### Apollo BBS Archive - July 25, 1991

    *=* Post Office entered *=*

    Mail from Melissa Dee
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 17:29:11

    [A]bort, [N]ew only, [R]ead or [S]kip:Read

    Michael James.  And as far as I can tell, he's going out with about 5
    different women, one of which is Annette, someone you know.
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue, [I]nsty-reply or [Z]ap:Insty-reply

    Enter a line containing only an [*] to stop
     1:Oh, yeah, now I get it.....Mike....I didn't connect because I don't look at
     2:him as a Mike, I look at him as a Head.
     3:
     4:Going to Peter's, Gallery X, Friday night...check New Times, Pic Hits for
     5:information.       _me
     6:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...

    As for the message to which you replied...
    [A]bort, [C]ontinue or [Z]ap:Zap

    Post Office command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* $tatus Club Bulletin Board entered *=*

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press [A] to abort

    Message: 7686
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Dean
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:33:16

    Not offhand.  I'd have to do a bit of digging around.

    Message: 7688
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Mike/Fossils
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 07:31:02

    If you did mean fossils and they were measuring 10's of millions of years of
    age, Radiocarbon dating still would not be used for two reasons:
    1.Fossils found in rocks whose age is measured in millions of years have had
      all their organic material (carbon-based compounds) replaced by the
      minerals in the rocks. An example right here in Arizona. The petrified
      forest consists of trees whose organic materials have been replaced by
      minerals.

    2.Radiocarbon dating takes advantage half-life of the radioactive isotope
      Carbon-14 that all living things absorb while alive, so that the ratio
      of Carbon-14 to Carbon 12 (normal Carbon) is fixed at the time of death.
      Carbon-14's half-life is measured in thousands of years. It's accuracy is
      greatest when used to date material that hundreds and perhaps thousands
      of years old. It could not be used to date material millions of years old
      because most of it would have decayed to ordinary carbon by that time.
      The use of Carbon-14 to date the Shroud of Turin was a recent example of
      how accurate it can be when used in a reasonable time scale. If memory
      serves me right, I believe that all three laboratories obtained a date
      in a decade or so of each other.

    Message: 7689
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Green/last
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 11:49:31

    Hmmm .... that post sure doesn't sound to me like you don't know what your
    talking about! VERY interesting! *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 7690
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Ann/Last
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 13:10:40

    Oh, I know what I'm talking about. Just ask me ! :-) BTW, this is one more
    area that I'm boss of in my house. My wife has put me in charge of this very
    important area.

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:E

    Enter category,  for list:C

    You chose Chit-Chat

    Subject:Carbon Dating

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:Good date?
     2:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 7691

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:R7691

    Message: 7691
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit-Chat
    Subject: Carbon Dating
    Date: 07/26/91  Time: 00:30:33

    Good date?

    $tatus Club Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    *=* Public Bulletin Board entered *=*

    Public Bulletin Board command:$C

    Press  to abort

    Message: 77129
    Author: $ Steve MacGregor
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Gordon: Genders
    Date: 07/24/91  Time: 23:47:02

    GL>  Up to a point we can say "he or she" or
    "he/she" or "(s)he", but it makes for badly cluttered prose.

      Or, we can just skip that point and say "he" for a person of indeterminate
    or irrlevant sex, like we always have, and keep the prose uncluttered.

      We all live in a   ....,,,,________nnhn____   yellow subroutine

    Message: 77130
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Steve/last
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:37:18

    We can indeed!  But these women feel *so* left out... ;-)

    Message: 77131
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:44:38

    Yeah, well, I think there's a difference between knowing that something's
    really black (when everyone else thinks it's white) and timidly asserting
    that it's grey; and knowing and asserting that it's grey when everybody else
    thinks it's either black or white.

    Anyway, here's the rest of my stuff from last night.  I thought 17 posts was
    a bit long, so I was too timid to put it all up in one go.  But that's the
    trouble with me, I'm too bloody timid altogether.

