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: men dominate (?) net.women
Message-ID: <710@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 16:16:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.710
Posted: Mon Aug 26 16:16:57 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 06:04:43 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 39


CHARLIE!!!

Hold on a minute, there!!!

>As others have said better than I can, If you, indeed, want to improve
>the lot of women, like it or not, you will likely need the support of
>men bsecause you obviously don't have the support of all women (who
>are, I believe, still the majority in this country).  This doesn't
>mean that you have to bow & scrape, as many of you seem to believe.
>It just means that it would make sense not to alienate people
>unnecessarily (what else would you call calling men testosterone
>poisoned assholes, or words to that effect?).

There is some problem with selectivity here!!!  It doesn't seem to me, with
my *warped* view of reality, that to "alientate people unnecessarily" is
any different aimed at men (testosterone poisoning) than at women (PMS)!
This whole line of reasoning turns the "PMS incompetency" discussion into
a purposeful alienation of the women on the net!!!  ARE you claiming that
was Ross's purpose?

It's damned easy to forgive ourselves while we ream the other guy -- but it's
damned unnecessary, too.  This argument started up related to the PMS argu-
ment (that went on too long and to no purpose, initiated by a man) and I'm
afraid I'm gonna take issue with you if you now find women *as a class* at
fault because some individuals came back with a sauce for the gander.

DECIDE fer chrissake whether you're gonna respond personally, in which case
we can all run your comments through a "personal opinion" filter, and make
sure your rebuttals reflect that personal stance!  If you decide to pose
a generic stance -- *all* men, *all* women -- o.k., but then don't get
other's _personal_ remarks messed up in it.

>How about if we quit all of this name-calling and invective and get on
>with some rational discussion?
>
Hear, hear (or rather, Here, here).

Adrienne Regard