Apollo BBS Archive - July 1991
Home ->
Apollo BBS ->
Apollo Archive Index ->
July 1991 -> July 25
Apollo BBS Archive - July 25, 1991
*=* Post Office entered *=*
Mail from Melissa Dee
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 17:29:11
[A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read
Michael James. And as far as I can tell, he's going out with about 5
different women, one of which is Annette, someone you know.
[A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply
Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
1:Oh, yeah, now I get it.....Mike....I didn't connect because I don't look at
2:him as a Mike, I look at him as a Head.
3:
4:Going to Peter's, Gallery X, Friday night...check New Times, Pic Hits for
5:information. _me
6:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
As for the message to which you replied...
[A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap
Post Office command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C
Press [A] to abort
Message: 7686
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Answer!
Subject: Dean
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:33:16
Not offhand. I'd have to do a bit of digging around.
Message: 7688
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Mike/Fossils
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 07:31:02
If you did mean fossils and they were measuring 10's of millions of years of
age, Radiocarbon dating still would not be used for two reasons:
1.Fossils found in rocks whose age is measured in millions of years have had
all their organic material (carbon-based compounds) replaced by the
minerals in the rocks. An example right here in Arizona. The petrified
forest consists of trees whose organic materials have been replaced by
minerals.
2.Radiocarbon dating takes advantage half-life of the radioactive isotope
Carbon-14 that all living things absorb while alive, so that the ratio
of Carbon-14 to Carbon 12 (normal Carbon) is fixed at the time of death.
Carbon-14's half-life is measured in thousands of years. It's accuracy is
greatest when used to date material that hundreds and perhaps thousands
of years old. It could not be used to date material millions of years old
because most of it would have decayed to ordinary carbon by that time.
The use of Carbon-14 to date the Shroud of Turin was a recent example of
how accurate it can be when used in a reasonable time scale. If memory
serves me right, I believe that all three laboratories obtained a date
in a decade or so of each other.
Message: 7689
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Green/last
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 11:49:31
Hmmm .... that post sure doesn't sound to me like you don't know what your
talking about! VERY interesting! *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 7690
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Ann/Last
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 13:10:40
Oh, I know what I'm talking about. Just ask me ! :-) BTW, this is one more
area that I'm boss of in my house. My wife has put me in charge of this very
important area.
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:E
Enter category, for list:C
You chose Chit-Chat
Subject:Carbon Dating
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:Good date?
2:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 7691
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:R7691
Message: 7691
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit-Chat
Subject: Carbon Dating
Date: 07/26/91 Time: 00:30:33
Good date?
$tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
*=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*
Public Bulletin Board command:$C
Press to abort
Message: 77129
Author: $ Steve MacGregor
Category: Politics
Subject: Gordon: Genders
Date: 07/24/91 Time: 23:47:02
GL> Up to a point we can say "he or she" or
"he/she" or "(s)he", but it makes for badly cluttered prose.
Or, we can just skip that point and say "he" for a person of indeterminate
or irrlevant sex, like we always have, and keep the prose uncluttered.
We all live in a ....,,,,________nnhn____ yellow subroutine
Message: 77130
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Steve/last
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:37:18
We can indeed! But these women feel *so* left out... ;-)
Message: 77131
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:44:38
Yeah, well, I think there's a difference between knowing that something's
really black (when everyone else thinks it's white) and timidly asserting
that it's grey; and knowing and asserting that it's grey when everybody else
thinks it's either black or white.
Anyway, here's the rest of my stuff from last night. I thought 17 posts was
a bit long, so I was too timid to put it all up in one go. But that's the
trouble with me, I'm too bloody timid altogether.
Message: 77132
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 9/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:45:27
Individual performance is the bottom line for any job. And performance will
be affected not only by aptitude, but also by motivation, which controls
whether people try to succeed at it or not. Let's take a woman who is
requested to do something for somebody as part of her job. Perhaps this
particular individual doesn't have quite the same practical skills as a man
who works next to her. But she may be more motivated to please people, to
perform a service. So she tries harder, where the guy might shrug his
shoulders and not be bothered. Who gets the job done in the end?
Usually we see more men in nuts-and-bolts jobs where logical thinking is
required. But it's interesting how many women we see in the computer
profession, which is fairly new and less affected by old stereotypes. Large
numbers of women do well here. My own manager is a woman. She has a sharp
engineering mind and a good business head, and is very goal-oriented. She
certainly doesn't "lack the natural ability to act". She is well respected.
