From: tyger@netcom.com (Kitty in the Middle)
Subject: Re: PMS
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 92 04:50:46 GMT
Organization:  MOOOOOOOOOON RIIIIIIIIIIVER!
Keywords: Oy gevalt!

In article <1992Jul25.170838.23234@news.iastate.edu> partee@iastate.edu (Jonathan F Partee) writes:
>Write this down on a calender, someone, I find myself agreeing with
>Christine.

Ooooooo! Isn't that one of the seven signs of the apocalypse?

>The reason that you don't accuse a woman who is angry at you of having her
>judgement tempered by PMS is because you are effectively trivializing her
>concerns.  If you trivialize her concerns, you are trivializing her.  
>Different women handle PMS differently, and just because you know women who
>get hostile during PMS DOES NOT give you the right to assume that all women
>are going to respond likewise.  I've known women to get sad and not hostile.
>I've known women who don't seem to be affected at all.  

It's a JOKE, fercryingoutloud! I swear, some of you people remind me of the
women in soc.women who complain about dumb blonde, dumb women, etc. jokes
and wring their hands over how they are being subjugated and it's just *one
more reason* why the Old Boy Network needs to come down. I'm blonde, fat, and
a woman...I'm also a damn good support tech. I get blonde, blonde, fat, 
computer geek jokes thrown at me all the time...do I feel denigrated? Nope.
Do I get upset? Nope. If you don't like the way you are being treated, do
something about it other than pissing and moaning or sitting back and wailing
about what a *victim* you are and how *awful* those icky men are. Christine
has shown herself to be a humorless person with a large attitude problem and
a chip on her shoulder.

From the first time I noticed her in this newsgroup, she has been hostile, and
I'd be willing to bet that it was because we weren't all falling at her feet
acknowledging her perfection (snort). In case people have forgotten, this is
alt.romance. Christine, at least in most of the posts from her that I've seen,
is anything but. 

>I was very annoyed to read the letter from the "gentleman" who wrote that
>Christine's anger was biologically based and not REALLY what she believed.

Then you need both an altitude check and a sense of humor.

>How would you like to be upset with someone and have them tell you that 
>you aren't really angry with them?  I don't know about you, but I get pretty
>annoyed when people tell me I'm not feeling what I'm feeling.  I don't know
>about you, but if I overreact because I've had a bad day, I still want people
>to take me seriously.  Just because I'm overreacting, doesn't mean that 
>something's not wrong.  I WILL NOT BE TRIVIALIZED.  I WILL NOT BE TOLD THAT
>MY ANGER IS NOT *REALLY* WHAT I'M FEELING.  No one else should be either.  

Christine annoys me, but I find it very hard to take her or her alleged
feelings very seriously. Her debut here, or at least when I first noticed her,
was when she was telling Ed and Theresa to take it to e-mail before "we all
puke" or some other equally erudite turn of phrase. Now, how would you expect
one would react to that? Is that not trivializing what Ed and Theresa feel for 
each other? If she can't dish it out, but can't take it, why is she attacking
total strangers for their public flirting? Christine is reaping what she sows.
If she and others don't like it...well, I guess now they know how it feels, 
don't they?

>Jonathan 

  Tyger

-- 
      Kristen Kohlbecker    And I would choose to be with you
      tyger@netcom.com      That's if the choice were mine to make   
                            But you can make decisions too
      A Tyger and a Lady    And you can have this heart to break 
 
                       
        
Newsgroups: alt.romance