Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: PMS and incompetence
Message-ID: <617@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 1-Aug-85 13:31:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.617
Posted: Thu Aug  1 13:31:01 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 2-Aug-85 22:26:59 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 24


>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?