Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site timeinc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!timeinc!greenber
From: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: PMS and incompetence
Message-ID: <394@timeinc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 11:42:36 EDT
Article-I.D.: timeinc.394
Posted: Mon Aug 12 11:42:36 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 21:52:50 EDT
References: <641@ttidcc.UUCP>
Reply-To: greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg)
Organization: Time, Inc. - New York
Lines: 70

In article <641@ttidcc.UUCP> regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes:

Some excellent stuff regarding PMS:
>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?
>

Very valid, and you blow my case to smithereens.  Damn it, I hate it
when you're right!!! :-)

(Adrienne then goes on to talk about an XSO that is even weirder
than mine was.  First, I give her a copy of my Purple Heart,
and second, a round of applause for bringing the following
valid point to this discussion):

>
>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.
>


Only thing that I'll point ot above that is false (at least
in my case) is that using the term PMS to talk about competency
is not a power play of any sort.  Perhaps just ramblings
from my keyboard?

I think so.

>
>Anyway, Ross, ol' buddy, to answer your question:  I don't think it's
>an issue.  My opinion.
>

And a valid one at that.  Not a flame in the referenced article, just
some well though out criticism of my *former* beliefs.  Thanks
for the insight.



-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross M. Greenberg  @ Time Inc, New York 
              --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<---------

I highly doubt that Time Inc.  would make me their spokesperson.
----
"I had a cat. She died. Had a goldfish. Died. Guppies. Died.
  Gerbils. Died. Tippy. Died." - little girl
"Alright! So I don't like small animals!" - Mr. Death