And she does all of this without owning a single pair of army boots.
Does she have "emotions"? Yes. Enthusiasm. Sympathy. Humor. Frustration
and disappointment and anger sometimes. Does that make her different to
deal with than the average man? Perhaps, because it shows more readily. Is
that manipulative? No, it's honest. Does it make her hard to work with?
No, you just deal with it a little differently -- more openly in fact. Does
it affect the quality of her thinking and her decisions? No way. Does it
make her ineffectual? No, it probably helps her to get *more* things done.
Message: 77133
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 10/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:46:47
She is very competent, but I wouldn't call her "rare". I see plenty of
accomplished women around.
Are women bitchy, petty, unreasonable, overemotional, bad-tempered,
manipulative and underhanded? Some of them are. Are men grumpy, balky,
power-hungry, nonreceptive, bad-tempered, manipulative and underhanded?
Some of them are. Some faults they share. And for every fault that is
commoner in women you can find an equivalent fault that makes some men just
as maddening to work with or ineffective in a job.
What about the role of "emotion"? To begin with, let's examine this hoary
old myth about what happens during certain days of the month. I've worked
with both men and women for my whole career, and I'm damned if I could ever
tell when it was "one of *those* days of the month". Sure, I see people
have good days and bad days. The fact is that the influence of the period
on professional performance is blown vastly out of proportion. With the
majority of women the effect is so subtle that it is easily overshadowed by
all the other ups and downs that affect people's lives -- health concerns, a
late night, a hangover, car wouldn't start, family and financial worries,
and all the rest of it. And these things affect women and men equally.
A few women may suffer markedly from PMS. But "PMS" is not *normal*. It's
a health *defect*, like epilepsy or anything else. And it's treatable. The
idea that most women are on an "emotional rollercoaster" is horse manure.
Message: 77134
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 11/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:48:08
Now, what about this supposed "emotionality" of women in general? Are women
more emotional than men? Usually they are, partly due to nature perhaps,
and partly because they aren't bound by the same (unnecessary, I might say)
social constraints.
Are women "overemotional", to the extent that it affects their better
judgment? Well, first let me say this. If you rob a human being of power
and responsibility and put her in a position of subjugation, what motivation
does she have to act in a mature, level-headed manner? Nothing she does
will make much difference anyway. She has no reason to restrain herself, so
she might just as well let rip with her emotions. And considering what has
been done to her, she probably has plenty of emotions to let rip with.
If on the other hand you treat her as a human being and an equal and stop
taking from her the independence and responsibility that she has a right to,
she will behave quite differently.
That aside, what about the role of emotions when women perform "normally"?
Does it affect their decisions and their performance? Quite possibly. Does
it affect them for the worse? Often, it improves them.
The idea that "logic" is all that counts and "emotions" are dangerous things
to have around is completely upside-down. Emotions, in fact, are what count
the most in life.
Message: 77135
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 12/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:49:22
The idea that "emotion" should always be subjugated to "reason" is
completely cockeyed, and a total denial of how we really operate. Emotions
are what drive us, what make us love and hate, what make us want some things
and not want other things. If you have no emotions you have no reason for
living. You're brain dead anyway, so you might as well lie down and die and
get it over with. Logic and reason are only the processes by which we get
the things we want. I'll freely admit that I enjoy exercising my powers of
reasoning, but the key word in that sentence is "enjoy". "Enjoyment" is an
emotion.
If human beings were automobiles, emotions would be the engine, the source
of power. Reason and logic would be the steering that channels that power
to get the car safely to its destination. And sometimes they would act as
the brakes. Sometimes reason must be deployed to delay emotional
satisfaction; but why? Only to safeguard emotional satisfaction later.
So emotion drives reason, and reason serves emotion, and sometimes restrains
it. Left alone, one is helpless, the other purposeless. Feminine and
masculine. Who's the boss? Neither. They must operate as a team, and
negotiate with one another constantly. If emotion constantly overrules, the
vehicle crashes to disaster. If reason constantly overrules, the vehicle
grinds to a halt for lack of motive power.
Message: 77136
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 13/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:50:45
Men are often very strong on the reasoning side. But vast numbers of women
are not "overemotional" at all; on the contrary, they are exceptionally good
at *integrating* reason and emotion and making them work together as a team.
