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