Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 Hi Judith Well the diabetes thing is just wake up call I think rather than the full syndrome, and with my oveweight and sugar bingeing, I've been rather expecting it... and I *will* wake up. I expect it can be totally controlled by what I need to do anyway, that is cut down my total food, especially sugar, consumption. There is a known link between eating disorders and anxiety. Carbohydrate can be used by the brain to make serotonin that calms you down, and boy, do I get anxiety. Sugar bingeing can set up an insulin surge that produces a reactionary drop in sugar that provokes another binge. After a while you can make antibodies against your own insulin which stops it working, bringing on the diabetes. I am concerned, but I know I can beat this thing. I did it before. I did it in OA, but I havent been back because largely through this group I know its not necessary and may even make me more depressed and anxious. Perhaps a non 12-step support group could be helpful. I *might* give the odd meeting a try, but I'll be very careful to avoid the BS. Tx for your concern, P. > > > HI > > > > I hate having blood taken too. Just had a pinprick this morning to test > for diabetes - and it looks like I've got it. Hmmph! not too surprised > really, the way I've been abusing sugar. Well all the more reason to sort > myself out. All the same, I'm sacred - I like my feet and retinas enough to > want to keep them. > > > > The hair for benzos is unnecessary but at least not very invasive. The > thought occurs to me if you need a signature for proving AA attendance, just > meet me for coffee and I'll sign it. You have to be alcohol abstinent > anyway to meet the blood test, so I'm not 'enabling' you in any way. Any > two ppl can call themselves an AA group, so you and I can be one and elect > me Secretary. > > > > I can meet up most conveniently sometime this week. If you like, mail me > backchannel with your work phone and we can arrange it. > > > > We could start an AA/NA resistors club, which has AA/NA " meetings " for > the sole purpose of signing slips and sending ppl home. Nothing to stop us > having coffee and a chat too though. > > > > P. > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 Do you have Weight Watchers in the UK? It may not suit your taste either but several of my friends have found it helpful. > > > > > HI > > > > > > I hate having blood taken too. Just had a pinprick this morning > to test > > for diabetes - and it looks like I've got it. Hmmph! not too > surprised > > really, the way I've been abusing sugar. Well all the more reason to > sort > > myself out. All the same, I'm sacred - I like my feet and retinas > enough to > > want to keep them. > > > > > > The hair for benzos is unnecessary but at least not very > invasive. The > > thought occurs to me if you need a signature for proving AA > attendance, just > > meet me for coffee and I'll sign it. You have to be alcohol > abstinent > > anyway to meet the blood test, so I'm not 'enabling' you in any way. > Any > > two ppl can call themselves an AA group, so you and I can be one and > elect > > me Secretary. > > > > > > I can meet up most conveniently sometime this week. If you like, > mail me > > backchannel with your work phone and we can arrange it. > > > > > > We could start an AA/NA resistors club, which has AA/NA > " meetings " for > > the sole purpose of signing slips and sending ppl home. Nothing to > stop us > > having coffee and a chat too though. > > > > > > P. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________ > > Say Bye to Slow Internet! > > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 > Do you have Weight Watchers in the UK? It may not suit your taste > either but several of my friends have found it helpful. HI Kayleigh I have thought of them but they seem too artifical and commercial to me. I doubt Stanton would approve. We do have an Eating Disorders Association that has lists of lots of available resources. A friend of mine goes to both OA and a group called the Fat Women's Group " which is totally the opposite of OA. Given the 'hemineglect' of men in this instance, it might have to be OA and 12sf. Maybe I could start f2f 12sf group? Good grief, think of the shitstorm that could land on me. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that I doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like the groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get what they want. > > Do you have Weight Watchers in the UK? It may not suit your taste > > either but several of my friends have found it helpful. > > HI Kayleigh > > I have thought of them but they seem too artifical and commercial to > me. I doubt Stanton would approve. > > We do have an Eating Disorders Association that has lists of > lots of available resources. A friend of mine goes to both OA and a > group called the Fat Women's Group " which is totally the opposite of > OA. Given the 'hemineglect' of men in this instance, it might have to > be OA and 12sf. Maybe I could start f2f 12sf group? Good grief, think > of the shitstorm that could land on me. > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that I > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like the > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get what > they want. I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an issue about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre ENTITLED. