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