Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!pesnta!phri!timeinc!greenber
From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: PMS and incompetence
Message-ID: <380@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Jul-85 22:55:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: timeinc.380
Posted: Wed Jul 31 22:55:48 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Aug-85 10:31:53 EDT
References: <993@ubc-vision.CDN> <202@ihlpl.UUCP>
Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Organization: Time, Inc. - New York
Lines: 87



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