    Message: 77132
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 9/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:45:27

    Individual performance is the bottom line for any job.  And performance will
    be affected not only by aptitude, but also by motivation, which controls
    whether people try to succeed at it or not.  Let's take a woman who is
    requested to do something for somebody as part of her job.  Perhaps this
    particular individual doesn't have quite the same practical skills as a man
    who works next to her.  But she may be more motivated to please people, to
    perform a service.  So she tries harder, where the guy might shrug his
    shoulders and not be bothered.  Who gets the job done in the end?

    Usually we see more men in nuts-and-bolts jobs where logical thinking is
    required.  But it's interesting how many women we see in the computer
    profession, which is fairly new and less affected by old stereotypes.  Large
    numbers of women do well here.  My own manager is a woman.  She has a sharp
    engineering mind and a good business head, and is very goal-oriented.  She
    certainly doesn't "lack the natural ability to act".  She is well respected.
    And she does all of this without owning a single pair of army boots.

    Does she have "emotions"?  Yes.  Enthusiasm.  Sympathy.  Humor.  Frustration
    and disappointment and anger sometimes.  Does that make her different to
    deal with than the average man?  Perhaps, because it shows more readily.  Is
    that manipulative?  No, it's honest.  Does it make her hard to work with?
    No, you just deal with it a little differently -- more openly in fact.  Does
    it affect the quality of her thinking and her decisions?  No way.  Does it
    make her ineffectual?  No, it probably helps her to get *more* things done.

    Message: 77133
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 10/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:46:47

    She is very competent, but I wouldn't call her "rare".  I see plenty of
    accomplished women around.

    Are women bitchy, petty, unreasonable, overemotional, bad-tempered,
    manipulative and underhanded?  Some of them are.  Are men grumpy, balky,
    power-hungry, nonreceptive, bad-tempered, manipulative and underhanded?
    Some of them are.  Some faults they share.  And for every fault that is
    commoner in women you can find an equivalent fault that makes some men just
    as maddening to work with or ineffective in a job.

    What about the role of "emotion"?  To begin with, let's examine this hoary
    old myth about what happens during certain days of the month.  I've worked
    with both men and women for my whole career, and I'm damned if I could ever
    tell when it was "one of *those* days of the month".  Sure, I see people
    have good days and bad days.  The fact is that the influence of the period
    on professional performance is blown vastly out of proportion.  With the
    majority of women the effect is so subtle that it is easily overshadowed by
    all the other ups and downs that affect people's lives -- health concerns, a
    late night, a hangover, car wouldn't start, family and financial worries,
    and all the rest of it.  And these things affect women and men equally.

    A few women may suffer markedly from PMS.  But "PMS" is not *normal*.  It's
    a health *defect*, like epilepsy or anything else.  And it's treatable.  The
    idea that most women are on an "emotional rollercoaster" is horse manure.

    Message: 77134
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 11/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:48:08

    Now, what about this supposed "emotionality" of women in general?  Are women
    more emotional than men?  Usually they are, partly due to nature perhaps,
    and partly because they aren't bound by the same (unnecessary, I might say)
    social constraints.

    Are women "overemotional", to the extent that it affects their better
    judgment?  Well, first let me say this.  If you rob a human being of power
    and responsibility and put her in a position of subjugation, what motivation
    does she have to act in a mature, level-headed manner?  Nothing she does
    will make much difference anyway.  She has no reason to restrain herself, so
    she might just as well let rip with her emotions.  And considering what has
    been done to her, she probably has plenty of emotions to let rip with.

    If on the other hand you treat her as a human being and an equal and stop
    taking from her the independence and responsibility that she has a right to,
    she will behave quite differently.

    That aside, what about the role of emotions when women perform "normally"?
    Does it affect their decisions and their performance?  Quite possibly.  Does
    it affect them for the worse?  Often, it improves them.

    The idea that "logic" is all that counts and "emotions" are dangerous things
    to have around is completely upside-down.  Emotions, in fact, are what count
    the most in life.

    Message: 77135
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 12/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:49:22

    The idea that "emotion" should always be subjugated to "reason" is
    completely cockeyed, and a total denial of how we really operate.  Emotions
    are what drive us, what make us love and hate, what make us want some things
    and not want other things.  If you have no emotions you have no reason for
    living.  You're brain dead anyway, so you might as well lie down and die and
    get it over with.  Logic and reason are only the processes by which we get
    the things we want.  I'll freely admit that I enjoy exercising my powers of
    reasoning, but the key word in that sentence is "enjoy".  "Enjoyment" is an
    emotion.

    If human beings were automobiles, emotions would be the engine, the source
    of power.  Reason and logic would be the steering that channels that power
    to get the car safely to its destination.  And sometimes they would act as
    the brakes.  Sometimes reason must be deployed to delay emotional
    satisfaction; but why?  Only to safeguard emotional satisfaction later.

    So emotion drives reason, and reason serves emotion, and sometimes restrains
    it.  Left alone, one is helpless, the other purposeless.  Feminine and
    masculine.  Who's the boss?  Neither.  They must operate as a team, and
    negotiate with one another constantly.  If emotion constantly overrules, the
    vehicle crashes to disaster.  If reason constantly overrules, the vehicle
    grinds to a halt for lack of motive power.

    Message: 77136
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 13/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:50:45

    Men are often very strong on the reasoning side.  But vast numbers of women
    are not "overemotional" at all; on the contrary, they are exceptionally good
    at *integrating* reason and emotion and making them work together as a team.
    This serves them well in a large number of jobs, including such fields as
    sales, where they have to deal with people and understand what makes people
    tick.  But we have to remember that almost *all* jobs involve dealing and
    communicating with people -- one's co-workers.  The best kind of worker in
    most jobs today, male or female, is the one who can integrate both
    "masculine" and "feminine" traits.

    The notion that decisions made by women are "dangerous" and incompetent is
    just plain rubbish.  What job could be more important that leading a nation?
    Does anybody think that Margaret Thatcher led Britain to disaster?  If they
    did disapprove of her, it wasn't because her decisions were "too emotional".

    Of course, if Mike wants to claim that she kept a pair of army boots in her
    closet, I couldn't disprove it!

    I do think women tend to be different from men, and often one sex will
    perform better in a specific job than the other, or enjoy doing it more.
    But there is absolutely no reason to *enforce* divisions of labor along
    gender lines.  Given freedom of opportunity and objective evaluation of
    performance, individuals will gravitate naturally to the jobs they do best.
    So why restrict people artificially?  They'll do it by themselves.

    Message: 77137
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 14/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:52:03

    And what on earth is "dangerous" about a woman being in the pulpit?  If
    people don't like what she has to say she'll give up anyway because nobody
    is listening.  It's no good hiding behind the Big Boss and saying "He" won't
    allow it.  If we won't let a woman even try something, we have to say
    precisely what it is that *we're* so mortally scared of.

     MC>>...fairy tale pampering of statistics...  to expect that women will
     MC>>*always* outperform or equal a mans performance it's a plain, bald-
     MC>>faced lie...

    What Mike says here is absolutely true.  There is lots of propaganda flying
    around, some of it true, some of it rubbish.  On both sides.  Women are
    justified in claiming that they have been, and still are, being
    discriminated against.  All's fair in love and war, so they're manufacturing
    some false propaganda of their own to balance out the false stereotypes that
    have been used against them over the years.  This is just ordinary politics.
    The answer, as always, will be found somewhere in the middle.

    What should the goals of feminism be?  In my view there should be two:

      1. To make sure that people are allowed to fill jobs (and other roles in
         life) according to their individual wants and capabilities -- not
         according to some artificial criterion like sex.  This is not always
         happening today.

    Message: 77138
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 15/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:53:20

      2. To get feminine qualities *valued* on an equal basis with masculine
         qualities.  This is certainly not true today.

    People do "appreciate" women, but in a society where worth is measured
    increasingly in terms of money, feminine qualities are downrated.  We don't
    pay a woman on an equal basis for the invaluable services of motherhood and
    childrearing.  We don't pay the vital teaching profession (where a lot of
    women end up) very well compared with other fields.  We don't pay for
    *services* that people render us out of the feminine goodness of their
    hearts.  We just take them and say "thank you" (if we feel like it).  We
    only pay for things when we're forced to by "masculine" assertiveness.

    At some fundamental level we may also feel that the masculine qualities are
    more essential to basic survival than the feminine ones.  When we're in any
    competitive situation (be it military or economic), *immediate* survival is
    threatened and we fly immediately to masculine strengths and competences to
    defend ourselves.  We value masculinity more at those times.  And we
    denigrate the lack of masculinity in a male far more than we denigrate the
    lack of femininity in a female.  We feel more threatened by the lack of it.

    In the long as opposed to the short term, the feminine qualities of support
    and cooperation are just as essential to the survival of a society as the
    masculine qualities.  In terms of the abstract model I mentioned earlier, I
    could characterize "tactics" as masculine and "strategy" as feminine.

    Message: 77139
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women, contd. 16/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:54:50

    Both masculinity and femininity are survival-oriented.  They just go about
    the job in different ways.  Yet we value them differently.

    It is this lack of valuing women, simply for *being* more feminine, that
    women complain about.

    In view of the different levels of motivation and aptitude at different
    tasks, in an ideal society I wouldn't expect to see equal numbers of men and
    women doing every job, or even as many women as men working outside the
    home.  And I wouldn't want to.  I can't see how any feminist could disagree
    with Mike's own goal of "finding what you do best and going for it".  The
    point is that even today, many women aren't finding the opportunity to do
    that.  So since the number of women doing what they want is short of the
    goal, the only way anyone can see to balance it is with quotas, since
    discrimination is an insidious thing that is hard to combat any other way.

    Quotas are a crude tool, and I dislike them very much because they are badly
    set.  Suppose we take racial quotas.  If 10% of the population is black, a
    quota is set to ensure that 10% of the people in a particular job are black.
    The problem here is that the quota only takes into account that 10% of the
    population *as a whole* is black -- *not* that 10% of the people qualified
    for that particular job are black.  The actual number will usually be less,
    because many blacks are educationally disadvantaged.

    Message: 77140
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Women 17/17
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 01:56:20

    Putting underqualified people into a job doesn't solve anything.  We have to
    remedy the educational shortcomings as well.  Most important, any quota must
    reflect how many people are qualified for a job, and *not* fill jobs with
    underqualified people to assuage liberal guilt about past "injustices".

    That's especially difficult with women, because we have absolutely no way of
    knowing what proportion of women would fit well into certain jobs, want to
    do them, and perform well at them with respect to men, in that theoretical
    ideal society.  It would certainly differ from 50/50 in a lot of jobs.  I'd
    love to see a better solution than those blasted quotas.

    Until then, we can expect to see lots more bitching and moaning about being
    called things like "the fairer sex".  There's nothing insulting about this
    phrase per se, only that it lays the emphasis on physical attributes.  Women
    will have to accept that fact that men appreciate them for physical reasons,
    because that's the way men are.  It's one of those "differences".  From my
    perception, the real reason women complain about this is not so much that
    they don't like being seen as sex objects at all, but they do they hate it
    when it's the *only* way they're seen.  If feminine qualities in the
    abstract, and women as people, were valued just as much as their opposite
    numbers, we might see those complaints about "the fairer sex" go away.

    Message: 77141
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie #1
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 05:24:57

     As to your post on sexy commercials, the answer is simple. Sex sells.
    Anything. When the people who dream up the commercials want to attract the
    males in the audience, all they have to do is strut a bikini clad shapely
    young thing across the screen and, men being the sexually oriented person he
    is will immediately pay rapt attention. How 'bout them Coors commercials?
     My response to that is this. If appearing on a TV screen or billboard,
    baring most but hiding just enough, is demeaning to womanhood, why do so
    many sweet young ladies do it? Of course, that ugly old thing called greed
    must come into it. Some people, male AND female, will do ANYTHING if the
    price is right. Right?

    Message: 77142
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie/rape
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 05:31:43

    Couldn't agree more on that one! Rape, per se, is not a crime of passion by
    any means. It is a crime of the worst sort of violence, usually committed by
    someone with a psychological hate for women.
     The situation you described, now sometimes referred to as "date rape", is,
    in my opinion, another matter entirely. Women who dress provocatively for a
    date and spend an entire evening acting in a manner that shows a willingness
    to consummate a sexual act should expect the man to pick up on the message
    and respond accordingly. If he doesn't, he's dead and sholdn't have gone on
    a date in the first place! When the inevitable happens, I don't believe that
    she has any right to holler rape, since everything she did all evening was
    to extend invitations. That ain't rape, honey. It's called "making out".

    Message: 77143
    Author: $ Paul Savage
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Annie again
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 05:37:40

     There is nothing obscene about the naked body, male or female. THe
    obscenity is in the mind of the viewer.
     Women do, however, tend to flaunt their sexiness when they parade before
    men in the scantiest of garments (it's not what you show that excites, it's
    what you just don't show.) in a manner that says, in body language, "here I
    am, ready, willing and available!"
     As to the braless corps, I do believe that they eventually pay for their
    indiscretions later in life. It's called floppy, low hung breasts. Simply
    put, the well endowed woman needs support in that area. To go without it
    invites problems.

    Message: 77144
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Pauley your comments
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 06:55:10

    I printed them out along with Gordon's post on women to read later. I did
    glance at them while they were scrolling and it appears that you agree
    pretty much. *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77145
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod Can Divide!
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 07:50:20

    > There are so many divisions in this world from different
    > religions and sects that it is no wonder that we are only as
    > far as we are which is too darn far away from being a half way
    > decent, fun planet.

    So why do you insist on further dividing the world and its people?

    If part of the problem is an insistence on divisions, wouldn't  looking past
    those divisions, concentrating instead on what everyone has in common be
    part of the solution?

    Message: 77146
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Censored Mike
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 07:50:52

    Mike, I'm sorry you

    Public Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit Chat

    Subject:Bill/divisions

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:We are certainly in a class struggle on this earth.  You are correct, there
     2:are many divisions and we do not need another one.
     3:
     4:end

    Edit command:D1

    Edit command:D1

    Edit command:C

     2:
     3:end

    Edit command:L1

     1:
     2:

    Edit command:R1

     1:You are correct.  We do not need more divisions in this world.  Sorry.

    Edit command:

    Enter  for a list of commands

    Edit command:C

     3:I will continue however to help people question.  I guess we humans still
     4:have a ways to go before the divisions start to slacken off and we become
     5:united in one glorious climax.
     6:
     7:Making people think about what they have been taught as fact may create a
     8:division
     9:end

    Edit command:A

    Message entry aborted

    Public Bulletin Board command:$RC

    Press  to abort

    Message: 77146
    Author: $ Bill Burkett
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: Censored Mike
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 07:50:52

    Mike, I'm sorry you still feel put upon by my appointment as Cub SysOp and
    Master @ Arms.  I've got nothing new to say in my own defense, except that I
    have come to believe that you are sincere in your criticism and not just
    whining.  I hope that you understand that I, too, am sincere in the stands I
    take on this matter.

    BTW, thanks for keeping us straight.  That's important.

    Message: 77147
    Author: $ James Hawley
    Category: Question?
    Subject: Paul Savage
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 11:41:13

    So, how many women have you raped?

    Message: 77148
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Mike - love
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 11:45:39

    Re: your ...."I don't care if these screaming hordes of
    testostoerone-snorting, Arnold Swartznegger look-alike female
    lesbian mutant bull riding Mary-Kay cosmeticians manage to strike
    the word from the offical Webster's. I'll still use the word
    "'GIRL". They can bash their breasts into cancerous lumps of
    jelly in front of the White House for years to come for all I
    care."!!!!

    You just spreading around a little Christian love there, right?

                             *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77149
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: You men are ....
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 11:47:01

    ..... hilarious! Here you are, sending long detailed posts on how
    you all are the head of the household - how Paul and God said it
    is so - how you all are living in harmony with this arrangement,
    etc. etc. and you then come back with long detailed posts on how
    your wives pretty much rule the house - such as Thad's ... "My
    dad used to claim that he was the head of the house, but mother
    was the neck and the neck turns the head" and Felix's .."I listen
    to Bonnie many times..."! Hmmmm ... sounds to me like you guys
    have the title only! (Grin from ear to ear!)

                        *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77150
    Author: $ Ann Oudin
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Gordon
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 11:47:53

    I give you a great big 'BRAVO!!!' on your posts about women! You
    should write a book on the subject. It is obvious you have
    thought on this for many hours. And I'll say it again - Apollo is
    a very lucky BBS to have the likes of you and England sure lost
    out! Thank you Gordon.

                              *>>> ANN O. <<<*

    Message: 77151
    Author: $ Green Lantern
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/Rule
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 13:08:35

    I make all the big decision in my house: Whether Bush is doing a good job,
    Fife Symington's job rating, Who will win the World Series. My wife makes
    all the small decisions: How much allowance I get, whether to paint the
    house this year or next, and whether or not I have to do the dishes tonight.

    Message: 77152
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Commercials
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 18:45:05

    I need to combine topics here. Years ago, I encountn
    author who observed "if we like pretty girls in bathind suits, they
    will show pretty girls in bathing suits with their products whether
    they are selling shaving cream, automobiles, summer resorts,
    ice cream cones, house paint, or hardware. Only the law keeps them
    from presenting pretty girls without bathing suits."
       How can you, Ann, be in favor of 'doing away' with 'nude dancers,
    strip joints, and adult book stores' and at the same time be
    "all for" pornography?

    Message: 77153
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Ann/women 3/5
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 18:58:28

       I also believe stronly that men and women should raise their own
    children, and not have babysitters and day care centers do it. For
    relative strangers to raise one's own children weakens the integrity
    of the family, and if you have particular values or standards you wish
    your children to learn, it is dangerous to leave this task to others.
       Although it is possible for men to perform most of the tasks
    traditionally alloted to women, and for women to perform most of the
    tasks traditionally given to men, and do a creditable job of it,
    especially in modern times as you have pointed out, I still think
    that generally speaking, women make better mothers and men make
    better fathers. La Leche League might have words to say about
    breast feeding versus bottle feeding.
       I do not believe it is healthy for society for the long-standing
    traditional roles of men and women to be reversed or the distinctions
    entirely obliterated. I have little objection to women being plumbers,
    Deans of colleges, forklift operators, or entrepreneurs, and if
    they do not have family responsibilites, then I have none.I do not
    think it fair for women to be paid less than men if they
    do hold the same jobs.

    Message: 77154
    Author: Thad Coons
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Rod/ Rules
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 19:00:26

      There are a several thoughts that I would like to present, and I
    will have to be brief.
      I did appreciate your post dealing with love and children. I hope
    your children appreciate the respect you are giving to their individual
    worth.
      I agree with you that love cannot really be commanded or enforced: it
    must be a free gift.
      I don't know if you have encountered certain things that could not be
    completely explained with words. There are certain subtle concepts that
    can only be explained to someone who is predisposed to listen and
    prepared to understand. They cannot be explained to someone who is
    closeminded or hostile. Since I don't know you very well yet, I may
    have to make some of my own responses indirectly.
      Let me pose a question for you. With your children, in order to
    keep order and peace in the house, aren't there certain ules
    that all are expected to obey, without exception, and aren't there
    penalties attached to violation of the ules?

    (*Some children act like adults, and some adults act like children,
    don't they, O Mighty Sysop?*)

    Message: 77155
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike/Women (1/2)
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 20:33:07

    The armed forces have a unique problem, and I think they're taking the best
    approach by just discreetly dragging their feet while the effects of
    prejudice get shaken out in other fields of employment first.

    In my ideal world I don't see why women shouldn't serve in combat, but I'd
    guess the numbers of women who would (a) want to do it and (b) do it well
    would be small.  In the gender spectrum they'd be well toward the edge of
    the bell curve for "typical" women.

