Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfsup.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sfsup!mjs From: mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles Subject: Re: This, that, and the other thing. Message-ID: <129@sfsup.UUCP> Date: Sat, 15-Feb-86 17:48:37 EST Article-I.D.: sfsup.129 Posted: Sat Feb 15 17:48:37 1986 Date-Received: Sun, 16-Feb-86 07:44:22 EST References: <540@ism780c.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit N.J. Lines: 73 Xref: watmath net.women:9030 net.singles:10292 > Well, I've just spent my spare time from the last couple of days reading > through ~300 notes, and my initial reaction is: All those notes, and so few > subjects. AMEN! I'm in the same process, and I find the content thus far quite low. > 2. RE: "The `beach' incident". > Fact: When she told the men that she wasn't > interested in doing anything but what she had originally gone to the beach > for (i.e., she told them to go away), only one of them had the decency to > believe that she *meant* what she said. > ... > How are we > ever going to convince people that we *mean* what we say, not what they > want to hear, when the exact opposite is portrayed in the mass media on a > near-continual basis?) For me, *this* was the issue that should have been > discussed. > ... > My guess is that I am not atypical, and that if this > scenario was told to x number of women, the majority of them would tell > you, "Well, the real issue is that she told them `no', and they still kept > pestering her." > ... > The fact that something as (seemingly) simple as deciding what the issue of > a discussion is points to a fundamental problem that men and women are > going to have to overcome if they're ever going to hope to really > communicate with one another. It seems that we see things so differently > (and that's usually okay -- it's interesting to have that other > perspective, to shed new light on something), but we're going to have to > try to synch ourselves up a little bit more, or else I can't imagine how > that gap will ever be closed. > > Diane Holt Hold it right there, Diane! Not all women have recovered from their childhood indoctrination which usually includes statements like, "When initiating a relationship with a man, play `hard to get' (and other head games)." Gentlemen interested in female companionship (more or less) are required to guess as to what sort of lady they're addressing BEFORE they have any indication. My experience has shown me that there are 4 possible combinations (and please don't flame me for the labels): male, enlightened; male, unenlightened; female, "traditional"; and female, "non-traditional". Up until very recently, the "traditional" female dominated in number, so the strategy of choice for the males who were really interested in a particular female was to assume that a verbal "no" was just so many words, no matter how strongly phrased. We males are starting to realize that the majority is shifting, so our behaviour is only starting to change. Yes, there is a communications gap, and it isn't the fault of males, and it isn't the fault of females -- it is the fault of changing attitudes of BOTH sexes, a change that will take time to affect the vast majority of us all, but one which has already affected a great number of us. So, those women that I've classified as "non-traditional" above, please understand that males (in general) are changing, and many have not yet "seen the light". And, those males that I've classified above as unenlightened, please understand that females come in 2 varieties (insofar as this discussion goes), and you run the risk of annoying "non-traditional" women if you treat them as "traditional", and you run the risk of losing the remaining "traditional" women if you treat them as "non-traditional." The bottom line all around is, "You pays yer money and you takes yer chances." And, when has it not been thus? Opposing views? Assenting views? Please post 'em! -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one.