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!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!amdahl!rtech!jeff From: jeff@rtech.UUCP (Jeff Lichtman) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Sunny's PMS comments Message-ID: <608@rtech.UUCP> Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 04:22:21 EDT Article-I.D.: rtech.608 Posted: Thu Aug 22 04:22:21 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 01:40:57 EDT References: <4@decwrl.UUCP> <2671@sun.uucp> Organization: Relational Technology, Alameda CA Lines: 174 > > Why do people support privately, but criticize publicly, Criticism often comes from anger, which is a difficult emotion to control. > Why is this phenomena of public criticism more prevalent with men, Women are taught to repress anger, and men are taught to express it. > and why is this practice counter to the (well known) principle of > "Praise in public, criticize in private"? I know that I am considerably more motivated to post a followup when I think that someone has said something incorrect than when someone says something I agree with. I think this is because USENET is a public forum, and when someone says something which I think is demonstrably incorrect, I want to make sure that the many people who read the net don't end up believing something I think is false. In cases like this I usually try to point out my disagreement calmly and rationally, without attacking the person with whom I am disagreeing (I hope I succeed at this). Sometimes when I get really pissed I do attack. When someone posts something I agree with, I usually smile to myself and go on to the next message. It seems to me that posting a message like "I agree with you. Nice job." doesn't really contribute anything to the discussion, and such a message is more appropriately sent by mail. I only publically agree if I can amplify the point made by the original poster. > 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. The main objection I have heard to this theory is that the data comes mostly from people who have had their corpus callosum severed to cure a rare form of epilepsy (the corpus callosum is the part of the brain that provides communication between the two hemispheres). I have heard that some recent research shows that brain function is not so well divided between the two hemispheres in people who have not had the corpus callosum severed. I have also heard the hypothesis (which I admit doesn't completely contradict your statements) that mental function is not divided between the hemispheres at birth, and that the eventual division is a result of conditioning. That is, people in western culture make an artificial division between rational and emotional processes, and this gets programmed into brains which have no such built-in structure. I have no idea whether this is true, but it's interesting to think about. > 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. I think you're jumping to conclusions here. I don't believe it's true that the side of the brain that dominates physical activity also dominates mental activity. Why, then, are most women born right-handed? This doesn't make sense, considering that you also believe that most women are right-brained. > 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. It's hard to deny that hormones have some effect on mental state, but I wonder whether you're overstating your case. Please don't take this as an attack, Sunny, but is it possible that there is some placebo effect here? Did you have any expectations, concious or unconcious, of the effects that hormone changes would have on your thought patterns? Is it possible that you have preconceived ideas about how women think, and unconciously altered your thought patterns to meet your expectations when you started to become a woman? > 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. As I remember the discussion, one individual (Ross Greenberg) posted a message suggesting that women are statistically inferior due to PMS. Almost everyone else who participated in the discussion (both women and men) disagreed with Ross, and said that he was arguing illogically and making assumptions about PMS. I think that I read many more articles disagreeing with Ross than agreeing with him. I don't believe that most of the men who posted on the subject were making unwarranted assumptions. However, your articles originally sounded like you were saying "No, guys, it's the men who are inferior due to their hormones, not the women." I realize now that you were probably just pissed off at what some people were saying. > 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). This is beginning to sound like a philosophy lesson, but I don't agree that anger is a harmful release of emotion. Anger *is* an emotion. One can release anger by crying, or shouting, or punching, or playing basketball. One can suppress anger instead of releasing it. Women are more likely than men to cry when they're angry; men are more likely to resort to aggressive behavior like verbal or physical violence. May I point out that all of these behaviors are debilitating? That is, they make a person useless for any kind of real action until he or she gets over it. The only use such behaviors have (besides avoiding an ulcer) is to let the person who made you angry know that he or she did something wrong. One doesn't usually choose how to be angry, but each type of release is appropriate in some situations (even physical violence). Crying gets the message across to someone who really cares about you better than shouting does. Shouting works better when dealing with a bully. Physical violence is OK when defending oneself against similar violence. I believe that many women would be better off if they learned how to be aggressively angry sometimes, and that many men would be better off if they learned how to be non-aggressivley angry. I'm back from my lecture now. Sunny, you lean toward attributing mental state and behavior to physical factors, such as hormones. I'm still not convinced that culture and upbringing don't have at least as much effect as hormones do. For instance, strong displays of anger are uncommon among Eskimos; is this because they have low testosterone levels, or is it because their society has to insure that they can stand each other while stuck in an igloo for 6 months of darkness? > 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. But what does this imply? If men's behavior is completely dominated by testosterone, then how can any amount of social reform change this? Should all men start taking estrogen? Again, I'm still not convinced that testosterone is the main problem. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak {amdahl, sun}!rtech!jeff {ucbvax, decvax}!mtxinu!rtech!jeff