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 Sometimes it is about getting what you are entitled to, but not always, by any means. > > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that I > > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like the > > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get what > > they want. > > I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an issue > about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre ENTITLED. > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 -----Original Message----- >Sometimes it is about getting what you are entitled to, but not >always, by any means. Hmmm... I'm having some trouble thinking of a significant exception. Surely anyone who believes that he has been unfairly discriminated against believes that he has been denied something to which he is morally entitled. Can you come up with a counter-example that is neither (a) an instance of *fair* discrimination [possible example: charging higher auto insurance rates to young drivers] nor ( the result of a difference of opinion about what constitutes fairness? --wally > > >> > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that >I >> > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like >the >> > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get >what >> > they want. >> >> I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an >issue >> about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre ENTITLED. >> >> P. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 Hi Pete: Sorry to hear about the diabetes thing. That sucks dude. Seems like you've been hit with a lot of negatives lately. I'm wishing you the best in it all. I couldn't resist this but as you've done for me so now shall I do it to err...for you Actually old man discrimination is about not getting what you're entitled. The three of you are making it hard for me to stay out of this because it's an issue near and dear to my heart but one for which I know I have to practice restraint. > Re: Hey Pete > > > > > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that I > > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like the > > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get what > > they want. > > I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an issue > about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre ENTITLED. > > P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 > > > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that I doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like the groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get what they want. > > I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an issue about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre ENTITLED. if you think you're entitled to anything (and I mean _anything_), you are going to be waiting a long time and expending a lot of energy trying to convince the other 6 billion people on the planet that you deserve to get in front of them in line. judith, somewhere about 4.5 billion deep in the line herself and fighting for every step she takes forward _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 No cuts Judith. I was there first. > Re: Re: Hey Pete > > > > > judith, somewhere about 4.5 billion deep in the line herself and fighting > for every step she takes forward > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 Woman is sexually harassed during job interview, & does not get job. Turns out she is a convicted felon and wouldn't have gotten job anyway -- company does not hire convicted felons. Discrimination? Probably. Entitlement? No. > >> > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say that > >I > >> > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like > >the > >> > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get > >what > >> > they want. > >> > >> I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an > >issue > >> about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre ENTITLED. > >> > >> P. > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 Rebuttal: she was entitled to fair and unbiased consideration for the job, and to freedom from sexual harassment during the interview. --wally Re: Hey Pete >Woman is sexually harassed during job interview, & does not get job. >Turns out she is a convicted felon and wouldn't have gotten job >anyway >-- company does not hire convicted felons. Discrimination? >Probably. > Entitlement? No. > > >> >> > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say >that >> >I >> >> > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like >> >the >> >> > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get >> >what >> >> > they want. >> >> >> >> I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an >> >issue >> >> about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre >ENTITLED. >> >> >> >> P. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 I don't think we disagree about this. In what way have you rebutted me? > >> >> > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say > >that > >> >I > >> >> > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, like > >> >the > >> >> > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always get > >> >what > >> >> > they want. > >> >> > >> >> I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt an > >> >issue > >> >> about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre > >ENTITLED. > >> >> > >> >> P. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2000 Report Share Posted August 2, 2000 Pete's original assertion was that discrimination involved entitlement. You denied this. I asked for a counter-example. You provided a case which you said involved discrimination but not entitlement. I rebutted by claiming that there was SOMETHING (albeit not the job itself) to which the job applicant was entitled. Now if we don't disagree about my rebuttal, then we have here a case that involves both discrimination and entitlement, which therefore cannot be a counter-example to the proposition that discrimination always involves the denial of something to which someone is entitled. --wally -----Original Message----- >I don't think we disagree about this. In what way have you rebutted >me? > > >> >> >> > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say >> >that >> >> >I >> >> >> > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, >like >> >> >the >> >> >> > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always >get >> >> >what >> >> >> > they want. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt >an >> >> >issue >> >> >> about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre >> >ENTITLED. >> >> >> >> >> >> P. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2000 Report Share Posted August 3, 2000 From a legal standpoint, however, she was not entitled to damages because she was not entitled to the job. Equally, if every applicant had been subjected to the same treatment, male and female, it would not even be discrimination. There would be a case for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the interviewer -- no matter which scenario -- but the relevant issue is that in neither case was the employer liable as to the job, but only, perhaps, in the second scenario for negligence. Perhaps I tend to see things too legalistically. In the actual event, I had a client fitting these exact facts. The company asked the interviewer to undergo a lie detector, which he did, and the results were indeterminate. Regardless, they fired him immediately, and did pay damages ($1200 -- lunch money to them) out of the goodness of their heart and because they obviously believed my client and were appalled at the employee's behavior. > >> >> >> > Your second use of the word " hemineglect " prompts me to say > >> >that > >> >> >I > >> >> >> > doubt Judith meant white men are whining, only that they, > >like > >> >> >the > >> >> >> > groups who claim to be discriminated against, don't always > >get > >> >> >what > >> >> >> > they want. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I think I only said it *sounded* like it. Discrimination isnt > >an > >> >> >issue > >> >> >> about getting what you want, it's about getting what youre > >> >ENTITLED. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> P. > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2000 Report Share Posted August 4, 2000 Aha. I kind of suspected there might be a legal point of view lurking in the background. I sometimes think society sees things too legalistically in general -- assuming that people's obligations to one another are limited to things that have a cash value, that could be the basis of a lawsuit. Btw, in case it wasn't evident, I was only arguing out of curiosity... -- wally Re: Hey Pete >From a legal standpoint, however, she was not entitled to damages >because she was not entitled to the job. Equally, if every applicant >had been subjected to the same treatment, male and female, it would >not even be discrimination. There would be a case for intentional >infliction of emotional distress against the interviewer -- no matter >which scenario -- but the relevant issue is that in neither case was >the employer liable as to the job, but only, perhaps, in the second >scenario for negligence. > >Perhaps I tend to see things too legalistically. In the actual >event, >I had a client fitting these exact facts. The company asked the >interviewer to undergo a lie detector, which he did, and the results >were indeterminate. Regardless, they fired him immediately, and did >pay damages ($1200 -- lunch money to them) out of the goodness of >their heart and because they obviously believed my client and were >appalled at the employee's behavior. > > >> Pete's original assertion was that discrimination involved >entitlement. You >> denied this. I asked for a counter-example. You provided a case >which you >> said involved discrimination but not entitlement. I rebutted by >claiming >> that there was SOMETHING (albeit not the job itself) to which the >job >> applicant was entitled. >> >> Now if we don't disagree about my rebuttal, then we have here a >case >that >> involves both discrimination and entitlement, which therefore >cannot >be a >> counter-example to the proposition that discrimination always >involves the >> denial of something to which someone is entitled. >> >> --wally Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2000 Report Share Posted August 4, 2000 I was once told by a friend that once you are a lawyer, you cannot be deprogrammed. In any case, people generally do think of discrimination as a legal concept, I believe, because that's the context in which it's usually mentioned. It took a lot of contortion to get sexual harassment to fit into that category in the first place, and now people take it for granted that harassment is discrimination. As to whether society in general thinks legalistically, I couldn't say. > Aha. I kind of suspected there might be a legal point of view lurking in the > background. > > I sometimes think society sees things too legalistically in general -- > assuming that people's obligations to one another are limited to things that > have a cash value, that could be the basis of a lawsuit. > > Btw, in case it wasn't evident, I was only arguing out of curiosity... > > -- wally > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 > Sometimes it is about getting what you are entitled to, but not > always, by any means. The point was that Judith's post *only* referred to wants, not rights - and it was that I objected to. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 Hi , Tx for the support. Regarding the below, I thought someone would say what you did , and in fact wht I said was " The ISSUE of discrimination " - when phrased like this, imo my version is acceptable, albeit likely to be misinterpreted! P. > Actually old man discrimination is about not getting what you're entitled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 Sorry to get contentious, but I think talk of our " wants " is often more honest and real than talk of our rights -- our rights have to be recognised and ratified by others, and they should be, though I think " rights " are relative and provisional and can equally be denied or withdrawn by the external agencies on whom they depend. Our wants are all our own business. Yours douglas. >From: watts_pete@... >Reply-To: 12-step-freeegroups >To: 12-step-freeegroups >Subject: Re: Hey Pete >Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 14:14:15 -0000 > > > > Sometimes it is about getting what you are entitled to, but not > > always, by any means. > >The point was that Judith's post *only* referred to wants, not rights >- and it was that I objected to. > >P. > > > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 > > if you think you're entitled to anything (and I mean _anything_), you are > going to be waiting a long time and expending a lot of energy trying to > convince the other 6 billion people on the planet that you deserve to get in > front of them in line. Judith, I thought you were waving a white flag???? I'm talking abt things like the rights to life and liberty ( to begin with), for cryssakes!!! I'm not talking about wanting to come first. When such choices do have to be made, I'm talking about my fair place - which will vary from first to last with circumstances - and also I might add, talking about ensuring that OTHER PPL get their fair turns too. P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 > > > > if you think you're entitled to anything (and I mean _anything_), > you are going to be waiting a long time and expending a lot of energy trying to convince the other 6 billion people on the planet that you deserve to get in front of them in line. > > Judith, > > I thought you were waving a white flag???? Pete. You express yourself in a way that is provoking to me. I get the sense that you assume North Americans, specifically US citizens, to be drooling idiots who are priveleged to hear your point of view. I've tried to be as nice as I could with you but you can kiss that shit goodbye cuz I don't get it back. > I'm talking abt things like the rights to life and liberty ( to begin with), for cryssakes!!! Tell it to the people in refugee camps in Africa who are starving to death, or...ya know, Africa and Asia have so many people who have nothing to eat, who live in fear of their lives, and goddammit i have to live EVERY DAY with the fact that my government has contributed richly to that condition. I don't need you to rub my nose in it. > I'm not talking about wanting to come first. When such choices do have to be made, I'm talking about my fair place - which will vary from first to last with circumstances - and also I might add, talking about ensuring that OTHER PPL get their fair turns too. Have you read anything I've written over the last year? Do you think my mission in life is to deprive you or anyone else of a phd, a square meal, safe shelter, medical care? Fucking get a phd, figure out how to do it and do it. You are obviously an intelligent man and passionate in your beliefs, I think you'd rock if you could find a voice that wasn't so...I hate to say this, but self-pitying. Self-pity is a normal emotion and not something to be ashamed of, but I feel like you're laying the guilt for your condition at my feet and I just reject that outright. judith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 --- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Judith Stillwater " Self-pity is a normal emotion and not something to be ashamed of, but I feel like you're laying the guilt for your condition at my feet and I just reject that outright. Judith, I dont know where the American bit came in. Unless youre characterizing the internet as an *American* thing? I do hope not. As for the last, where the hell have I blamed you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 Pete: there was a message in what i wrote. if you are interested in knowing what i see when i look at the world, look a little harder for my perspective. i refuse to defend what i wrote or try to make it more palatable for you because, as i already pointed out, i don't see you doing a whole lot of that for me. we don't have to get along. judith > --- In 12-step-freeegroups, " Judith Stillwater " > Self-pity is a normal emotion and not something to be ashamed of, > but I feel like you're laying the guilt for your condition at my feet > and I just reject that outright. > > Judith, > > I dont know where the American bit came in. Unless youre > characterizing the internet as an *American* thing? I do hope not. > > As for the last, where the hell have I blamed you? > > > _______________________________________________________ Say Bye to Slow Internet! http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 7, 2000 Report