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