Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Re Joyce, but maybe it's still women who are being short-changed
    by this lack of concern by the medical community in regard to rapists,
    since, for the most part, it is women who get raped, and women who
    would benefit most if there were fewer rapes?
    
    Just a thought!
    
    Lorna
    

Gee, Lorna, that old global conspiracy idea again?


It's only recent that the medical community has started to take at all
seriously the notion that hormonal imbalances can affect behavior.  There
has probably been more study of women because of the long-held notion that
women are subject to "raging hormonal influences", but men are not.  I would
presume that as some of the research shows that women's behavior CAN be
influenced by chemical imbalances, that some would start to look at men
as well.

But the subject is more difficult in men because of the nature of the effects.
In women, it's pretty simple to take a group of women and chart their
behavior against their monthly cycle, with its known variations in hormonal
levels.  Men don't have these obvious swings - any behavioral changes caused
by hormones in men would be longer term and much more difficult to prove
a connection for.

I am not thrilled about the idea of someone being held less responsible for
their actions because of chemical imbalances.  It all reeks to me of
the "Twinkie Defense".  Yet I support the research into this subject, and
if we can find a way to treat people for chemical imbalances, male or female,
so much the better.

I just don't expect to see "Midol for Men" being advertised on TV anytime
soon...

					Steve

    re .2, Steve-
    
    > I am not thrilled about the idea of someone being held less
    > responsible for their actions because of chemical imbalances.
    
    Hmmm....seems to me it could as easily go the other way..."yes,
    your honor, the defendant's medical profile does correlate with
    the well-established classic 'rapists' profile..."
    
    I agree with your call for research to understand the facts.
    
    DougO

    Re .2, Steve, I don't recall ever suggesting there was a global
    conspiracy in regards to the issues raised in .0.
    
    Joyce had suggested that medical science is paying more attention
    to the study of how PMS affects women than it is to the study of
    how chemical imbalances may affect the actions of rapists.  She
    suggested that this might be construed as prejudice against men
    because men's problems were not getting as much attention from medical
    science as women's problems.  I merely commented that, if you stop
    and think about it, rape is really more of a problem for women than
    it is for men, since women are *usually* the people who get raped,
    so therefore maybe it isn't a case of prejudice against men afterall,
    but simply a case of unconcern about women being raped.  I don't
    think it's a *GLOBAL CONSPIRACY.*  I do think the lack of concern
    in trying to study what may cause men to rape women may be an example
    of the lack of concern for the fact that women do get raped, and
    perhaps an extension of the belief that women who do somehow deserved
    it.  But, not a GLOBAL CONSPIRACY.   Definitely not a GLOBAL
    CONSPIRACY.
    
    Lorna
    

    Re: .4
    
    Lorna, please reread Joyce's note.  She did not say that there was
    prejudice against men, but rather that men had been "shortchanged" -
    quite a different thing.  Joyce is saying that there has been very
    little research into this area concerning men, but quite a bit
    concerning women.  And I agree.
    
    I suppose my little tweak about "global conspiracy" is a result
    of reading too many notes in another conference about how everything
    bad that happens to women is because men (that is, the male sex of
    the entire human species) conspire to bring it about.  I don't know
    why we seem to be so intent on finding villains lurking around every
    corner.
    
    				Steve

    Re .5, Steve, re global conspiracy by men, one of my girlfriends
    told me once that all teenage boys are sent to a school somewhere
    where they are taught how to treat women like sh*t.  So, are you
    saying she was wrong and this school doesn't exist?  Or, maybe she
    was right, and somehow *you* got excluded from the conspiracy, Steve,
    and no one told you when to report for your training! :-)
    
    re Joyce's note, I was trying to say that not studying chemical
    levels in the body in order to research the causes of rape, really
    short changes women more than it does men, because usually it is
    women who get raped.  
    
    Lorna
    

Re: .6

Yes, I guess I missed getting sent to that school.  Must have been the same
one that taught teenage girls to only be attracted to boys who attended it.


There are many other kinds of unacceptable behaviors that some attribute
to chemical imbalances.  I don't think it serves a purpose to argue back
and forth as to who's been "shortchanged".

We already have two kinds of behavioral problems, attributed to chemical
imbalances, that have been used as a defense for women who have committed
violence, namely PMS and post-partum depression.  There's been quite a
bit of study of these because they are associated with identifiable events
which makes them easier to study.  It's going to be more difficult to
identify similar problems in men that influence behavior.

I agree with Doug that if this area of medicine gets too much more developed,
we may indeed see people discriminated against because of the various
levels of hormones in their body and not what they have actually done.
I can see that there will be convincing arguments for both sides, though.
Is there perhaps a middle ground where we can help people without engaging
in a new form of unjust discrimination?

					Steve

    re.6
    Geez I missed that school too!
    So did you believe her?
    
    -j