Share Posted August 7, 2000 > Pete: there was a message in what i wrote. if you are interested in >knowing what i see when i look at the world, look a little harder for >my perspective. i refuse to defend what i wrote or try to make it >more palatable for you because, as i already pointed out, i don't see >you doing a whole lot of that for me. > > we don't have to get along. Hello Judith Please continue reading past my first paragraph below which will likely annoy you, hopefully the others wont. I got the impression you were defending your views all the time until this point, and I think your present reluctance is because you realize you have wandered into the indefensible. As for making your views more palatable, by no means do I wish you to do that, though it would be nice if you arent personally offensive, as your last post was. I make no apologies for not trying to make my views more palatable to you - your accusation that I have blamed you for my own difficulties, or any suggestion that I have been personally offensive (to you - I cop CWB) is entirely groundless. Email lists are a terrible environment to have discussions. Research (dont ask me to cite it CWB!) shows that compared to chat rooms and especially f2f conversations, they are the most likely to produce " flame wars " . This, coupled with a my hopefully fairly mild paranoia does tend to produce these kind of outcomes. Didnt we do this before a while back?? I bet we could talk to each other for years f2f and never have a serious argument over anything. I am now going to say the kind of thing that women and very PC men are allowed to say with lots of endorsement and non-PC men get jumped on for saying the same thing. I think a large part of this whole thing has just been about difference in communication styles between men and women. The more I will say about this the more I will likely be derided (not necessarily by you) so I will keep it to the bare minimum. I've seen this on TV too - in a Social Science Open University broadcast! Men generally find it easier to just straight disagree. *They're* interpreting of trying to get along is being able to accept thatr they disagree and thats all there is to it. Yes I *know* we often dont get along, but when we do, it's often like this. Women on the other hand usually try to find some kind of compromise - to come up with a kind of joint consensus that all parties can agree on. Now that can be a very useful technique for resolving conflict, and hence may have something to do with why women tend to be less aggressive than men. However, it actually gets in the way if there is no consensus and the only thing to do is acknowledge it. What I have seen happening with both your and Kayleigh's responses is I have said something which has been restated or reinterpreted by you as something that you are more comfortable with - an attempt at compromise. However, I'm not interested in compromising my view. I dont care if my view is palatable to any particular person - it's take it or leave it with me, a masculine perspective. In a similar masculine fashion, I also interpret other ppl's views in just the same way; I assume that they arent bothered about compromise either and hence wont try to and dont care if I do. Hence any restatement that actually alters the content in any way I dont like, even done in a conciliatory, wish-to-compromise fashion, I object to; and this has been the basis of why I have rejected these views. Rather than finding it conciliating, I find the rephrasing offensive. Now, I've copped to being mildly paranoid (hence the CWB thing) but despite this I still think that this is really simply a difference in gender approaches to problem solving and disagreements. You will see that practically everything Ive written could easily be construed as basically being a downer on male communication style. I have deliberately said little about female communication style as, being male and expressing the views that I am, I am sure it would be construed as sexist by many even though I am actually saying exactly the same thing as the PC Open University program did. Male communcation isnt (much of) a problem for males, because we *dont* feel we have to get along - or we can get along without feeling a need to work out compromises. The problem arises when people of opposite sexes try to communicate because both tend to not only use their own style but assume the other person is doing it too - and hence arguments like ours. I will end with an anecdote that I might have told before: I visited a young female doctor and I happended to be carrying a copy of " Men are from Mars...Women are from Venus " . (This is not my source of info and certainly not views, btw). " Thats a girlie book " she said, as if I was a little boy she found playing with dolls. " It's written by a man " I said. " Its still a girlie book " . " It's meant to help couples communicate, both men and women. " I know, but it's still something that usually only girls read " . Note, this is a succesful *professional* woman, still referring to women as girls or even girlies, and actually *shaming* me for trying to do something to help me understand how women think and feel. Her commitment to gender stereotypes was actually so strong that she thought even the attempts to overcome couples' problems was still the proper role of the woman in the relationship! It is hardly surprising that gender problems persist when this happens. I will be interested to see what effect *this* attempt at conflict resolution might have. Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.