>No doubt, there are still plenty of situations
>(listervs, oui?) in which the boys natter on while the
>women, relatively speaking, sit quiet.
>
>To tell you the truth, I've long wanted to read more
>female contributions here.
>
>And listen my friends, I know you're out there in Lurk
>Town; agreeing with this, disagreeing with that and
>crafting cogent arguments but running silent - like a
>sub avoiding depth charges.
Nah. Just don't have so much time. When I do, I participate more. In general I do think that men get away with more at work, based on some personal experience and comparing notes with other women, so if listserve contributions are being made at work--in the kinds of jobs that allow that, it's a factor.
Apart from that, where do men get all this time? I'm stunned. I'm puzzled. Occasionally I'm infuriated. Men are not doing as much family care and maintenance work, that's for sure. But still, you'd think listserves were a way to participate in that fractured and disjointed time women have.
I am on a couple of female-only (non-public) lists and there's no shortage of participation (and nattering) there, but that's on exclusively feminist topics. Maybe that's where the (left) girls are.
Then there's always the possibility that women are simply more succinct, due to long experience with the impatience or disinterest registered by men when we speak for more than a few sentences.
Kelley writes:
>It was there opportunity to -- I swear -- make shit up
>because they each felt the need to prove they had actually prepared for the
>meeting by coming up with criticisms of the writing. After awhile, I
>figured out that what I needed to do was make some glaring errors. Everyone
>was happy that they found something to complain about and score points
>in the meeting.
Heh. I know a housepainter who leaves one error so the homeowner can find something to tell him to touch up. Makes things easier. It's a problem when you're good.
Jenny Brown