Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 SMI; site sun.uucp Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!decwrl!sun!sunny From: sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Sunny's PMS comments Message-ID: <2671@sun.uucp> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 18:43:15 EDT Article-I.D.: sun.2671 Posted: Mon Aug 19 18:43:15 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 06:31:09 EDT References: <4@decwrl.UUCP> Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc. Lines: 175 First. An appology: When I wrote the article about testosterone being a "poison" I was still a bit bent out of shape from being toasted by a series of articles, all written by men, which challenged my ability to make any valid observations. It is true, that in my anger, which is a defense mechanism against feeling pain, in this case the intense pain of repetetive rejection and invalidation, by men, that I stretched both the truth and the point I was trying to make. If you wonder why I sometimes come down rather hard on "men", then go edit your .newsrc file and re-read all the articles in net.women again, and keep track of how many women have ever put down anyone, versus how many men have done so. And count the articles as well as the people. And you tell me just how many women don't take a positive constructive approach to criticism or disagreement with others, and contrast that with how many men take a positive constructive approach. And then you'll stop wondering why I don't find it necessary to put women down in this forum. (i.e. they don't put me down, so I don't have to get defensive)... I've had women disagree with me, and I've had them tell me I was just plain wrong about some issue, and I've often had them give me constructive criticism, but it's extremely rare that a woman will invalidate another human, especially in public. Which brings me to observe a curious phenomena... Regarding the rather controversial issues I've brought up in net.women, regarding the differences between male and female hormones as they effect the mental and emotional processes of a human brain... I've been repeatedly toasted in public by quite a few men. I've been disagreed with by a couple of women in this public forum. I've had lots of support via private mail, most of it from women, and some of it from men. So: Why do people support privately, but criticize publicly, Why is this phenomena of public criticism more prevalent with men, and why is this practice counter to the (well known) principle of "Praise in public, criticize in private"? But, back to the main topic: right after this message from our un-sponsor: I haven't been following the discussions in other newsgroups about the controversy of trying to train natural left-handers to be right-handed, but the fact that it happens, is only Yet Another Symptom of the following: The human brain is composed of two hemispheres. Some people believe (others, I think the minority, object), that the logical and mathematical and the spatial perceptive abilities are active primarily in the left hemisphere, and that these are more adept in males than females, and, conversely, that, the emotional and intuitive and artistic abilities are active primarily in the right hemisphere, and that these are more adept in females than males. Now, it is also well known, and seldom disagreed with, that the right hemisphere controls the left limbs and eye, while the left hemisphere controls the right limbs and eye. Thus, it may be said, that the attempts to train leftys to become rightys is Yet Another Symptom of male domination, and societal implementation of the dominance of male traights. For by forcing a human to use their right hand predominantly, we are encouraging the dominance of the left hemisphere, and the "masculine" abilities. At the same time we are suppressing the right hemisphere, and the "feminine" abilities. Note also, that, from the medical literature I have studied, (admittedly not exhaustive, and therefore not necessarily the majority opinion), and from my own experiences with the sex hormones, that the male hormones promote left-brain activity and agressiveness and competitiveness, while the female hormones promote right-brain activity and passivity and cooperativeness. Now, unless you are a castrated male, or a (word, where's that word?) female sans ovaries, you ARE under the influence of a very powerful drug, known as "the sex hormones". These drugs do indeed alter the thought patterns, and predominant behavior patterns of the human under their influence. While it is true that I cannot claim to be free of hormonal influences so as to be able to accurately observe what brain functioning would be like *without* hormones of either sex present, I can claim, and in fact, have experienced and observed, a transition from a state of being at effect of male hormones, to the state of being at effect of female hormones. Specifically, what I have observed about myself, is a lessening of agressive behavior, a lessening of preoccupation with matters sexual, and an increase in emotionality and sensuality. I believe you will find that these are precisely the differences observed between the stereotypical "male" and "female" of the species, so often observed in books which have aimed to help a member of one sex try to understand a member of the opposite sex. In Other Words, the