I've had barely enough time between my show and getting sick last week= to just read the onslaught of email regarding this. I have found it = interesting and insightful and somewhat disturbing at times (as apparently = many have). However, I think whenever there is a heated debate on ema= il, we need to remember not to take things too personally. This mediu= m is very dangerous because we cannot see the person's reaction whom we rip= into and they cannot see the intent behind our words. With no direct= interaction and eye contact, it's way to easy to misinterpret these intent= ions. So Grandpa Andrew (and everyone else, for that matter), do not = take the reaction to your joke personally - this is a friendly debate over = a difficult medium. In person will be much easier, though it may get = just as heated - great idea Rob and Clare! GA, I hope you recons= ider attending the gathering on Saturday - your presence would be an h= onor, as always. I wish I could make it, however, I'm going to C= hicago this weekend.

On 11/9/05, = David Morris, PhD <thecat Æ umich.= edu> wrote:

Quick reply, as I've been too sw= amped to keep up with all of these
emails more than skimming, despite ha= ving lots of opinions bubbling
away in the back of my head. But I personally will come to the support<= br>of Dr. Reeves Sr's "joke", or at least against any vilificatio= n of the
idea. The concept of no means maybe, maybe means yes, and yes m= eans
you're not polite, is true for most of society much more recently than<= br>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
wh= at you think and feel, keeping your options open both positive and
negat= ive, keeping people happy. Civilization works that way. I'd say
the prob= lem is that it should apply to guys as well. I believe in
equality of the sexes in regards to power in relationships and
every= where. But regardless of the balance of power, romantic
relationships of= all natures are tricky, complicated, potentially very
painful for every= one involved. It's important and valuable to have a
variety of tools, including subtle languages verbal and nonverbal tonegotiate without hurting. I think that the concept that everything canbe 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
dis= card 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 wo= n't be back to Ann Arbor until evening.

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

> Happy Birthday.
>    Thanks but no t= hanks to the Saturday discussion party invitation.
> I feel that the = debate has reached the point of diminishing returns.
> I may be fooli= sh 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.
>   &nb= sp;Just a final comment to Danny. It completely escapes me how my poor
&= gt; joke is "deeply mysogynic"; it does not deal with attitudes a= t 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 exaggera= tes,
> but that is what makes it a joke.
>   &nb= sp;Danny's Grandpa Andrew
>
>
>
David P. Morris, PhD
aka thecat Æ umich.edu, aka KB8PWY
home: 734-995-5525&nbs= p; UofM (2104 SPRL): 734-763-5357  fax: 734-763-5567
Elec= troDynamic Applications Inc.
phone: (734)786-1434 fax: (734)786-3235
morris Æ edapplications.com