From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Working with Women vs. Working with Men
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 18:18:57 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.170637.24982@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>Robert Stephen Rodgers sums it up in the following statements:
>        The effort has been made a number of times and failed.
>        Frankly, I don't much care about having happy-fun communication--
>        it's not the job we're supposed to be doing.
>
>>Okay, Mr. Serious.<


	Damn straight.  I suppose the world is all flowers and shiny	
	for you when your ass is on the line to get something done 
	and your partner is doing their best to prevent it?


>me>       "...but your partner insists on PLAYING with a thesaurus
>me>       and PRETTYFYING all of what you're writing instead of aiding
>me>       the task at hand...After an hour or two, you're liable to
>me>       strangle them so that they'll SHUT UP long enough for you to
>me>       think."
>>
>>( I think your paralelling women with children who need to be (physically)
>>  shut up is a nice touch.)
>
>        Come off it.  Is your reading level really that low?
>
>Are you really so simple as to not consider the language that 
>you use?  I suppose you paralell black men with children as well.<


	Sigh.  Another new low.  Boy, you are just sinking quicker and
	quicker.  Answer the analogy.  If you call the behavior I described
	"acting like children" then fine--so be it.  I can't work
	with children.


>>       to getting the job done."
>>
>>(...by your guidelines and time-table.)
>
>
>        Well, since that's all there is (they seem unable to make
>        guidelines or a timetable for themselves that they're willing to
>        stick to--and this includes timetables made as a team) that's
>        the way it'll have to be.
>
>What would we do without men like you who will take charge when
>us women just can't seem to get it together?<


	Who knows?  You're free to venture a guess.

>>       "It is *not* a power issue."
>(...that you are willing to  see, discuss, or begin to understand.)
>
>
>       Ah, the cry of the pathetic.  "You don't understand"
>        It is not my job to constantly make every effort to understand
>        a group that refuses to be honest and up-front about what
>        it is you're trying to do.  It is not *my* job to try and
>        make efforts to understand and empathize a process that fails
>        to get the job done.
>--
>And I suppose it is also not your job to understand anyone or
>anything that does not center upon your 'needs.'<


	Come off it.  Should I make the effore to "understand" and
	"workwith" someone elses methods when they wont lift a finger
	to do the same?  Hell no.  Women deserveno more slack than
	anyone else and I think it's pretty sexist of you to 
	suggest otherwise.


>Calling someone pathetic implys they want your sympathy.  EMPATHY
>is what I give, and what I ask for.<


	The hell it does.  Calling someone pathetic means just that: 
	pathetic.  It doesn't imply jack about what *they* want, it
	implys how you feel.  Disgusting lack of self control comes
	to mind, as well, when I think of the type of person we are
	discussing--does that imply that they want my disgust?

	Empathy my wazoo.  empathy doesn't have jack to do with
	getting a project done.

>                       " Equality is a delusion."
>				Translation: Suck it up.

	Translation:  Take everything away from everybody and put 
	them all in the same environment.  Some will succeed, some
	will sink.


-- 
	"If you can't eat sand, why the hell are you living in a desert?"
			Equality is a delusion.
	     Rule 1:  "Don't have more children than you can feed."
	  	  Nuclear redevelopment for a better world!
Newsgroups: alt.feminism