This serves them well in a large number of jobs, including such fields as
sales, where they have to deal with people and understand what makes people
tick. But we have to remember that almost *all* jobs involve dealing and
communicating with people -- one's co-workers. The best kind of worker in
most jobs today, male or female, is the one who can integrate both
"masculine" and "feminine" traits.
The notion that decisions made by women are "dangerous" and incompetent is
just plain rubbish. What job could be more important that leading a nation?
Does anybody think that Margaret Thatcher led Britain to disaster? If they
did disapprove of her, it wasn't because her decisions were "too emotional".
Of course, if Mike wants to claim that she kept a pair of army boots in her
closet, I couldn't disprove it!
I do think women tend to be different from men, and often one sex will
perform better in a specific job than the other, or enjoy doing it more.
But there is absolutely no reason to *enforce* divisions of labor along
gender lines. Given freedom of opportunity and objective evaluation of
performance, individuals will gravitate naturally to the jobs they do best.
So why restrict people artificially? They'll do it by themselves.
Message: 77137
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 14/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:52:03
And what on earth is "dangerous" about a woman being in the pulpit? If
people don't like what she has to say she'll give up anyway because nobody
is listening. It's no good hiding behind the Big Boss and saying "He" won't
allow it. If we won't let a woman even try something, we have to say
precisely what it is that *we're* so mortally scared of.
MC>>...fairy tale pampering of statistics... to expect that women will
MC>>*always* outperform or equal a mans performance it's a plain, bald-
MC>>faced lie...
What Mike says here is absolutely true. There is lots of propaganda flying
around, some of it true, some of it rubbish. On both sides. Women are
justified in claiming that they have been, and still are, being
discriminated against. All's fair in love and war, so they're manufacturing
some false propaganda of their own to balance out the false stereotypes that
have been used against them over the years. This is just ordinary politics.
The answer, as always, will be found somewhere in the middle.
What should the goals of feminism be? In my view there should be two:
1. To make sure that people are allowed to fill jobs (and other roles in
life) according to their individual wants and capabilities -- not
according to some artificial criterion like sex. This is not always
happening today.
Message: 77138
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 15/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:53:20
2. To get feminine qualities *valued* on an equal basis with masculine
qualities. This is certainly not true today.
People do "appreciate" women, but in a society where worth is measured
increasingly in terms of money, feminine qualities are downrated. We don't
pay a woman on an equal basis for the invaluable services of motherhood and
childrearing. We don't pay the vital teaching profession (where a lot of
women end up) very well compared with other fields. We don't pay for
*services* that people render us out of the feminine goodness of their
hearts. We just take them and say "thank you" (if we feel like it). We
only pay for things when we're forced to by "masculine" assertiveness.
At some fundamental level we may also feel that the masculine qualities are
more essential to basic survival than the feminine ones. When we're in any
competitive situation (be it military or economic), *immediate* survival is
threatened and we fly immediately to masculine strengths and competences to
defend ourselves. We value masculinity more at those times. And we
denigrate the lack of masculinity in a male far more than we denigrate the
lack of femininity in a female. We feel more threatened by the lack of it.
In the long as opposed to the short term, the feminine qualities of support
and cooperation are just as essential to the survival of a society as the
masculine qualities. In terms of the abstract model I mentioned earlier, I
could characterize "tactics" as masculine and "strategy" as feminine.
Message: 77139
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women, contd. 16/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:54:50
Both masculinity and femininity are survival-oriented. They just go about
the job in different ways. Yet we value them differently.
It is this lack of valuing women, simply for *being* more feminine, that
women complain about.
In view of the different levels of motivation and aptitude at different
tasks, in an ideal society I wouldn't expect to see equal numbers of men and
women doing every job, or even as many women as men working outside the
home. And I wouldn't want to. I can't see how any feminist could disagree
with Mike's own goal of "finding what you do best and going for it". The
point is that even today, many women aren't finding the opportunity to do
that. So since the number of women doing what they want is short of the
goal, the only way anyone can see to balance it is with quotas, since
discrimination is an insidious thing that is hard to combat any other way.
Quotas are a crude tool, and I dislike them very much because they are badly
set. Suppose we take racial quotas. If 10% of the population is black, a
quota is set to ensure that 10% of the people in a particular job are black.
The problem here is that the quota only takes into account that 10% of the
population *as a whole* is black -- *not* that 10% of the people qualified
for that particular job are black. The actual number will usually be less,
because many blacks are educationally disadvantaged.
