billbartlett at dodo.com.au:
>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'd say we developed these skills as a result of exclusion and had to find other ways to influence our situation. In a position of weakness you get pretty good at wheedling, cajoling, flattering, lying, shuffling, and other 'social skills'. I don't particularly celebrate these and in fact feminists first have to break through these to do much organizing.
> 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?
Yes, I saw a sexist jackass. Since we were women, and since we were arguing, we were all wrong, simply because we dared argue. (Our argument couldn't have significant content, of course, since we were women.) He wanted us to get back in our proper female roles--seen and not heard and certainly not more interested in each other's minds than in a man's.
> 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. ;-)
I suspect I have limited liability in this case, but in case I don't: Irreverence, yes; pain-inflicting clarity, good; anger at stupid positions, fine. Random snarling or attacks on your interlocutor's native intelligence, probably not necessary, except with officials.
Jenny Brown