Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtech.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Changing Roles Message-ID: <551@rtech.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 04:57:46 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.551 Posted: Sat Jul 13 04:57:46 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Jul-85 20:31:45 EDT References: <993@ubc-vision.CDN> <202@ihlpl.UUCP> <282@timeinc.UUCP> Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 59 > In article <202@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) writes: > >> > >Our bodies (male or female) react to different stimuli uniquely and > >those reactions are what makes us different. Women by nature are more > >bound by their bodies than are men. > > Er, Jeanette, are you sure you want to say this? I've seen too many > people indicate that this same "ultra"-bound is enough not to hire a > women on: you know, who needs those PMS types around when non-emotional > decisions have to made?? > > Seriously, each of us has seen some women who was not as effective at her > job around the time of her period due to these PMS. If you were in a > hiring position, would you want to hire someone who (for a few days each > month) *might* not be as effective as a man? > > Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York I feel that, despite the differences between the sexes (learned or inborn), we owe it to each other to treat each other as individuals, and not jump to conclusions. There is variation between the sexes, but it is overwhelmed by individual variation. To take your example, it's conceivable (although it hasn't been proved to me) that, on the average, women on the average have more ineffective work days per month than do men. What effect should this have on you when you interview a woman? I feel that it should have almost no effect, because you are interviewing a woman, and not women on the average. Unless she is fresh out of school, it should be possible to tell something about her general effectiveness from her past employment record, references, accomplishments, etc. I know that judging someone's effectiveness based on a job interview is pretty tough, but that's the system we've got. Would you prefer that employers take an "insurance company" approach by looking up factors such as gender, race, age, religion, etc. in actuarial tables to determine the statistically expected effectiveness of each candidate? I prefer to take my chances with personal human judgement. (I know that Ross was not really advocating the "insurance company" approach; I was exaggerating to make a point). Also, I suspect that PMS has gotten much more publicity than it deserves. It's a common claim that women can't be trusted with responsibility because they lose their ability to think clearly once a month. All the attention that PMS has gotten reinforces this belief, and I suspect that those who already believed in the "bitch once a month" syndrome are the ones who generated the publicity. What I'd like to know is: what percentage of women suffer from PMS, and how great are its effects on them? Has anyone ever done any research to find out whether some men have emotional or physical cycles which cause them to be ineffective occasionally? By the way, Ross, what would you do if, based on intensive research on the differences between men and women and their effects on job performance, you were forced to conclude that women on the average were *more* effective than men in most jobs, despite PMS? -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff