Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!crs
From: crs@lanl.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: men dominate (?) net.women
Message-ID: <30215@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 10:27:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: lanl.30215
Posted: Tue Aug 27 10:27:53 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 20:44:25 EDT
References: <710@ttidcc.UUCP>
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 71

> 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?

Come on, Adrienne.  You seem to be missing the point.  It is one thing
to discuss something, even to disagree with others; it is quite another
to engage in name calling.  As you say, this discussion has gone on too
long -- so long that I no longer recall Ross's exact words but I think
I would if he had said something like "PMS poisoned asshole" which I
assume would be analogous.

In fact, I seem to recall that Ross asked a simple question; something
like "There is some evidence that PMS causes ... Should this affect
hiring practices?"  [ALL OF MY 'QUOTES' ARE PARAPHRASES FROM FAULTY
MEMORY.]

I am not saying that anyone should refrain from disagreeing with
anyone else.  I am saying it would be nice if we could manage to do it
without being disagreeable; that there is no reason and no excuse for
name calling.

As to purpose, I'm not claiming that alienation is anyone's *purpose*
-- I am claiming that it is an *effect* that is at cross purposes with
the *stated* objective of many who post here including some of the
most extreme name callers.  Hey, I cuss a lot, but calling someone who
disagrees with you an ignorant son of a bitch or whatever your
favorite expression is, is more likely to lose those who agree with
you point than win those who don't.

> 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.

I'd hardly say that calling someone an asshole of any kind  is "sauce
for the gander" when it is a response to someone who simply had the
gall to disagree.

> 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.

I guess I must be dense today -- I have no idea what you are getting
at in the above.  Perhaps the net will be kind enough to read *all* of
my article that prompted this, not just the paragraph that you've
taken out of context and tell me what the above paragraph means in
relation to my article.

> >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

For, I hope, the last time:

THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DISAGREEING WITH A PERSON AND CALLING NAMES.

-- 
All opinions are mine alone...

Charlie Sorsby
...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs
crs@lanl.arpa