter was born; for a week and a half each month, she became depressed and difficult to live with. The rest of the time she felt pretty good. Fortunately, my wife's employer can't fire her (her boss hasn't quite learned to talk). I'm sure that if she worked outside the home, her attitude would have gotten her fired. (The same attitude would get a man fired.) > Let's face it, everybody has bad days. Women's may just be more cyclic... > not necessarily more frequent. And besides, there is that wonderfully "in > tune" phase in some women's cycles that includes high energy, high focus, > and VERY positive vibes. [ (- ; ] > My wife's experience with PMS suggests differently. Her bad days were dramatically more frequent than before our daughter was born, and dramatically more frequent than now. > From an AA/EEO point of view, the main legal contention is that one cannot > discriminate against an INDIVIDUAL based on stereotypes about a CLASS of > people when that class sort is based on sex, age, ethnic background, religion, > or race. > > Patricia Collins PMS doesn't justify discrimination against individuals; but if PMS affects a sizeable percentage of women, and thereby impairs job performance, it might explain some of the *average* discrepancy in wages between men and women in comparable jobs. I realize a lot of people out there would rather believe that the discrepancy is entirely the result of discrimination; the pursuit of truth can be most unpleasant to those who are so damn certain they have it all wrapped up in a neat little bundle.
gmack@denelvx.UUCP (Gregg Mackenzie) (07/25/85)
> Any employee foolish enough to leave my wonderful employ (Free trips > to Europe, all the nose-candy they can toot, bare-breasted nuabian > maidens to fan them when the AC goes out, personal Vax8600, and only > one hour of work per week required (the rest devoted to netnews!) ) > simply because the grass was greener elsewhere would be expected to > perform in a workperchildlike (Gimme a break! "workmanlike!") manner: > enough notice to hire someone to replace them, and the possibility > of them staying on until project completion. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York > --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- Hey! That sounds a lot like Denelcor! Isn't it wonderful to work for a progressive company? Gregg Mackenzie denelcor!gmack
gkloker@utai.UUCP (Geoff Loker) (07/26/85)
In article <397@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >PMS doesn't justify discrimination against individuals; but if PMS affects >a sizeable percentage of women, and thereby impairs job performance, it >might explain some of the *average* discrepancy in wages between men and >women in comparable jobs. And how do \you/ know that \you've/ got the answer? Your experience has been a sample of one -- your wife. Of the people I know, my wife, my sisters, friends, co-workers, etc., I have never noticed or heard of any effects of PMS -- certainly none which have impaired their job performance. IF PMS affects a sizeable percentage of women, and IF it impaired job performance, it MIGHT explain some of the *average* discrepancy in wages between men and women in comparable jobs. But notice that there are quite a number of IFs there. Based on the (not necessarily so) random sample of women I know, it doesn't appear that it does affect a sizeable percentage of women. (By the way, how large is "sizeable"?) Even if it did, it is not clear that it would *necessarily* impair job performance -- usually people are able to surmount bitchy moods, etc., when they \have/ to. At work, it's a "have to" situation; at home or with friends, you tend to be more free to let your feelings go, and so you \can/ make yourself difficult to live with there. >I realize a lot of people out there would rather believe that the discrepancy >is entirely the result of discrimination; the pursuit of truth can be most >unpleasant to those who are so damn certain they have it all wrapped up in >a neat little bundle. At the same time, there are a lot of people out there who would rather believe that the discrepancy is entirely the result of women's inherent incompetence (thanks to factors such as PMS). It's *so* much easier to rule someone out of the game at the start than to have to compete with them. As you say, the pursuit of truth can be most unpleasant to those who are so damn certain they have it all wrapped up in a neat little bundle. -- 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
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (07/26/85)
> My wife experienced severe PMS after our daughter was born; for a week > and a half each month, she became depressed and difficult to live with. > ... > PMS doesn't justify discrimination against individuals; but if PMS affects > a sizeable percentage of women, and thereby impairs job performance, it > might explain some of the *average* discrepancy in wages between men and > women in comparable jobs. > > I realize a lot of people out there would rather believe that the discrepancy > is entirely the result of discrimination; the pursuit of truth can be most > unpleasant to those who are so damn certain they have it all wrapped up in > a neat little bundle. You know, for somebody who started out sounding quite reasonable, you really wound up sounding like a jerk. Of all the women I know or have ever known, none of them have any noticeable amount of PMS; some have cramps for a day or so, or symptoms like water gain that couldn't possibly affect their working. If you are going to even imply something like "PMS affects a sizeable percentage of women" then I think you should have a little more information to back it up. You yourself admitted that your wife only had severe PMS immediately after having a child. Doubtless that would have an effect on your hormones, but I really can't see how that could apply to women IN GENERAL. More men than women are alcholics; alcoholism can cause trouble with work; so men should be discriminated against, right? marie desjardins park
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/31/85)
> > >I realize a lot of people out there would rather believe that the discrepancy > >is entirely the result of discrimination; the pursuit of truth can be most > >unpleasant to those who are so damn certain they have it all wrapped up in > >a neat little bundle. > > At the same time, there are a lot of people out there who would rather > believe that the discrepancy is entirely the result of women's inherent > incompetence (thanks to factors such as PMS). It's *so* much easier to rule > someone out of the game at the start than to have to compete with them. As > you say, the pursuit of truth can be most unpleasant to those who are so damn > certain they have it all wrapped up in a neat little bundle. > This is starting to sound a lot like the net.abortion arguments that (all too often) overflow into net.women. Is it time to start net.PMS? (:->)/2 -- All opinions are mine alone... Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa