Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sdccs6.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdccs6!ix241 From: ix241@sdccs6.UUCP Newsgroups: net.singles Subject: Re: "forward women" Message-ID: <1681@sdccs6.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Aug-84 11:37:33 EDT Article-I.D.: sdccs6.1681 Posted: Tue Aug 7 11:37:33 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Aug-84 00:52:01 EDT References: <441@ames.UUCP>, <1260@nsc.UUCP>, <2942@alice.UUCP>, <2916@watcgl.UUCP> Organization: U.C. San Diego, Computer Center Lines: 21 >Assume that it is true that 9 times out of 10 (or 19 times out of 20) >it doesn't pay for the woman to phone the man. >By the same argument, 5 times out of 10 it doesn't pay for the man to >phone the woman (because she's uninterested, or him phoning will make >her less interested). Should men then not bother phoning either? >Suppose that it is true that 9 times out of 10, women would rather not >be treated as complete equals? Should men then not do so? >Why is "it's easier" considered a sufficient reason for a woman >to take advantage of a situation where she seems to have the advantage, >but that's not an acceptable reason for a man doing exactly the same thing? "Of course the game is rigged. But if you don't bet, you can't win!" L. Long (aka RAH) John Testa UCSD Chem sdccs6!ix241