[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v3

Title:Topics of Interest to Women
Notice:V3 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:REGENT::BROOMHEAD
Created:Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1078
Total number of notes:52352

166.0. "are women psychologically weaker than men?" by --UnknownUser-- () Wed May 30 1990 23:46

T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
166.2WMOIS::B_REINKEtreasures....most of them dreamsThu May 31 1990 00:146
    Mike
    I believe that the women of your generation that you encounter
    may well be..
    I think your sample is skewed by age and by profession.
    
    Bonnie
166.3Women must be stronger for they endure so much moreTLE::D_CARROLLThe more you know the better it getsThu May 31 1990 00:5121
I believe that females, on the whole, are psychologically as strong as
men.

However, the forces they encounter while travelling through life are
very, very different.  It seems very possible that a woman might be
more likely to break down or subcumb to psychological pressure at any
given time in her life than a man, even if she is just as strong as
any man, because hers is a greater psychological burden to bear.

Mike, you started this note, apparantly, in response to the claim that
women who theoretically "control" assest might not truly control them
because they are subject to psychological coercion of husbands, and
society in general.

I really don't think the two have anything to do with eachother.  The
fact that a woman can be psychologically controlled by a man does not
mean that women are psychologically weaker than men; any more than a
person collapsing under a 1000 lb weight demonstrates that she is weaker
than a person who is *not* collapsing under a 100 lb weight.

D!
166.4QuestionFRSBEE::MALLETTBarking Spider IndustriesThu May 31 1990 08:284
    Mike, would you care to propose how psychological "strength"
    might be defined and measured?
    
    Steve
166.5YGREN::JOHNSTONbean sidheThu May 31 1990 09:3436
re.4 almost took the words from my mouth

re.0 once again, I believe your question is put such that the possible answers
to your question are binary.  'It depends' or 'it varies' would seem to beg the
question when indeed they do not.

Either 'yes' or 'no' are ludicrous answers that take no great effort to shoot
down and begin all manner of acrimony.

Women, as a class and as a sum of all situations, are neither psychologically
weaker nor stronger than men, taken as a class and as a sum of all situations.

There was a time, given my limited experience, that I would have said that the
concept of a man being psychologically strong was about as ludicrous as that of
a mammal spontaneously acquiring gills. My measures of psychological strength
were wholly woman-defined and men just didn't have the juice.

When I entered the world of men, I was brought face to face with a whole new
set of assumptions. I found that dogged determination was the 'equivalent' of
the will to endure and that most of my measures of emotional/psychological 
strength had, with slight variations, male-defined correllaries.

But there were areas in which my measure of strength worked to my detriment.

Given that girls were socialised to consent and boys were socialised to compete,
many of life's situations are a bit of a balancing act.  I am inclined to look
upon consulting Rick before selling the house as a strength of my character
rather than a weakness in deferring to his wishes; whereas it never occurred to
him to consult me before he quit his job and moved to New England because he
didn't need my permission. [It occurred to him _shortly_ thereafter that it
wasn't so much my permission as my company that he needed to worry about ...]

So yes, the attributes you use to define 'psychological strength' are necessary
before one can evaluate and answer your yes/no question.

  Ann
166.6qualified yesLEZAH::BOBBITTfantasiaThu May 31 1990 09:507
    Men are psychologically less careful and less caring on the average
    (and there are always exceptions) and more ruthless (again on the
    average and with exceptions).  If that is strength, then the answer is
    yes.
    
    -Jody
    
166.7*My* point of view...SHIRE::BIZELa femme est l'avenir de l'hommeThu May 31 1990 10:1619
    
    My opinion, based on the people I know best (friends and family), is
    that women come out psychologically stronger in crisis situations and
    weaker in coping with the everyday annoyances. 
    
    What Jody said about "caring" I have always felt to be true. To me, that 
    explains why in some cases a woman will appear stronger and in others 
    weaker: as she tries for consensus with others, she will appear more 
    influencable, i.e. weaker. When she can/has to take a decision by herself,
    she will frequently appear stronger.
    
    Now I realise I am answering the question before a definition of
    "psychologically" has been given by Mike, but it's only to give him a
    better chance to pounce on the answers. 
    
    Joana
    
    PS: my definition of "psychological" is "the way the mind works".
                                                                     
166.8PUMA::GASSAWAYInsert clever personal name hereThu May 31 1990 11:0830
    I agree with .7.
    
    It seems to me that women tend to take into consideration the feelings
    and opinions of all the parties involved before making a decision,
    whereas men tend to say, "We're doing it this way, that's it".
    So the men appear to be more decisive, and the women wishy-washy.
    
    Traditionally, psychological strength has been synonymous (sp?)
    with not letting things get to you, having a thick skin, etc.
    Basically, not caring to much about anything.  (Witness old
    western movies where the hero is really tough, or old sitcoms where
    the kid falls down and gets hurt and the mother will tend to the
    injury and get all flustered, and the father will come and tap the
    kid on the shoulder and say "Take it like a trooper"). This is
    typically male behavior.
    
    Look at Wall Street today.  What type of people are valued?
    Those that work 70 hours a week, who don't have kids to worry about,
    who put all their effort into making more money and obtaining more
    power.  
    
    Our society has defined "powerful" in a certain way.  I tend to
    define strong as someone who has enough inner strength to deal with
    any situation that they might be faced with (ie. someone who can
    deal with crisis).  But I don't think I speak for the majority of
    people.
    
    Lisa
    
    
166.13FLAME AWAY!!!!BUSY::NPEASLEEThu May 31 1990 16:4710
    
    Mike,
    
    I always had assumed that men were weaker psychologically.  Men
    can not deal with stress so they have a higher incidence of stroke,
    high blood pressure and heart attacks.  Women on the other hand,
    tend to "talk out" their problems and have a broader support 
    network as an outlet for stress.
    
    Nancy  ;^)
166.14Go ahead, ignore meTLE::D_CARROLLThe more you know the better it getsThu May 31 1990 17:0028
>	If x% of all women are (or can be) psychologically manipulated
>    by men, and less than x% of all men are (or can be) psychologically 
>    manipulated by women, then I would conclude that women are weaker,
>    psychologically, than men.

Nope, no good.

First, I don't believe susceptiblity to manipulation is a measure of
strength.