prime shift has been from left-brain/ right-handed/logical/agressive dominance, to right-brain/left-handed/ emotional/passive dominance in my brain activity. Since the ridiculous discussion which prompted me to speak up was one in which so many men were purporting to be knowledgeable about the effects of female hormones on women, without any objective experience upon which to base their observations of PMS, and since the main discussion was not about uterine cramps or other aspects of PMS which relate solely to women's internal plumbing about which I obviously can make no more relavent observations than a man could, I chose to speak up from my experience of the mental/emotional/behavioral effects of both sets of sex hormones. When I said that testosterone (which is *not* a poison) clouds the mind, I referred to my own firsthand experience with sexual obsession and agressive behavior which was not within my ability to consciously control. I don't call estrogen a problem like I do testosterone, for the following reason: The behavioral patterns brought about by estrogen influence, which tend to be beyond conscious control, tend to be passive behavior patterns, and non-harmful release of emotions (crying). The behavioral patterns brought about by testosterone influence, which tend to get beyond conscious control, tend to be active/agressive behavior patterns, often leading to violence (or other physical agression (e.g. rape)) and harmful release of emotions (anger). It is no accident, after observing the discussions in net.women about rape, that so many men can relate to the concept of: "I raped her because she asked for it by being dressed that way" or: "I find the defendant not guilty of rape because of her provocation". The reason why so many men believe this way, is because they have first-hand knowledge of their inability to control their own sexual impulses and their own violent expression of their need to dominate, to agress, as a result of testosterone taking over, and overpowering their ability to think rationally. The testosterone poisioning referred to in magazine articles and books (and the source of my reference to testosterone as a poison) is simply an indication that too much testosterone produces behavior which is not within the normal constraints of conscious rational control or societal morals or laws. The reason that rape is a men's issue, not a women's issue, and the reason that only men can stop rape, is that only men are under the influence of testosterone. Now, to answer charges of sexism, or male hating: I do not in any way hate the male of the species. Some of my closest and dearest friends are male. What I have repeatedly tried to point out in this forum, is that some "masculine" behavior patterns are less than desirable in the context of society. I'm not claiming that certain "feminine" behavior patterns aren't also less than optimal for society. What I am claiming is that, of the behavior patterns exhibited by human beings on the planet earth, the most destructive and least desirable ones from the overall viewpoint of the the betterment of the quality of life on this planet, our one and only spaceship, our dear mother earth, are primarily exhibited by males of the species. The fact is we are daily raping, killing, polluting, hurting, maiming and hating each other. Turn on the tube, cut the sound, spin the dial, and watch what our children (our future) are being taught as role models... violence, male agressions, and women as nothing more than sex-objects. There's nothing wrong with anyone being a sex object. But they should not be reduced (objectified) to only that. There's nothing wrong with sex. Except in the minds of the censors. There's too little found wrong with volence and agression. Warfare and domination. If it keeps on the way we're going, the only possible outcome is another war. How many years has it been since the world *didn't* have a war happening somewhere? Go ahead.. nuke it all. > > Gosh, I wonder what would happen if some female->male transexual on the > > net came up with the idea that estrogen > > is a mind-clouding poison? This would explain the basis for our patriarchial > > society, why there are so few women in high-tech jobs, etc. (please be > > aware, potential flamers, that I am *not* actually advocating this position - > > this is for illustrative purposes only.) Would he be flamed by the *same* > > people who have defended Sunny for saying the *same* thing? You bet. > > -- > > Jeff Sonntag > > ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j > > There's a not very subtle difference between defending the status quo and > challenging the status quo. Challenging is what Sunny is doing, and if some > choose to speak up to defend her, they have often not so much been attacking > men, which is how some others have interpreted such an action, as defending > Sunny's right to discuss her reasons for her actions. > Defending the status quo is a much safer position to take. > > I've never heard of a female to male transsexual. Transvestites, yes. > > It's also rather rude and irrational to extrapolate that those who may speak > up for Sunny would be such militant man-haters as to flame in such a case. > Why not wait and see if it were to happen? Why sit around *just knowing* what > is gonna happen? > > L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)