Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: PMS and incompetence Message-ID: <641@ttidcc.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 17:04:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ttidcc.641 Posted: Tue Aug 6 17:04:00 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 8-Aug-85 00:14:39 EDT Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA. Lines: 83 Re Ross Greenberg's mention of the British woman who pleaded PMS as an excuse for murder: >Here is a case where *some* woman thought that her own >PMS was not a factor of "minor significance". Let's give her a '10' on >the "PMS causes weirdness" scale. Whoooooo up, there, Ross. This doesn't necessarily follow. She, _or_ her attorney, might have thought: here's a possible defense that would get me (my client) off! This has been in the news lately, maybe it would work! Maybe this old fogey judge we have to deal with doesn't like women, but would completely buy this "women as lesser animals" crap. Maybe we'd have a hard time proving "temporary insanity". Maybe I'd (she'd) get life instead of a death sentance, and could write a book about it. I wouldn't give her a 10 on the weirdness scale, I'd give her a 10 on the "getting out of a murder-rap" scale. Unfortunately, it does set a precedent, as you say. So did the twinkie murder defense. So did decades of the "crime of passion" defenses. Well, maybe not -- they were usually thinly disguised "testosterone poisoning" cases that survived the court process, and still do. Does that mean men are "admitting" to their masculine weirdnesses? Somehow I don't think you would take it that far. Men have been arguing that their gonads made em do it (rape) for years. Is that a legitimate defense, and does it contribute to their competence or lack thereof as working members of the populice? Is this an important question? I wonder why not? Not specifically aimed at Ross: I answered mail on this issue, and thought I'd bring it up here: A man was telling me about an SO who had significant PMS symptoms, and saying he got tired of "tiptoeing around her" four days of the month. I responded with a similar anecdote about an XSO of my own who had a similar problem. He reacted very strongly to his eating cycles (blood sugar fluctuation presumably). Whenever we went to dinner and had to wait (either from late scheduling, or the place was crowded), he would turn into a monster (or a little kid, take your pick) and we'd have a fight right in the middle of the restaurant--all because he was hungry. It took me quite a few meals to figure this one out -- after all, the argument was always about SOMETHING, and I didn't have any way of knowing what kind of snacking he did or didn't do before we met for dinner -- but once I _DID_ figure it out, I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. (Stupid, huh?) I didn't sit down with him after he had eaten, and was cheerful again, to talk about the blow-up. I didn't suggest we make sure we scheduled our dinners earlier. I didn't make a point of bringing a few chocolates in my purse. NOTHING. And the person who wrote to me about his SO's PMS also (presumably) was doing nothing. This man was a corporate lawyer. Can you imagine the advice he gave to people when a pre-lunch meeting ran late? I shudder to think. I'm not advocating legislative action -- or even any action. I shudder worse to think what that kind of "control" would imply to our society. What I mean to point out is two-fold: 1. Cyclical responses to hormones, enzymes, weather, god-knows-what affects both sexes of the species, and we have yet to separate the effects into individual components that justify stereotyping; and 2. Using a label to justify a prejudice is just a power play. PMS is a collective term for a number of symptoms that a percentage of women may suffer to some degree. And that's about all it is. It isn't a disease, it isn't a "mind-set" problem, and it only affects competency in people who are a. irresponsible enough to let it b. uninformed enough to let it, or c. the _very_ rare individual whose chemistry is so unbalanced that current technology doesn't allow for treatment. Universal reactors (allergy sufferers) don't have their "competence" called into being by virtue of sneezing constantly. We don't question the com- petence of diabetics and hypoglycemics, though their symptoms are cyclical and predictable. We no longer judge (hopefully) competence on the basis of skin color, or measured canial capacity. Anyone care to postulate why PMS is being singled out? I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. Anyway, Ross, ol' buddy, to answer your question: I don't think it's an issue. My opinion. Adrienne Regard