Secondly, it fails to take into account *societal* influences.  ie: a man might
not be able to be manipulated by a woman, because he has been taught, all
his life, he *ought* not to be manipulated by a woman.  (This is just an
example and I make no claims one way or another.)  If a woman has been
taught that she ought not fight against manipulation, than she is more 
likely to be manipulated.

As I said before, the weight-lifting analogy works.  That person A can lift
100 pounds with the help of three other people, and person B cannot lift that
weight without help, or perhaps even with 3 people *hindering* the effort,
does not mean that person A is stronger than person B.

Of course, I don't expect you to respond to this reasoning, because you
ignored the same reasoning I gave in an earlier note.  Oh well, you obviously
don't *really* care about the answer the question in the title.  But then,
you did say you weren't here to learn, so who is surprised.

D!
166.15LEZAH::BOBBITTfantasiaThu May 31 1990 17:0313
re: .12

>	If that's true, can women� compete with men� in ruthless, cut-
>    throat business situations?

    Certain women can.  Of course, I don't see why business has to be
    cut-throat and ruthless.  I think as women become a larger part of the
    business community there will be less need for cut-throat and ruthless
    behavior as "the big picture" and mutual winning becomes more vital to
    business decisions.
    
    -Jody
    
166.16yes, but who wants to?VIA::HEFFERNANJuggling FoolThu May 31 1990 17:0313
RE:         <<< Note 166.12 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "Dan Fielding trainee" >>>

>	If that's true, can women� compete with men� in ruthless, cut-
>    throat business situations?

Yes, but who wants too!!!

Maybe energy should be focused on changing the traditionally male
centered view of business as ruthless, cut-throat, and overly
competitive.

john

166.17careful with those numbers...COBWEB::SWALKERlean, green, and at the screenThu May 31 1990 17:1577
>	If x% of all women are (or can be) psychologically manipulated
>    by men, and less than x% of all men are (or can be) psychologically 
>    manipulated by women, then I would conclude that women are weaker,
>    psychologically, than men.

	Let me get this straight.  You are offering up to 4 alternatives
	here:

1.	If x% of all women are psychologically manipulated
    by men, and less than x% of all men are psychologically 
    manipulated by women, then I would conclude that women are weaker,
    psychologically, than men.

2.	If x% of all women can be psychologically manipulated
    by men, and less than x% of all men are psychologically 
    manipulated by women, then I would conclude that women are weaker,
    psychologically, than men.

3.	If x% of all women are psychologically manipulated
    by men, and less than x% of all men can be psychologically 
    manipulated by women, then I would conclude that women are weaker,
    psychologically, than men.

4.	If x% of all women can be psychologically manipulated
    by men, and less than x% of all men are psychologically 
    manipulated by women, then I would conclude that women are weaker,
    psychologically, than men.

	What metric, other than subjective observation, do you propose
	to use to measure the "can be" factor?  And is it really fair,
	in this case, to compare "can be" with "are"?

	And are you not even going to take applied force into account?
	For example, society offers scant support for the woman who
	attempts to manipulate her husband into believing he must quit his
	job to raise his children.  That's not true the other way around.
	I think societal reinforcement (and/or guilt people feel for
	violating societal norms) is often a key to the success of
	psychological manipulation.  And societal traditions place
	different pressures on men and women.

	Your formula also doesn't account for cases where a man is
	psychologically manipulating a man, and a woman is psychologically
	manipulating a woman.  What if, for example, it was found that

		60% of women are psychologically manipulated by men
		10% of women are psychologically manipulated by women
		90% of men are psychologically manipulated by men
		30% of men are psychologically manipulated by women

	Now what if it was found that only 1% of the human race is capable 
	of psychological manipulation, what would you conclude?  How about
	if, of that 1%, it was found that 90% were male?

	And how about if it was found that women were more likely to kill
	people in cases where men would use psychological manipulation 
	instead?

	Or if it was found that 98% of people can be psychologically
	manipulated by cats, but that the 2% that cannot are all women?

	By your metric (in it's first form, at least), you would have
	concluded that women are psychologically weaker than men in all
	these cases.

	My message: be careful how you judge that someone is inferior.
	Groups in power have historically tried to "prove" that those
	not in power are inferior by such metrics.  I can't think of a
	case yet where they've been right.  Current reality and potential
	are not the same thing.

	Put differently: just because Robin doesn't beat the living 
	daylights out of everyone doesn't s/he's not capable of doing so.

	    Sharon

166.18OK, it's a startYGREN::JOHNSTONbean sidheThu May 31 1990 17:1931
re.11 I'm truly not trying to be evasive, but ...

the percentages measurement that you posit is a good start, but it's still a
raw-numbers measure with no value-added that might assist one in coming to a
reasoned opinion. [similar to giving fe/male salary comparisons without any
explication as to factors such as time in grade, actual jobs etc.]

personally, I find men to be more easily psychologically manipulated. that
is to say that I find it infinitely simpler to get them to do something for
me against their better judgement than it is with women.

i still think it's a power differntial.  as previosuly stated, I believe that
both are equally strong/weak psychologically. that being said, I believe also
that more men than women are in a position of strength from which to wield
manipulative behaviour [yes, this is changing].

it is entirely true that I could live without Rick, as he could also live 
without me. however, the worst threat I have in my arsenal is to leave him 
were I displeased; whereas he could force me to lose my home _and_ him.
therefore he deals from a position of relative strength. [no, this is not how
our relationship works; but good faith is really all the guarantee I have]

this does not mean that he is the stronger person, merely that he holds the
stronger hand.

re.12 [OK, so it wasn't addressed to me]

I have found women to be _extremely_ competent in competing with men in 
'ruthless, cut-throat business situations.' !!

  Ann
166.20Oh, boy, psychiatric terms!REGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Thu May 31 1990 17:303
    Well, Mike, *defining* "nervous breakdown" starts to get exciting.
    
    						Ann B.
166.21huh?CADSYS::PSMITHfoop-shootin&#039;, flip city!Thu May 31 1990 17:3817
    re: .19 mike z
    
    Are you saying that repressed psychological stress does not manifest
    itself physically?  
    
    Why would you say that?  What evidence can you back it up with?  Why
    are illnesses like high-blood pressure, heart attacks, and ulcers
    called stress-related illnesses then?
    
    
    I think the basenote question is unanswerable for all the reasons given
    by others.  What is "strong"?  How can you measure it?  If two people
    are given different and unequal stresses and aids, how can you possibly
    determine which is "better"?  There's no baseline to test against and
    the factors are all uncontrolled.  Apples and oranges, in my opinion...
    
