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