From: rsrodger@wam.umd.edu (Yamanari)
Subject: Re: Men & Women (was working with women vs. working with men)
Summary: Like the Energizer, she keeps on going and goind and going 
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 22:26:25 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.212924.5801@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M. Petrosino) writes:
>In article <1992Dec23.190432.29510@cs.cornell.edu> jean@cs.cornell.edu (Jean M.
>Petrosino) writes:
>>RSR:                   Equality is a delusion.
>>JMP:                           Translation: Suck it up.
>>
>>RSR:                   Translation: Take everything away from everybody
>>                       and put them all in the same environment.  Some
>>                       will succeed, some will sink.
>>When in doubt, quote the superiority of capitalism and Darwin's survival of the
>> fittest theory.
>
>
>        It works.  That's a lot more than I can say for alternative
>        theories.
>
>It works according to you because you can succeed in such an environment.  You
>have been taylored (socialized) to be able to do so.


	Blah blah.  Show me a successful alternative or pipe down.


>>RSR:                   Come off it.  Should I make the effore to
>>               "understand" 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.
>>
>>
>>Wow.  Talk about the pot calling the kettle black...In your earlier post you
>>said women's thought processes are "crippled in some way, and "makes the work
>>a lot less effective."
>
>        What was I saying about your reading level?  Why don't
>        you go back and re-read what I wrote.  I said "seems
>        crippled in some wway"  and filled the
>        message with more disclaimers than
>        you get with most prescription
>        medication.
>
>Here is what you wrote when I questioned your use of the word 'crippled':
>
>		Come on. Crippled is what it is to me.  "Different" 
>		does not carry the meaning I intend.  I mean, "they 
>		seem HOBBLED in some way by an INABILITY to make the
>		committment to a solution.
>
>I don't see any disclaimers on this one.



	Oh, see the word "seem"?  or "what it is to me"?  



>> You then go on to paralell women with children
>
>        Who paralled them with children?  I made a parallel withg
>        a repairman that's busy trying to watch a football game
>        while working.  YOU brought children into it.
>
>Your paralelling women with children:
>	
>		...but your partner insists on PLAYING with a thesaurus
>		and PRETTYFYING all of what you're writing instead of
>		aiding the task at hand...After an hour or two, you're
>		liable to strangle them so that they'll SHUT UP long 
>		enough for you to think.



	I don't see any mention of children.  I was describing--
	quite accurately, I assure you, the behavior most of 
	these people display.  


>It sounds like you are playing G.I. Joe, while these women are playing Barbie.
>Women are as much a hinderance to work as children are.  Thank God for 
>compulsory education!  If we could only do the same with women, then maybe 
>something around here would get done!!


	Your interpretation, not mine. 



> >as well
>>as getting to the point of insulting my reading abilities.
>
>        If the shoe fits.  You're also pretty good at quoting out
>        of context and distortion.  Methinks someone needs a valium.
>
>Of course, since I am challenging you I am hysterical and in need of a sedative
>Maybe you need a cold shower.



	You're not challenging me, you're trying to put words
	in my mouth and attach obviously false meanings to my 
	words.  If anything, you're boring me.



>>And to top it all
>>off you get right down to calling me and other women pathetic simply because
>>we choose not to operate as you do.
>
>        Want to show me the quote that says this?
>
>Your famous pathetic quote (in response to my statement that you are clearly
>unwilling to listen to what I am truly saying):
>	
>		Ah, the cry of the pathetic.
>		...Calling SOMEONE pathetic means just that: pathetic.
>		...Disgusting lack of self control comes to mind...


	I wasn't calling _women_ pathetic, Jean, I was calling _you_
	pathetic.  Demanding understanding and empathy when you aren't
	willing to lift a finger in the same direction.

	"you just don't understand" is whining, pure and simple.
	Lip service.  Bunk.
 



>>Do you really believe that asking you to
>>try to see a situation from another point of view is sexism?
>>What planet are you on?
>
>
>        It is if you refuse to even acknowledge that
>        at this point, all of the efforts have
>        been on my shoulders.  I have made *every* effort
>        to deal with these people and their behavior, yet you
>        say I need to empathize with them.  Screw that.
>
>>        Sexism?  You bet.  I don't hear you telling me that
>>        women need to try to work with men in a male fashion.
>
>WOMEN HAVE TO WORK WITH MEN IN A MALE FASHION BECAUSE OF MEN LIKE YOU.i

	In other words, there is no moral imperitive for women
	to try to work with men in a mans fashion, while you claim
	there is some sort of moral mandate that says men should
	go out of their way to work with women ina woman's fashion.

	Double standard?  Hypocrisy?  


>  WE HAVE
>NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE IF WE WANT TO SUPPORT OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES. 



	Boo-hoo.



>DON'T YOU GET IT?  Aparently not.


	I'm afraid you've missed it yourself.  You've summed *everything*
	I've been saying to you in the last three or four messages just fine:
	Men work like men, women work like women, and it's not either
	sides specific duty to cater to the other.


-- 
	"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."
	      Buy American as if your job depended on it. 
Newsgroups: alt.feminism