    Pam
166.28biopsychologyCADSYS::PSMITHfoop-shootin&#039;, flip city!Thu May 31 1990 19:4620
    re: .27 mike z
    
    No I wouldn't count broken bones in accidents to measure psychological
    stress, but nobody suggested we do that!  The suggestion was to use
    illnesses that are *frequently* linked to internal stress, like
    high-blood pressure.  There's plenty of precedent, why rule it out? 
    I'd add asthma to the list, also, come to think of it...
    
    And what of findings that mental illnesses such as schitzophrenia have
    *physical* bases, such as chemical imbalances?  Is a nervous breakdown
    always related to psychological stress, or it is sometimes due to an
    undiagnosed food allergy or an interaction between prescription drugs?
    No metric is perfect.
    
    There are so many interrelated factors here that I'd say it's
    practically impossible to come up with anything more than speculation
    ... and if we are going to speculate, we might as well use any and all
    metrics, acknowledging that whatever we use will be flawed.
    
    Pam
166.29Ruthlessness does not equal strength!!!DOCTP::FARINAThu May 31 1990 20:0539
    Mike, .27 doesn't really make sense.  There are *far* more possible
    causes for broken bones than mental stress.  There are more limited
    reasons for hypertension, heart attacks, ulcers, colitis, etc. (mainly
    heredity and stress).
    
    What I find very interesting is Mike's view* of psychological strength. 
    (*This appears to be a common male view; other male members of our
    community feel free to comment.)  Why do you feel that ruthlessness
    equates to psychological strength?  Why do you feel that *strength*
    equates to superiority?  (And don't give me a Darwinian "survival of the
    fittest" argument, because we all know that physical and mental health
    (not strength) are what's required there!)
    
    In Mike's earlier scenario of high-ruthlessness winning over
    low-ruthlessness in a psychological situation, and high-violence
    winning out over low-violence in a physical situation, I see something
    you've completely ignored.  Psychological strength (NOT RUTHLESSNESS)
    often wins out over high-violence (NOT NECESSARILY PHYSICAL STRENGTH).
    Or haven't you ever seen *those* westerns?  (I do realize, Mike, that
    you didn't give the western example; the question is to all and
    rhetorical.)  :-)
    
    In the season ending of LA Law (actually, it might have been the
    second-to-last), Rosalind was ousted from the firm because of her work
    style.  In a final "confrontation" with Ann, Ann confessed that
    Rosalind would have been a hero if she'd been a man.  Her ruthlessness
    and devious "ethics" are perfectly acceptable from men, but not from
    women - even by other women.  I think this is true, and I think we're
    back to societal norms.
    
    Does the fact that Rosalind was *more* ruthless than her male
    counterparts make her psychologically superior?  No way.  (However, she
    proved that she was in this scenario, since Douglas's psychological
    weakness was all that prevented him from having her place in the firm
    in the first place!  But that had more to do with his weaknesses than
    with her strengths.)
    
    
    Susan
166.32what about the rest of my reply?DOCTP::FARINAThu May 31 1990 21:1234
    I never claimed that men *do* suffer more from stress-related or
    psychosomatic illnesses than women.  Someone else did.  (I, too, doubt
    that this assumption is true).  All I did was point out that I don't 
    see a lot of sense in your reply, Mike.  I still don't.  But I agree 
    that there are more causes than I listed (I can't come up with 10, but 
    I'm not interested in coming up with 10, either! :-).
    
    Besides, if someone was actually able to prove statistically that men
    under certain levels of stress (wasn't executive position given in the
    example?) *do* suffer more frequently from stress-related illnesses, it
    could be conversely argued that perhaps more women don't because there
    are fewer of them under that same stress!
    
    I'm far more interested in your response to the rest of my note.  Any
    men care to reply?  Why *do* so many men associate ruthlessness and
    physical strength with superiority?  Why do you, Mike, feel that
    ruthlessness equates with psychological superiority?  Why do so many
    men believe (falsely) that any demonstration of emotion indicates
    weakness?  (DISCLAIMER:  I am *NOT* accusing anyone here of this!  This
    if from observation in the workplace and home community.)
    
    I *do* believe that studies have been done that point to female
    psychological superiority.  Unfortunately, I don't have any statistics
    (and won't for some time - I don't have time to check in here every day!).
     
    I also know that females are physically superior at birth, as a rule,
    and have better chances of surviving premature birth and some other
    ailments (this is why the sex of the child is checked first during
    premature labor - most doctors will allow the labor to continue only if
    the sex is female - they do their best to stop the labor if the sex is
    male, because males have less chance of survival).
    
    
    Susan 
166.34GaslightREGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Fri Jun 01 1990 11:4859
    Mike,
    
    No, physical strength will not necessarily win out in a physical
    contest; it is possible that stamina and tolerance for extreme
    conditions will win out.  Women have those qualities in greater
    amounts than do men.
    
    No, ruthless people are not capable of being ruthless or considerate;
    they can only be the former.  (I.e., they have no ability to rue.)
    Considerate people, however, can be ruthless in the appropriate
    circumstances; they just define those circumstances more circumspectly
    than do ruthless people.  (You know the expression, `When the only
    tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.'?)
    An aside:  This claim of the advantages of ruthlessness and its
    partners reminds me of the claim that you must use tough methods
    to produce tough soldiers.  This claim has been demonstrated to be
    false; methods of consideration and rationality have been shown to
    be demonstrably superior.
    
    Lastly, I would like to sieze upon a word you used many replies ago:
    "handicapped".  Yes, women are psychologically handicapped in the
    business world.  However, this handicapping is done, quite
    deliberately, by men.  They deny the validity of a woman's perceptions,
    they even deny the *reality* of a woman's perceptions, they ignore
    what a woman says, but recognize what a man says -- even when it is
    *the same thing*.  I've experienced this.  I suspect that every
    woman in this file has experienced this.  I know that some of the
    men in this file have noticed this phenomenon.  (Notice, dear reader,
    that I have put Mike in a bind.  If he denies that he has noticed
    this, then he implicitly convicts himself of being one of these
    conspiritorial men.  If he admits that he has noticed this, then he
    undermines the thesis that the problems are inherent in women, with
    all that that implies.  Now, I have to present a example for my
    claim, and then explain that I am not talking about any explicit,
    we-meet-at-midnight-at-Joe's-place conspiricy.  Burn this note.)
    