Message: 77140
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Women 17/17
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 01:56:20
Putting underqualified people into a job doesn't solve anything. We have to
remedy the educational shortcomings as well. Most important, any quota must
reflect how many people are qualified for a job, and *not* fill jobs with
underqualified people to assuage liberal guilt about past "injustices".
That's especially difficult with women, because we have absolutely no way of
knowing what proportion of women would fit well into certain jobs, want to
do them, and perform well at them with respect to men, in that theoretical
ideal society. It would certainly differ from 50/50 in a lot of jobs. I'd
love to see a better solution than those blasted quotas.
Until then, we can expect to see lots more bitching and moaning about being
called things like "the fairer sex". There's nothing insulting about this
phrase per se, only that it lays the emphasis on physical attributes. Women
will have to accept that fact that men appreciate them for physical reasons,
because that's the way men are. It's one of those "differences". From my
perception, the real reason women complain about this is not so much that
they don't like being seen as sex objects at all, but they do they hate it
when it's the *only* way they're seen. If feminine qualities in the
abstract, and women as people, were valued just as much as their opposite
numbers, we might see those complaints about "the fairer sex" go away.
Message: 77141
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie #1
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 05:24:57
As to your post on sexy commercials, the answer is simple. Sex sells.
Anything. When the people who dream up the commercials want to attract the
males in the audience, all they have to do is strut a bikini clad shapely
young thing across the screen and, men being the sexually oriented person he
is will immediately pay rapt attention. How 'bout them Coors commercials?
My response to that is this. If appearing on a TV screen or billboard,
baring most but hiding just enough, is demeaning to womanhood, why do so
many sweet young ladies do it? Of course, that ugly old thing called greed
must come into it. Some people, male AND female, will do ANYTHING if the
price is right. Right?
Message: 77142
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie/rape
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 05:31:43
Couldn't agree more on that one! Rape, per se, is not a crime of passion by
any means. It is a crime of the worst sort of violence, usually committed by
someone with a psychological hate for women.
The situation you described, now sometimes referred to as "date rape", is,
in my opinion, another matter entirely. Women who dress provocatively for a
date and spend an entire evening acting in a manner that shows a willingness
to consummate a sexual act should expect the man to pick up on the message
and respond accordingly. If he doesn't, he's dead and sholdn't have gone on
a date in the first place! When the inevitable happens, I don't believe that
she has any right to holler rape, since everything she did all evening was
to extend invitations. That ain't rape, honey. It's called "making out".
Message: 77143
Author: $ Paul Savage
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Annie again
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 05:37:40
There is nothing obscene about the naked body, male or female. THe
obscenity is in the mind of the viewer.
Women do, however, tend to flaunt their sexiness when they parade before
men in the scantiest of garments (it's not what you show that excites, it's
what you just don't show.) in a manner that says, in body language, "here I
am, ready, willing and available!"
As to the braless corps, I do believe that they eventually pay for their
indiscretions later in life. It's called floppy, low hung breasts. Simply
put, the well endowed woman needs support in that area. To go without it
invites problems.
Message: 77144
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Pauley your comments
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 06:55:10
I printed them out along with Gordon's post on women to read later. I did
glance at them while they were scrolling and it appears that you agree
pretty much. *>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 77145
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod Can Divide!
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 07:50:20
> There are so many divisions in this world from different
> religions and sects that it is no wonder that we are only as
> far as we are which is too darn far away from being a half way
> decent, fun planet.
So why do you insist on further dividing the world and its people?
If part of the problem is an insistence on divisions, wouldn't looking past
those divisions, concentrating instead on what everyone has in common be
part of the solution?
Message: 77146
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Answer!
Subject: Censored Mike
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 07:50:52
Mike, I'm sorry you
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:Bill/divisions
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:We are certainly in a class struggle on this earth. You are correct, there
2:are many divisions and we do not need another one.
3:
4:end
Edit command:D1
Edit command:D1
Edit command:C
2:
3:end
Edit command:L1
1:
2:
Edit command:R1
1:You are correct. We do not need more divisions in this world. Sorry.
Edit command:
Enter for a list of commands
Edit command:C
3:I will continue however to help people question. I guess we humans still
4:have a ways to go before the divisions start to slacken off and we become
5:united in one glorious climax.
6:
7:Making people think about what they have been taught as fact may create a
8:division
9:end
Edit command:A
Message entry aborted
Public Bulletin Board command:$RC
Press to abort
Message: 77146
Author: $ Bill Burkett
Category: Answer!
