Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!uwmcsd1!bbn!aoa!mbr
From: mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal)
Newsgroups: soc.women,news.misc
Subject: Re: Update on Guidelines for Posting to Soc.women
Message-ID: <373@aoa.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 6-Aug-87 13:08:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: aoa.373
Posted: Thu Aug  6 13:08:00 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 8-Aug-87 11:53:39 EDT
References: <1129@gryphon.CTS.COM>
Reply-To: mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal)
Organization: Adaptive Optics Assoc., Cambridge, Mass. USA
Lines: 29
Xref: mnetor soc.women:6076 news.misc:832

I am posting this as a followup rather than sending E-mail because I can't
find a path to gryphon.  I will probably get flamed to high-heaven for
suggesting some balance here, but here goes anyway.

In article <1129@gryphon.CTS.COM> mhnadel@gryphon.CTS.COM (Miriam Nadel) writes
of her proposed guidelines for soc.women:

>I am planning to modify this to say:
>
>>7) It is a good idea to cite references when stating facts.  Discussion
>>of personal experiences is welcome, but one should be wary of excessive
>>generalization based on personal experience.  For example, your 
>>ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women want men to support 
>>them.

Fine with me, if you modify the last sentence to read:

    For example, your ex-wife's alimony demands do not imply that most women
    want men to support them, just as your ex-husband's failure to make child
    support payments do not imply that most men abandon their children.

If you fail to make your example cut both ways, the clear implication is
that only men "should be wary of excessive generalization based on personal
experience", and that women should feel free to make such excessive
generalizations.
-- 
	Mark of the Valley of Roses
	...!{harvard,ima}!bbn!aoa!mbr
	...!{wjh12,mit-vax}!biomed!aoa!mbr