    I think that we in this culture are all familiar with the play and
    movie, "Gaslight".  In this play, a women teeters on the brink of
    madness.  She got there because her husband, deliberately (but not
    maliciously -- His drive was avarice.) dragged and pushed her from
    sanity to that point, and in her culture, she had no recourse, and
    no protection until someone broke all the laws of convention to give
    her the weapon -- truth -- that she needed to rescue herself.
    
    Now, this sounds like I'm talking about some massive, coherent
    conspiracy, with special handshakes and secret meetings, but I am
    not.  It is just the implicit "gentleman's agreement"� that white
    men enter into against all others to try to stay on top, and that
    all men enter into against all women to try to keep from coming
    closer to the bottom.  It is done with the flicker of an eyelid,
    with an exceptionally bland look on the face, with the trace of an
    otherwise inapproriate smile.  It doesn't take much; the basis for
    the course of action is the basis of this society.  No one has to
    say anything; everybody already knows it.
    
    							Ann B.
    
    � Yes, that term does deliberately refer to the movie about white,
    Christian men keeping a white, Jewish man from advancing in business.
166.35adaptation is strengthCUPCSG::RUSSELLFri Jun 01 1990 12:1327
    Some years ago I went to a lecture given by R.D. Laing, the psychologist.
    One of the topics was his assertion that women are psychologically
    stronger, more resilient, and psychologically braver than men.  He
    actually said that he is in awe of women's strength. 

    Laing is a man with world-wide reputation and many many years of
    experience in psychology. Laing based the assertion of strength on 
    long years of observation and research.

    The factors he cited are (in no particular order and with most of the
    explanation behind the reason stripped -- you can find and read his
    books, if you want more) women's tenacity, women's fierceness in
    defending family, women's endurance in a world that is more difficult
    for her sex than for males, women's "awe-inspiring bravery" in having
    relationships with men at all and women's ability to psychologically
    adjust and exist within a relationship (he saw adjustment to a
    situation as stronger than inability/unwillingness to adjust).

    Laing said that in his observation women are more likely to survive
    adverse situations (mentally and physically, although he linked
    physical survival to mental will), more likely to stay psychologically 
    integrated and more likely to reintegrate if it is lost.

    He seemed to imply that the cultural norms for male mental health were
    actually ruinous to men.  He particularly cited inability to adapt as a
    dangerous trait, injurious to mental health.  

166.36Stress IS Gender relatedHYSTER::DELISLEFri Jun 01 1990 13:0132
    What an interesting conversation!  I just so happen to have picked up a
    bock, titled " Gender and Stress", which touches upon some of the
    topics mentioned.
    
    Stress related illnesses are VERY MUCH gender related.  Males suffer
    dramatically more from cardiovascular stress related illnesses, it has
    been proven time and agian in many different studies.
    
    Suicides - something like 72% of deaths resulting from suicide are
    male.  Women attempt it more, men are dramatically more successful.
    
    It had been believed that men suffered from stress more because of
    their involvement in the workplace, and that when women entered the
    workplace their levels of stress-related illnesses would increase
    proportionally.  This HAS NOT been proven true, they cope much better
    with work related stress.
    
    I know quite a few wives who "control" their husbands, unlike a
    statement read earlier.  It is usually extremely subtle, and I mean
    couched in terms of "persuasiveness, subtle manipulation, coy
    behaviour" all those "female" qualities.  In fact, there's a lot of
    truth to the female "wearing the pants" in the family.
    
    As for being ruthless.  Perhaps women CHOOSE NOT TO be ruthless in the
    workplace.  For me, it is not worth the aggravation and stress.  This
    doesn't mean women are psychologically weaker, it may even meana they
    are stronger than men, because they can work and succed with out
    resorting ruthlessness to do it.  Food for thought?
    
    I've only gotten through the first three chapters in the book, will let
    you know if there's any thing else pertinent to this discussion.
    
166.38re: "it seems to me..."COBWEB::SWALKERlean, green, and at the screenFri Jun 01 1990 13:185
    "Things are seldom what they seem; skim milk masquerades as cream"

	- Gilbert and Sullivan

166.40COBWEB::SWALKERlean, green, and at the screenFri Jun 01 1990 13:4321
Mike,

    I'm saying that you are mistaken in your "it seems to me"
    sentence; that you are using a dangerously incomplete set of data 
    to form your conclusion -- and discounting a good bit of the
    available data to do so.

    I find your reasons for wanting to determine "who is psychologically
    stronger" suspect.  By showing that women are not inferior, you
    can then discount what women are saying about the way society works
    by "proving" that they are really the ones "in power".  (And therefore,
    since they are not psychologically weaker and own most of the property,
    either they are intellectually pretty dim for allowing the men to control
    society, and/or they have ceded the reigns to men out of their own free
    will).  Alternately, by showing they are inferior, you "prove" that men 
    "should" be the ones in power.

    Cute trick, eh?

	Sharon

166.41ControllingREGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Fri Jun 01 1990 13:463
    Shut up or I'll beat you senseless.
    
    							Ann B.
166.42what good is win/lose psychologically?CADSYS::PSMITHfoop-shootin&#039;, flip city!Fri Jun 01 1990 13:4924
    Mike, the problem is that you are setting something up where if women
    don't TRIUMPH, they are not stronger.  That is false.
    
    The previous notes pointed out the tremendous burdens women face and
    the amazing fact that women don't crack *more often*.  Endurance counts
    for a lot.  The titles Dorian listed in the pornography note are a
    potent reminder that there is a vast market for sex themes involving
    binding, holding down, mutilating, training, molesting, etc., women,
    especially unwilling women.  There is not a corresponding vast market
    for sex themes like these against men.  I am using this as a SINGLE
    example of how women (in general) are treated in a far more restricted,
    punitive manner than men (in general) are, BASED on their gender.
    
    Yet women still try to have intimate relationships with men.  Wow.
    
    That to me is an example of how women are able to endure great amounts
    of psychological pain.  Sorry we can't impress you by being ruthlessly
    dominating in return.  Gee, how disappointing.  For some reason we
    don't think that's psychologically strong or impressive.  I myself
    think it's pathetic to have to crush other people to feel important.  I
    think it's far stronger to help others to realize their full potential,
    even if that means that they surpass your achievements.
    