Subject: Censored Mike
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 07:50:52
Mike, I'm sorry you still feel put upon by my appointment as Cub SysOp and
Master @ Arms. I've got nothing new to say in my own defense, except that I
have come to believe that you are sincere in your criticism and not just
whining. I hope that you understand that I, too, am sincere in the stands I
take on this matter.
BTW, thanks for keeping us straight. That's important.
Message: 77147
Author: $ James Hawley
Category: Question?
Subject: Paul Savage
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 11:41:13
So, how many women have you raped?
Message: 77148
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Mike - love
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 11:45:39
Re: your ...."I don't care if these screaming hordes of
testostoerone-snorting, Arnold Swartznegger look-alike female
lesbian mutant bull riding Mary-Kay cosmeticians manage to strike
the word from the offical Webster's. I'll still use the word
"'GIRL". They can bash their breasts into cancerous lumps of
jelly in front of the White House for years to come for all I
care."!!!!
You just spreading around a little Christian love there, right?
*>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 77149
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: You men are ....
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 11:47:01
..... hilarious! Here you are, sending long detailed posts on how
you all are the head of the household - how Paul and God said it
is so - how you all are living in harmony with this arrangement,
etc. etc. and you then come back with long detailed posts on how
your wives pretty much rule the house - such as Thad's ... "My
dad used to claim that he was the head of the house, but mother
was the neck and the neck turns the head" and Felix's .."I listen
to Bonnie many times..."! Hmmmm ... sounds to me like you guys
have the title only! (Grin from ear to ear!)
*>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 77150
Author: $ Ann Oudin
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Gordon
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 11:47:53
I give you a great big 'BRAVO!!!' on your posts about women! You
should write a book on the subject. It is obvious you have
thought on this for many hours. And I'll say it again - Apollo is
a very lucky BBS to have the likes of you and England sure lost
out! Thank you Gordon.
*>>> ANN O. <<<*
Message: 77151
Author: $ Green Lantern
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/Rule
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 13:08:35
I make all the big decision in my house: Whether Bush is doing a good job,
Fife Symington's job rating, Who will win the World Series. My wife makes
all the small decisions: How much allowance I get, whether to paint the
house this year or next, and whether or not I have to do the dishes tonight.
Message: 77152
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Commercials
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 18:45:05
I need to combine topics here. Years ago, I encountn
author who observed "if we like pretty girls in bathind suits, they
will show pretty girls in bathing suits with their products whether
they are selling shaving cream, automobiles, summer resorts,
ice cream cones, house paint, or hardware. Only the law keeps them
from presenting pretty girls without bathing suits."
How can you, Ann, be in favor of 'doing away' with 'nude dancers,
strip joints, and adult book stores' and at the same time be
"all for" pornography?
Message: 77153
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Ann/women 3/5
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 18:58:28
I also believe stronly that men and women should raise their own
children, and not have babysitters and day care centers do it. For
relative strangers to raise one's own children weakens the integrity
of the family, and if you have particular values or standards you wish
your children to learn, it is dangerous to leave this task to others.
Although it is possible for men to perform most of the tasks
traditionally alloted to women, and for women to perform most of the
tasks traditionally given to men, and do a creditable job of it,
especially in modern times as you have pointed out, I still think
that generally speaking, women make better mothers and men make
better fathers. La Leche League might have words to say about
breast feeding versus bottle feeding.
I do not believe it is healthy for society for the long-standing
traditional roles of men and women to be reversed or the distinctions
entirely obliterated. I have little objection to women being plumbers,
Deans of colleges, forklift operators, or entrepreneurs, and if
they do not have family responsibilites, then I have none.I do not
think it fair for women to be paid less than men if they
do hold the same jobs.
Message: 77154
Author: Thad Coons
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Rod/ Rules
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 19:00:26
There are a several thoughts that I would like to present, and I
will have to be brief.
I did appreciate your post dealing with love and children. I hope
your children appreciate the respect you are giving to their individual
worth.
I agree with you that love cannot really be commanded or enforced: it
must be a free gift.
I don't know if you have encountered certain things that could not be
completely explained with words. There are certain subtle concepts that
can only be explained to someone who is predisposed to listen and
prepared to understand. They cannot be explained to someone who is
closeminded or hostile. Since I don't know you very well yet, I may
have to make some of my own responses indirectly.
Let me pose a question for you. With your children, in order to
keep order and peace in the house, aren't there certain ules
that all are expected to obey, without exception, and aren't there
penalties attached to violation of the ules?