    Whether women can do a particular job or not is hard to guess at in advance,
    because as long as there *is* prejudice you can't tell what's the effect of
    prejudice and what's the effect of women just being women.  Prejudice among
    subordinates reduces a woman's effectiveness in managerial or command
    positions, though that's not "the fault of her nature", it's the fault of
    her subordinates.  I've seen a few guys get ticked off because women were
    promoted over them, and stay ticked off even when those women turned out to
    be excellent managers (probably better than these guys would have been).

    If you get some woman with an "attitude", that will reduce her effectiveness
    too.  Again this is a secondary result of prejudice, although this time it's
    up to the woman herself to change that resentful attitude.  Trouble is, a
    lot of the women who might be temperamentally well suited to military life
    are likely to be butch and have an even bigger chip on their shoulder than
    other women do about discrimination, so that makes the problem worse.

    Message: 77156
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike/Women (2/2)
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 20:34:19

    With all these smokescreen factors that were caused by prejudice in the
    first place, the only way you can find out whether women really *are*
    effective in a particular job is to let them try.  If they're never allowed
    to try, and in a reasonably supportive atmosphere, you'll never convince
    them that they would have failed anyway.  They will always put it down to
    prejudice and continue the feminist war.  What makes the military's position
    unique is that unlike industry and commerce, the result of "letting them
    try" can be lethal if it fails.  Hence the wisdom of a little foot-dragging
    while people's attitudes toward women get stabilized elsewhere first.

    Unlike you, I'm not worried for the long term.  I expect the high dropout
    rate of women in the military to sort itself out in time.  I'd expect to see
    the number of less-qualified applicants dropping off in a decade or so.
    Right now we're seeing women experimenting with a field where there's not
    much track record of their real abilities and job satisfaction.  Then you
    get the chip on the shoulder types who are determined to try a "masculine"
    field out of sheer cussedness.  Also if we paid women more for the jobs
    they usually do better than men, we'd see fewer women attacking male
    provinces for the sake of the material benefits, ignoring true aptitude.

    We saw similar change in the women's movement itself.  70s women were intent
    on being substitute men, dressing masculine, abjuring marriage and kids,
    sleeping around, etc.  So they tried it; and surprise! lots of them found
    they didn't like it after all. But they had to discover that for themselves.

    Message: 77157
    Author: $ Gordon Little
    Category: Politics
    Subject: Mike/GIRLS
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 20:35:05

    I hadn't heard that anybody wanted to abolish the term "girl" altogether.
    If that's true, then you're *ahead* of me.  What feminist rag have you been
    reading?

     MC>>So what do *you* think we should use to reference a 5 year old female
     MC>>human?

    How about "girl"?

    I think people nutty enough to make such a dumb proposal should be left to
    solve this problem for themselves!

    Message: 77158
    Author: Tangerine Torch
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: hi
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 22:02:42

    I only logged onto this board so I could FLAME!!!!!

    Message: 77159
    Author: $ Apollo SysOp
    Category: Answer!
    Subject: T.C.
    Date: 07/25/91  Time: 23:10:48

            Re: Some children act like adults, and some adults act like
    children.....

            Yea, I noticed that too....  There are a number of the second group
    here on Apollo....    I am one of them.....  SIGH ~

    *=* the 'Mighty' Apollo SysOp *=*  <-clif-

    Public Bulletin Board command:EC

    You chose Chit Chat

    Subject:Posts

    Enter a line containing only an <*> to stop
     1:I have company right now.  I will read these messages off-line and get back.
     2:
     3:Rod
     4:end

    Edit command:S

    Saving message...
    The message is 77160

    Public Bulletin Board command:R77160

    Message: 77160
    Author: $ Rod Williams
    Category: Chit Chat
    Subject: Posts
    Date: 07/26/91  Time: 00:45:38

    I have company right now.  I will read these messages off-line and get back.

    Rod

    Public Bulletin Board command:JN

    *=* Journey to a SIG *=*

    No more new messages

    Journey to which SIG:G

    Goodbye, Rod Williams
    You were on 19:14

    Please hang up now
    /g=bC}c]*%g+yFew~
    VOICE

Content of this site is © Mark Firestone or whomever wrote it. All rights reserved.