    Pam
166.43CADSE::MACKINIt has our data and won&#039;t give it back!Fri Jun 01 1990 13:5312
    The concept of weaker vs. stronger always seemed to me to be an attempt
    for one or more individuals to categorize other individuals as being
    inferior (or, conversely, to attempt to prove or reinforce their own
    delusions of superiority).
    
    If one took the view that men are pyschologically stronger than women
    because then are more prevelant in the upper echelon of the business
    environment, then that leads to an interesting point.  If one also
    believes that men die earlier than women because of the stresses
    involved in this environment, should I believe that men are inheritly
    more stupid than women (in a Darwinian sense) because they act in such
    a life-jeoprodizing manner?
166.46more like a cute-when-you're-mad trick?GEMVAX::KOTTLERFri Jun 01 1990 17:091
    
166.49CADSE::MACKINIt has our data and won&#039;t give it back!Fri Jun 01 1990 17:404
>>>                <<< Note 166.48 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "nicety" >>>
>>>                           -< Jim, do you skydive? >-
    
    But at least I don't bungee-cord jump...
166.50YGREN::JOHNSTONbean sidheFri Jun 01 1990 18:0146
There seems to be a shift going on here.

We begin with the question 'are women psychologically weaker?'

Then we segue to manipulation between the sexes as a measure. [which I don't
really buy at all]

Then manipulation segues to control as a measure [which I buy even less, if
possible]

And we pretend we are talking about the same thing.

Are women psychologically weaker? 
   I say no they are not.

Are they more easily manipulated?
   I say, not on your life.  Men for my money are more easily manipulated
   no matter who is doing the manipulating.

Are they more easily controlled?
   Unfortunately, I have to say yes.

If I can be controlled by physical threats, it does not make me psychologically
weak. If I can be controlled by monetary or material threats, again that does
not make me psychologically weak.

Evolution is by its very nature a slow process [god, I wish it wasn't!] and we
are all evolving socially at different rates.  If we are to freeze-frame and
take a look at what we have today we are going to find a melange of adaptive
behaviours that have worked and are working with varying degrees of success. 
In a world where gender roles are clearly defined and clearly different, there
can be no meaningful discussion of who is stronger psychologically because
common points of reference are rare.  In an a society where gender roles are
converging, substantive discussion can only be possible measured against a
commonly defined and agreed upon goal -- not upon which gender has the 'better'
set of adaptations, because which is 'better' is going to be coloured by where
one sits on the road to convergence.

Personally, I find 'breaking down' a better adaptation than ulcers or high
blood pressure based on the survival rates.  I in no way make light of the 
stresses that men face and do not sit in judgement of there adaptations, but
I am thankful that they are not mine.

  Ann


166.51"winning" is not the pointCADSYS::PSMITHfoop-shootin&#039;, flip city!Fri Jun 01 1990 21:4851
    re: .47 mike z
    
    So "more ruthless" will *win* over "less ruthless".  Win WHAT? 
    Respect?  Hardly.  Is this a race, a contest, a battle for supremacy?
    
    So ruthless people win.  You've called ruthlessness one measure of
    "psychological strength."  But you agree that ruthlessness is not
    "good" in the sense that nurturing others is "good," because if you
    have to dominate others you are kind of pathetic psychologically.  So
    if strength is good and ruthlessness is _not_ good, how can ruthlessness
    indicate psychological strength? 
    
    Is psychological strength brute force or is it personal integrity,
    spirit, and courage in the face of difficulty?  
    
    I see shifting ground, here, too, like Ann.  The topic's question is a
    flat yes/no.  But I don't think it can be answered as posed.  Men and
    women face different stresses and have evolved different coping
    mechanisms ... it's like trying to ask "which is the better vehicle, a
    Ferrari or a Mack truck?"  People who are familiar with the needs of a
    sportscar driver will say a Ferrari.  People who are familiar with the
    needs of a long-distance trucker will say a Mack truck.  The problems
    are defining "better" and "purpose/usefulness of vehicle", and these
    kinds of definitions are all over the road so far in this topic.
    
    Perhaps it would be easier to discuss if it stopped being a yes/no
    question (with the disadvantages of "no win" for women either way, as
    Sharon pointed out), and became a question of "how do psychological
    stresses differ between men and women?"  
    
    One thing that springs to mind is that you think women who are bothered
    by movie titles like "Gag the Bitch" are oversensitive and neurotic.  I
    think men who make such generalizations about women (such as myself)
    could be called insensitive and out of touch with reality.  Obviously
    we disagree about what things can be legitimately termed stressful.
    
    You talk about job stress being real for men.  Someone mentioned a
    study showing that women cope with job stress (in identical jobs to
    men) better than men do.  What could be reasons for this?  That "doing
    well on the job" is something that is drummed into boys so hard that
    they identify doing a good job with being a good person?  That "being a
    nice person" is drummed into girls so hard that they don't take it so
    personally if they have a bad day at work, because that's not how they
    identfy themselves as good people?  Because boys see work as teams
    fighting competitively and girls see work as teams working together
    cooperatively?
    
    "Stronger" and "weaker" psychologically makes no sense to me. 
    Exploring differences does.
    
    Pam 
166.53GEMVAX::CICCOLINITue Jun 05 1990 17:3280
> A previous note, seemed to suggest to me that women could be
> manipulated by men more easily than men by women.

> To me, that implies some kind of psychological weakness.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.  What you fail to recognize in this
is that since everyone *can* be manipulated, it doesn't prove anything
about anyone anymore than wondering if women are weaker because they
eat food.

Women aren't manipulated "more easily" than men, just "more often".  If 
you were one of the hostages in Iran, wouldn't you suddenly *become* more 
manipulable?  I think you're looking for the answer within the person 
rather than within the circumstances, (and I too wonder why, your disclaimer
aside).

Anyone can be manipulated into anything provided they are first convinced
that their survival depends on it.  Traditionally, it is women who have
been convinced that their survival depends on pleasing and appeasing men.
And until very recently, it did.

Does this make them 'psychologically weaker' or does it just define where
in the power heirarchy they reside?  If the power heirarchy were to shift
completely around, would you find a new group of 'easily manipulable'
people?  I certainly think so.

