Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v623)
In-Reply-To: <437223E4.4A835779 &AElig wayne.edu>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511081546320.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu> <437223E4.4A835779 &AElig wayne.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Message-Id: <cc2cf50a0551ea06d662d8401955ff70 &AElig umich.edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:15:56 -0500
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: "David Morris, PhD" <thecat &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: happy birthday to improvetheworld
Status: RO

Quick reply, as I've been too swamped to keep up with all of these 
emails more than skimming, despite having lots of opinions bubbling 
away in the back of my head. But I personally will come to the support 
of Dr. Reeves Sr's "joke", or at least against any vilification of the 
idea. The concept of no means maybe, maybe means yes, and yes means 
you're not polite, is true for most of society much more recently than 
the 30s, especially outside our liberal bubble of academia, and even 
quite a bit inside of it. Should it be that way? Actually, I kind of 
think so. This concept is but one element of diplomacy, soft pedaling 
what you think and feel, keeping your options open both positive and 
negative, keeping people happy. Civilization works that way. I'd say 
the problem is that it should apply to guys as well. I believe in 
equality of the sexes in regards to power in relationships and 
everywhere. But regardless of the balance of power, romantic 
relationships of all natures are tricky, complicated, potentially very 
painful for everyone involved. It's important and valuable to have a 
variety of tools, including subtle languages verbal and nonverbal to 
negotiate without hurting. I think that the concept that everything can 
be just blatantly stated in it's most simple straightforward terms is 
neive. Some people can handle that, but most people's egos cannot. Yes, 
accurate communication is important, but that doesn't mean we should 
discard social skills. This is extending beyond just this one concept, 
but as one part of it I don't think the original joke is untrue, 
unfair, or necessarily unwise.

Dave

ps- I'd show up Saturday, but won't be back to Ann Arbor until evening.

On Nov 9, 2005, at 11:29 AM, Andrew Reeves wrote:

> Happy Birthday.
>    Thanks but no thanks to the Saturday discussion party invitation.
> I feel that the debate has reached the point of diminishing returns.
> I may be foolish but I am not courageous; in fact I am scared stiff of
> a possible personal assault, judging the tone of some respondents who
> unhappily include my own daughter.
>    Just a final comment to Danny. It completely escapes me how my poor
> joke is "deeply mysogynic"; it does not deal with attitudes at all. It
> deals with semantics, and as such it it depicts pretty accurately the
> prevailing usage and manners of the 30's. Of course it exaggerates,
> but that is what makes it a joke.
>    Danny's Grandpa Andrew
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
aka thecat &AElig umich.edu, aka KB8PWY
home: 734-995-5525  UofM (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357  fax: 734-763-5567
ElectroDynamic Applications Inc.
phone: (734) 786-1434 fax: (734) 786-3235
morris &AElig edapplications.com