(*Some children act like adults, and some adults act like children,
don't they, O Mighty Sysop?*)
Message: 77155
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike/Women (1/2)
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 20:33:07
The armed forces have a unique problem, and I think they're taking the best
approach by just discreetly dragging their feet while the effects of
prejudice get shaken out in other fields of employment first.
In my ideal world I don't see why women shouldn't serve in combat, but I'd
guess the numbers of women who would (a) want to do it and (b) do it well
would be small. In the gender spectrum they'd be well toward the edge of
the bell curve for "typical" women.
Whether women can do a particular job or not is hard to guess at in advance,
because as long as there *is* prejudice you can't tell what's the effect of
prejudice and what's the effect of women just being women. Prejudice among
subordinates reduces a woman's effectiveness in managerial or command
positions, though that's not "the fault of her nature", it's the fault of
her subordinates. I've seen a few guys get ticked off because women were
promoted over them, and stay ticked off even when those women turned out to
be excellent managers (probably better than these guys would have been).
If you get some woman with an "attitude", that will reduce her effectiveness
too. Again this is a secondary result of prejudice, although this time it's
up to the woman herself to change that resentful attitude. Trouble is, a
lot of the women who might be temperamentally well suited to military life
are likely to be butch and have an even bigger chip on their shoulder than
other women do about discrimination, so that makes the problem worse.
Message: 77156
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike/Women (2/2)
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 20:34:19
With all these smokescreen factors that were caused by prejudice in the
first place, the only way you can find out whether women really *are*
effective in a particular job is to let them try. If they're never allowed
to try, and in a reasonably supportive atmosphere, you'll never convince
them that they would have failed anyway. They will always put it down to
prejudice and continue the feminist war. What makes the military's position
unique is that unlike industry and commerce, the result of "letting them
try" can be lethal if it fails. Hence the wisdom of a little foot-dragging
while people's attitudes toward women get stabilized elsewhere first.
Unlike you, I'm not worried for the long term. I expect the high dropout
rate of women in the military to sort itself out in time. I'd expect to see
the number of less-qualified applicants dropping off in a decade or so.
Right now we're seeing women experimenting with a field where there's not
much track record of their real abilities and job satisfaction. Then you
get the chip on the shoulder types who are determined to try a "masculine"
field out of sheer cussedness. Also if we paid women more for the jobs
they usually do better than men, we'd see fewer women attacking male
provinces for the sake of the material benefits, ignoring true aptitude.
We saw similar change in the women's movement itself. 70s women were intent
on being substitute men, dressing masculine, abjuring marriage and kids,
sleeping around, etc. So they tried it; and surprise! lots of them found
they didn't like it after all. But they had to discover that for themselves.
Message: 77157
Author: $ Gordon Little
Category: Politics
Subject: Mike/GIRLS
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 20:35:05
I hadn't heard that anybody wanted to abolish the term "girl" altogether.
If that's true, then you're *ahead* of me. What feminist rag have you been
reading?
MC>>So what do *you* think we should use to reference a 5 year old female
MC>>human?
How about "girl"?
I think people nutty enough to make such a dumb proposal should be left to
solve this problem for themselves!
Message: 77158
Author: Tangerine Torch
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: hi
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 22:02:42
I only logged onto this board so I could FLAME!!!!!
Message: 77159
Author: $ Apollo SysOp
Category: Answer!
Subject: T.C.
Date: 07/25/91 Time: 23:10:48
Re: Some children act like adults, and some adults act like
children.....
Yea, I noticed that too.... There are a number of the second group
here on Apollo.... I am one of them..... SIGH ~
*=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=* <-clif-
Public Bulletin Board command:EC
You chose Chit Chat
Subject:Posts
Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
1:I have company right now. I will read these messages off-line and get back.
2:
3:Rod
4:end
Edit command:S
Saving message...
The message is 77160
Public Bulletin Board command:R77160
Message: 77160
Author: $ Rod Williams
Category: Chit Chat
Subject: Posts
Date: 07/26/91 Time: 00:45:38
I have company right now. I will read these messages off-line and get back.
Rod
Public Bulletin Board command:JN
*=* Journey to a SIG *=*
No more new messages
Journey to which SIG:G
Goodbye, Rod Williams
You were on 19:14
Please hang up now
/g=bC}c]*%g+yFew~
VOICE
Content of this site is ©
Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.