I love RD Laing's contention that women are psychologically stronger and
I'm afraid I have to agree.  As the underdogs, held to rules they have
traditionally had no voice in creating and generally never allowed self-
expression beyond the limits defined by men, women have managed not only
to survive, not only to thrive, but eventually even uncover the truth,
face it head on, and confront their "masters" - all while learning how
to survive in the work world, pay their own rent and raise the next gener-
ation!  Is this the mark of a psychologically weak person?

It's relatively easy to survive and be successful in a world that is
set up and prepared for you to do so.  It takes enormous psychological 
strength to buck the tide and get anywhere.  I've always wondered too
why more women don't crack.  But they still smile, most are still hopeful
and most still attempt relationships with men.  And women with children are
the strongest of the lot - because they have to be.

> I'm looking to explore what I feel is a myth - that men control women 
> more than women control men

It's no myth.  You're taking the situation out of context, assuming you
can erase generations of women's experience of total deference to males 
and just "start all over" from an equal base.  That would be real nice
but it doesn't work that way.  True, women can pay their rent, but most
are still uneasy about displeasing men - the feminists "in the closet"
that I referred to in another note.  Most know the new rules and freedoms
but they also remember life in the 50s, and the lives their mothers and 
grandmothers lived.  Freedom from male dominance is very, very new and
most women only test it out occasionally and in the most tenuous ways.

So how can a woman manipulate a man, anyway?  By witholding sex?  How
frightening.  It would seem to me that a man makes a choice to be manipulated
to get the sex.  In that case he's being done in by his own hormones,
willingly giving a power to a particular woman.  

A woman, on the other hand, is easily manipulated by fear of spinsterhood,
(a fear that feminism is working to defuse, thankfully), but mostly by
the very real fear of physical retaliation.  You call the consequences for 
the two sexes equal?  Maybe I need to understand more about what you mean 
when you talk about women manipulating men.

>	And I think the same of men who react with fear because of other 
>    film titles, which may suggest male submission, or harm to males.

Do you think they feel the same way in prison?  That such movies are *just*
movies?  Perhaps you're forgetting about the "close to home" aspect of
it.  You've probably never been the victim of crude sexual assault and
as a young, healthy male, probably can't really imagine it in a serious
light.  If you were ever a victim, or ever able to empathize with one, 
"Gag the Bitch" wouldn't seem so innocuous.  There is a bit of an in-
sensitive and cavalier attitude in your words here.  Not everyone moves
through life with the freedom, strength and self-confidence of a young
white male.  In fact, most don't.  May I suggest you step down, step
back, and think beyond your own nose a bit.
    
166.54WMOIS::B_REINKEtreasures....most of them dreamsTue Jun 05 1990 19:456
    thanks Sandy
    
    every once in a while you crystalize just what I've been thinking
    about something in better words than I can muster.
    
    BJ
166.55The Women have itHYSTER::DELISLEWed Jun 06 1990 17:1823
    There are many other types of "control" besides psychological control -
    there's physical control, economic, and actual legal control.  All are
    often confused or mistaken for psychological control.
    
    Consider - women did'nt have the right to vote until the early 1900s,
    1920? I believe.  Thus they had no influence over who governed them.
    
    Women could not own property until the 1800s (?), thus they had very
    little influence or control over their own economic power.  If they did
    own property after it became legal, the property automaticlaly became
    their husband's upon marriage.  You think that isn't control?
    
    Of course, males are for the most part physically bigger and stronger
    than females, enabling males to control in that arena too.
    
    Actually, it would be surprising to me if women WEREN 'T
    psychologically stronger than men (I beleive women are) because that
    was the only way, for the longest time, that women could control their
    world - through men.
    
    In general, yes I do believe that women are far stronger
    psychologically than men.
    
166.56This makes no senseRANGER::R_BROWNWe&#039;re from Brone III... Thu Jun 07 1990 16:1741
   I have followed this discussion very closely, and the more I have read
the more pointless it seems to me.

   We are talking about two different forms of humanity, with physical and
psychological characteristics that complement each other. It seems illogical
to me that groups with complimentary characteristics should be wondering which
is "stronger" and which "weaker". "Stronger" and "weaker"  are meaningless here.

   The pre- human forms of humanity survived hostile conditions partly because
the two sexes complimented each other. The human race evolved and gained
dominance on this planet mostly because the uniting of the two complimentary
sexes created a force greater than the sum of that created by either sex alone.

   While individuals vary, in general members of one sex has strengths where
members of the other does not. This is why HUMANITY is so resiliant and 
adaptable; as a race humanity has what it needs to survive differing conditions and situations
because between the two sexes we have any characteristic we could possibly 
need -- from territorialism to cooperation, from the qualities of mercy to
total ruthlessness (and for your information, some ancient cultures equated
the qualities of mercy and gentleness to the Male Principle and the quality
of power and ruthlessness to the Feminine. Its all a matter of what framework
you choose, since the more spiritual beliefs have it that ALL qualities are
inherent in ALL PEOPLE).

   No, the women don't have it. Neither do the men. The only reason why
ruthless people "win" or are "on top"  is because the current world culture 
values ruthlessness over its opposite. And the only reason why women have
survived and thrived despite oppression is because THEY HAD TO.

   Women are stronger than men in some ways. Men are stronger than women in 
others. Our society values "strength" in limited ways, and so depending on
the framework you choose you can SAY that one sex is stronger than the other.

   You can SAY it, but it wouldn't be true.

   Nothing meaningful or permanent in this world comes from the characteristics
of either sex alone. It is the union of these characteristics -- within as well
as without -- which brings out the true strength of the human race.

                                                             -Robert Brown III
166.57no!COBWEB::SWALKERlean, green, and at the screenThu Jun 07 1990 16:5535
Robert,

    I can't accept a good portion of what you have to say.  To me, to refer
    to men and women as "two different forms of humanity, with physical and
    psychological characteristics that complement each other" is to glorify
    sexism.  Just because men and women are complements physically doesn't
    mean they do so psychologically as well.  In fact, it doesn't mean there
    is *any* difference psychologically.

    We do not know why the human race evolved and gained dominance on this 
    planet.  Strictly speaking, we do not even know *if* that is the case,
    we are only drawing a reasonable conclusion from a preponderance of 
    evidence.  We have no *idea* what either sex alone might have done,
    had human beings been able to reproduce asexually.

    Individuals do vary.  But I'm not at all convinced that, when speaking
    about psychological differences, that a person's sex is responsible for
    any part of that variance.  But a preponderance of evidence suggests 
    that personal experience is.  To the extent that gender is connected to 
    societal experience, I believe that yes, there are psychological 
    differences between men and women.  However, that does not mean that
    they are positive.

