Anti-war movement, Blair

billbartlett at dodo.com.au billbartlett at dodo.com.au
Mon Feb 10 06:00:06 PST 2003


At 12:16 AM -0500 10/2/03, JBrown72073 at cs.com wrote:


>There's a politics to that, of course. For example, it's one of the things
>women aren't supposed to do, argue. Arguments among women, no matter how
>contentful, are condemned as catfights because women are supposed to be
>polite and nonthreatening (and not incidentally unable to get our shit
>together by having real discussions.)

However women seem to have greater social skills than men, on average, so maybe they just have other ways of getting their point across? I wouldn't know of course, social skills are a mystery to me. All I know is that usually women are able to out-politick me before I even know the game is on. Now I'm particularly inept at politics, so that doesn't prove much, but I notice that I'm not entirely alone.

Perhaps this is why men needed to change the rules, exclude women entirely from politics? You just don't play fair.


> I remember a couple of years ago
>arguing with two women friends in an airport and a random guy walking the
>other direction told us, "You're all wrong." He knew cause we were arguing,
>see?

No, I don't see anything. That exchange is a mystery to me. How the hell could he possibly be in a position to pass judgement if he wasn't privy to the details of the conversation? How do you work out his thinking process? But you see something there. See what I mean?


> And we hadn't even gotten warmed up! Professionals are stuffed in the
>same box. New Yorkers are condemned for being argumentative, and working
>class people (especially women) are 'too loud' all around. I say pour it on.

So you reckon I should stop trying to be polite? I think I'll take your advice, but remember, you have to bear some responsibility for the results if you give advice and someone takes it. ;-)

Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list