Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!h-sc1!friedman
From: friedman@h-sc1.UUCP (dawn friedman)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: men dominate net.women (flame-ish)
Message-ID: <558@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 13:11:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.558
Posted: Fri Aug 30 13:11:15 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 1-Sep-85 12:33:18 EDT
References: <175@drutx.UUCP> <231@whuts.UUCP> <2668@ihuxf.UUCP> <373@tektools.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 71

> > Andy Cohill {ihnp4|allegra}houxm!whuxl!whuts!amc writes:
> > If you want power, you have to make it. Yourself. Or in concert with
> > other people who feel the way you do. You do *not* get it by asking
> > others to give it to you, which is what you are suggesting here. If
> > you have to ask for it, you don't deserve it. 
> 
> This paragraph strikes me as being remarkably like the taunts of a
> jailer:  "Go ahead!  Break out!  You could get out of here if you
> *really* wanted to!  I'm not stopping you!"
> 
Well, maybe not that spiteful, because he seems actually to believe
in this "principle" about power.  It may be true that power can't
be obtained by asking nicely.  But is power really at issue here, or
have we, as so often, zoomed off into needless flames and fumes 
because of the lighthearted use of heavy words?  Does "dominate"
in the subject line mean "predominate in"?  Maybe it did once, to
someone, but it clearly has picked up enough implications of whips
and chains, and *power*, to make the discussion read like a
cross between a bad Heinlein juvenile and The Sheik of Araby.
I haven't noticed all this domination, despite the sheer force of
numbers involved in all netgroups; I certainly don't see a male
viewpoint, or voting block, that threatens to overwhelm (whimper!)
us women; and I have often been pleased to realize that I can't
tell whether a man or a woman wrote a particular letter.  But,
this being a newsgroup and neither Camelot nor Meadowlands 
Stadium, I rather thought that the issue was courtesy, not POWER,
and that someone was asking, not threatening, or begging, the 
multitudinous males of the newsgroup to back off slightly before
torching women's opinions.  I personally don't think it's
necessary; I'm not sure it's quite etiquette, especially as men
have been pretty badly carbonized in these articles (of course,
they all deserved it :--))  But surely one can ask without being
instantly accused of either aggression or gormlessness.
  
I've been wandering so long because I wanted to add some queries
about this "aggression: boon or blessing" panel.  Would someone
please define aggression in some way that does not allow for poetic
paroxysms like Robert Ardrey's about aggression being the innate
force that causes "the baby starfish to grow out, the infant mamba 
to grow long", roses to blossom and men (sic) to seek in old dusty
books the secrets of stardust?  (In fact, I will offer a prize to
anyone who can think up ANY "innate force" that causes these four
things to occur, and I'm leaving out quite a few.)  As Elaine Morgan
said (some of you must know I'm cribbing from her quotation of Ardrey,
as I couldn't get past page three of any of his books), stardust is
not what Ardrey has in mind when he says that male baboons are more 
aggressive than female baboons.                            
I really think that we can separate aggressiveness from desire,
discontent, the sound of the music from behind the moon that lures
young poets to their eternal doom, spring fever, and other marvelous
and uncomfortable creative forces.  In fact, I am not sure that
aggressiveness as a personality characteristic (much less an 
eternal verity) exists at all.  I rather think of it as a tendency to
let frustration and anger run away with you ( instead of sending
you home to write a satirical poem against Boston drivers, or other
creative inspirations.)  I'm not saying that it is never a useful
quality to have in an imperfect world.  But if everyone else agreed
to, I'd gladly attend disassertiveness classes...  It's just that
any quality that is strictly dependent, in my case, on the temperature
of the room I'm in, doesn't seem terribly axiomatic to me.
I don't suppose the people of this newsgroup would agree to drop
the word "aggression" and substitute "bitchiness" from now on,
to emphasize the petty nature of the subject?  I didn't think so.
  
Now I *will* get flamed at last.  Only Harvardians see this, right?
We've got to fix that; I'm tired of reading a discussion I have no 
effect on...   ^%*^%T*&%^! to all those unseeing *(&)7!'s out there.    
And I do hope this helps the baby mambas.  

                                                     dsf
                                          (dina/shacharah)