    I can accept your statement that "the uniting of the two complimentary
    sexes created a force greater than the sum of that created by either 
    sex alone" on a purely physical level (e.g., Joe and Mary could create
    a third human being together but not by themselves), but I cannot
    accept it's psychological parallel as either logical or true.

    Sexism is not okay, it's not justified, and it's certainly not worth 
    glorifying.

	Sharon

166.58Needs more workHARDY::EVANSOne-wheel drivin&#039;Thu Jun 07 1990 17:2919
    RE: .57
    
    .....and, since psychology-as-we-know-it has been defined, quantified,
    and described by white males, we have absolutely no idea how
    extensively that has affected what we view as one's psychology.
    
    Freud& Friends said that the child must separate from the mother in
    order to be psychologically "healthy". But how much of that was due to
    the view that *male* children must separate, or not grow up into
    "manly" men?  We simply have no idea what "male" psychology and
    "female" psychology are, and how they are different. We only know what
    white, mostly sexist, males *hypothesized* along those lines. 
    
    A lot of the work being done today by Jean Baker Miller, et. al. is
    putting to rest some of the theories of The Forefather Shrinks, but
    we don't know nearly enough in this area.
    
    --DE
    
166.59Variety? What's "variety"?REGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Thu Jun 07 1990 17:395
    ... but we do know that psychology students are warned not to use
    minorities or women in their studies, or their results will be
    wrong.
    
    						Ann B.
166.60I believe you missed my pointRANGER::R_BROWNWe&#039;re from Brone III... Thu Jun 07 1990 18:4120
Referencing: 166.57:

   Please explain to me how you got a "glorification of sexism" out of
my statements in 166.56.

   Because when you really look at it, you may find that I was pointing out
the uselessness of attempting to determine if women were weaker psychologically
than men. My main point was and is that attempting to do so is pointless 
because (a) what makes humanity great is the fact that the two sexes compliment
each other, (b) because they complement each other, terms like "stronger" and
"weaker" don't apply, and (c) it all doesn't matter anyway because different
societies create different frameworks which define different qualities which
are "male" and "female"; consequently it is not possible to define one set
of characteristics which makes one sex "strong" anyway.

   Where does a "glorification of sexism" come into these statements? I 
really am curious.

                                                    -Robert Brown III
166.62no, I think I just _extended_ your point.COBWEB::SWALKERlean, green, and at the screenThu Jun 07 1990 22:5746
Re: .60 (Robert)

In saying that the two sexes complement each other, you are saying 
that there is some fundamental, inherent difference.

Sure, you don't say that women are _worse_ or _weaker_, but in arguing
that this 'fundamental difference' be respected, you are laying the
framework for it to be *extended* to value judgements.  Because as long
as people believe that class X is *different* from them, they can justify
discrimination against class X because of class X is, in some undervalued
realm in their society, "superior".  (Note the common conception that 
women have an instinct for raising children and are therefore better at
it).

In arguing that it is ridiculous to judge men and women by the same 
scale because they are _different_, you deflate the stronger/weaker
argument, but at the same time put the differences between the sexes
in the realm of birthright.  "Humanity is great because the sexes
complement each other", you assert.  But what does this mean?  That
they each are capable of making contributions that the other is not.
That they, by birth, have certain complementary roles that, when 
fulfilled together, make the human race great.

Well, I don't happen to think humanity is so great.  In fact, I think
that humanity would be a lot better if sex-based 'complementary roles'
were abolished, and roles were defined in terms of personal strengths
and preferences.  I see *no basis* for the belief that women and men
are inherently different psychologically, *none*.  Which means that
"stronger" and "weaker" still don't apply, because both quantities 
are *exactly the same*.

1/4 of the pie is as complementary to 3/4 of the pie as 1/2 is to 1/2,
and over the years this fact has gained great mileage among those folks
that believe in inherent complementary differences.

"Complementary differences" arguments have curtailed women's access 
to the halls of power for centuries.  I know you didn't mean it this
way, but you argued that it's those complementary differences (which
you don't question!) that have made humanity *great* (!!)  

That's where glorification of sexism comes in.  "Apples and oranges"
arguments work great for combating comparisons of strong and weak...
until you're an "apple" trying to get an "orange" job.

    Sharon

166.63Yes, you've REALLY missed itRANGER::R_BROWNWe&#039;re from Brone III... Fri Jun 08 1990 03:0567
Referencing 166.62 (Sharon):

   Thank you for your clarification. It was very helpful, though not in the way
one might expect.

   Based on your clarifications, I must state that my initial thoughts were
correct. You have, indeed, extended A point, but the point you've extended was
not mine.

   At no point in any of my entries on this subject have I even speculated on
the root source of the differences between men and women. In fact, I haven't
even called the differences "inherent". I have simply stated that the sexes
are complimentary; the term "fundamental, inherent difference" is yours, not
mine.

   Such things are fun to speculate on sometimes, but they really do
not concern me. You can point to experiential and societal factors to explain
the differences -- and your explanation would be as good to me as any other.
Well, slightly better maybe; I tend to believe that there is a combination of
things (experience being one factor) which create complimentary psychologies
between the sexes.

   And any "framework" that you see me laying for value judgements is illusory.
Since my only statements were that the sexes are complimentary, and since at no
point have I mentioned the kinds of "strengths" in women that you mention (such
as their so- called "instinct" for raising children), then any justification of
discrimmination against women that anyone can get out of my arguments is
equally illusory. In fact, at no point have I specified the ways in which I
think the sexes are complimentary (I was never asked), so any ideas in that
area that you express are (again) yours, not mine.

   And frankly, such areas as child- rearing are not what I have in mind when I
mention the complimentary nature of the sexes.  You can also forget any
other "undervalued realm" that you may be thinking about. In all my statements
on this subject please understand that I am speaking of the forces and
qualities that have helped build and shape human civilization -- not those
which maintain secondary or "undervalued" roles in it.

   Speaking of roles: that too is your term, not mine. At no point have I
mentioned any "roles" that members of either sex "fullfill" in order to make the
human race great. In fact, I was careful NOT to use that term because it really
has no bearing on what I was trying to convey. It is the union of the
complimentary characteristics of men and women that have made humanity great,
not some set of "roles" that members of the two sexes may have "fullfilled".
The kind of union I am speaking of does not require members of either sex to
play any specific "roles"; in fact, it almost requires that all "roles" be open
to all people.

   I do agree that "complimentary differences" arguments have hindered women in
many societies, but you are also correct in stating that I "didn't mean it this
way". As I hope I've made clear by now, I have no need to "question" the
complimentary differences that you are questioning, because they bear no
resemblance to what I am talking about!

   And about "apples" trying to get "orange" jobs: again these terms are yours.
I am indeed using an "apples and oranges" argument, but at no point have I even
indicated any definitions of a proper "apple" role or job, or any proper
"orange" role or job. So again: you have extended something, but not my
argument.

   In other words: yes, you have missed my point -- more completely than I
originally thought. But now I do understand how you got "glorification of
sexism" from my previous entry. Again: thank you for the clarification.

                                                    -Robert Brown III

166.64LUNER::MALLETTBarking Spider IndustriesFri Jun 08 1990 09:0262
    re: .62 (Sharon)
    
    � . . .in arguing that this 'fundamental difference' be respected, 
    � you are laying the framework for it to be *extended* to value 
    � judgements.  Because as long as people believe that class X is 
    � *different* from them, they can justify discrimination against
    � class X. . .
    
    While I agree that the perception of difference has long been used
    as justification for (negative) discrimination, I don't agree that
    suggesting that there are fundamental differences supports *per
    se* a "glorification" of sexism.  That difference is used to 
    justify prejudice says something about the mechanism of prejudice,
    but difference is also used to justify celebration and honoring.
    For instance, some people see differences in religious sects as
    reason to celebrate the many faces of The Godess/God.  Others
    see those same differences as justification for war.  It seems
    to me that those who are taught from birth to value differences 
    will likely do so; those who're taught to hate them will learn that
    lesson instead.
    
    � I see *no basis* for the belief that women and men are inherently 
    � different psychologically, *none*. 
    
    I respect your opinion, but I disagree.  Psychology is, at best
    an imprecise and growing science.  One of the areas that is only
    beginning to be somewhat understood is the relationship between
    physiology and psychology.  There is more than a little evidence
    to support the theory that how I think and feel is significantly
    affected by my physiology.  The chemistry of my body does appear
    to bear on my thoughts and feelings.  
    
    Based on naturally different body chemistries, I think it's 
    reasonable to suggest that men and women may well have inherent
    psychological differences.  But just because there may be 
    differences, I agree with you that the ideas of "stronger"
    and "weaker" still don't obtain.  I may be different physio-
    logically from a man of another race yet we may be of equal
    physical strength or one of us may be measurably stronger
    or weaker.  
    
    And all of this takes me back to where I was back in .4:  I still 
    don't see any objective/empirical way of defining and measuring 
    psychological "strength".  Lacking that, I tend to agree with
    (can I *really* be saying this) Mike Zarlenga - absent some sort
    of proof to the contrary, I would make the assumption that women
    and men are of equal psychological strength.  In honesty, I take
    a more agnostic approach to it.  As far as I can tell and at least
    for today, it cannot be known.  I can cite examples for both sexes
    of superhuman psychological strength or endurance under stress;
    and I can cite examples of breakdown of each.  I can't honestly
    say that I think that my examples prove anything about women
    or men as a class.
    
    Steve
    
    Incidentally, Sharon, I agree that "complementary differences"
    has been used against classes of people.  However, once again
    I think this tells us more nature of the dynamics of prejudice
    than it does about whether or not differences do, in fact, exist.
    
    
166.65SorryREGENT::BROOMHEADDon&#039;t panic -- yet.Fri Jun 08 1990 09:595
    Mike,
    
    I'm afraid I was speaking only the truth.
    
    							Ann B.
166.66so, what *are* these complementary characteristics?COBWEB::SWALKERlean, green, and at the screenFri Jun 08 1990 11:4640
Robert,

    I don't think you're seeing my point.  I'm not trying to put words in 
    your mouth, just stating that if one accepts the viewpoint that the 
    sexes are complementary, that there is then the question 'why?'.

    "Complementary characteristics" could be inborn, or they could be 
    assigned by society.  The former type of option is potential 
    justification for discrimination, the latter is discrimination 
    in practice.  This is what "complementary" usually leads to, whether 
    the original proponents of the idea mean it that way or not (and it's 
    pretty clear from your original note that you probably didn't mean to
    imply that at all, but for anyone who accepts your argument, it's still 
    *the next logical step*.)

    If all roles are open to all people, why does the division have to
    be along gender lines?  Why can't it be the short people complementing
    the tall people, for example, or the young complementing the old?

    You say you're not referring to societal 'roles' here.  I gave an
    example of one type of 'role' - nurturing children - but a role could
    be any form of expression of a "complementary characteristic".  What
    are the complementary characteristics you envision, and of what use
    are they if they do not translate into actions?  This is not a
    rhetorical question; I am seriously curious here.

    If one accepts the viewpoint that complementary characteristics between
    the sexes are have made humanity great (which I believe is a fair
    representation of what you said), then one must either believe that
    these differences are inherent (e.g., different body chemistry), or
    that society has created them, in which case saying that they have
    made humanity great is **justifying** society's creation of these
    differences (which has been, more often than not, *at women's expense*).

    Is that clearer?

	Sharon

    (P.S. Yeah, Steve, I agree with the agnostic approach.)

166.67Vice-versaHARDY::EVANSOne-wheel drivin&#039;Fri Jun 08 1990 11:487
    RE: .64 - chemistry of the body bearing on thoughts and feelings
    
    Thoughts and feelings also bear on the chemistry of the body. It's not
    yet clear which affects the other more, less, alternately, etc. 
    
    --DE
    
166.68LUNER::MALLETTBarking Spider IndustriesFri Jun 08 1990 12:067
    re: .67 (Dawn)
    
    Most assuredly (wish I'd had the presence of mind to remember
    that and include it).  All in all, it just adds to my confusion,
    difficult tho' that may be to believe. . .
    
    Steve
166.69Better confused than Brick-headed, eh, Steve?HARDY::EVANSOne-wheel drivin&#039;Fri Jun 08 1990 12:148
    RE: .68
    
    At least we're all confused together. It's better than being sure you
    "understand" everything, much like some of the Forefather Shrinks
    seemed to... 
    
    --DE