Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    How long does this mutation agent last?  If it is for a longer period
    of time than the gestation(?) period of 1 week, then you could have
    people flopping back and forth.  Psychiatrists would have field day, if
    they weren't going crazy themselves.
    
    As for what I would look forward to (as a male about to become a
    female), I'd say greater clothing options.
    
    Rich

>          What would you see as the bright side to all this?  Men, what would
>          you now look forward to as females?  

I'd look forward to having more choice about having children.


							--Gerry

    I wouldn't have to worry about getting a seat on a lifeboat.
    
    Larry

    I think I'd recommend a read through the Dr. Seuss story "The
    Sneetches" for anyone who wants to ponder this topic.
    
    				Steve

    This is easy ... as a woman_to_become_a_man, what I'd look forward
    to would be the anatomical advantage men have answering the
    "call of nature" while camping/fishing/hiking (especially in the
    winter)!
    
    C.
    

    I think there would be a quantum increase in the global quality of sex
    life, since everyone (with sexual experience) would FINALLY *know* what
    is sexually rewarding to that mysterious other gender.
    
    - Hoyt

    I think I'd look forward most to walking this earth with about 90% less
    fear at night than I do now (or even in the daylight).  If my relative
    strength as a woman transformed into its equivalent as a man I'd
    probably feel about 99% less fear.  
    
    I'd look forward to changing this world and this society with what I
    had come to know as a woman, yet with the power the society inherently
    gives a man.
    
    I'd look forward to showing tenderness with strength, and to
    encouraging men to show emotion and grow through nurturing themselves
    and others.  
    
    An increased metabolism would be a blessing also - dessert, here I come!
    
    -Jody
    

.1 - Not iterative, the mutation will only occur once.  As for greater clothing
     options, do you really think this is true?  In my case, my wife has closets
     full of clothes and still "has nothing to wear".  Does being a women mean
     you would succumb to massive shopping sprees?

.2 - Very true!  I wonder what would happen to the abortion issue?  Was it a
     bumper sticker that said "If men became pregnant there would be NO problem
     about legal abortions" or something like this...  And what about homosexual
     issues?  Even though you would now be a woman, your sexual preference 
     didn't change.  Would you now be "normal" relative to everyone else?

.5 - True but consider this: Would you get circumcised?  Do you need a stall for
     privacy in which to urinate; could you do it standing up next to someone
     else?  I think there was a another note somewhere titled "Women are such
     slobs"...  I remember reading it and all it's replies and being quite 
     surprised.  There was much lament about the state of women's rest rooms
     and no one had any new ideas.  I think if men ---> women, the first thing
     to be devised might be a new urinal or some type of disposable catheter
     pseudo-penis.  Wonder why no one has thought of this? 

.6 - Perhaps, but then the opposite may occur.

.7 - That's right, would RAPE be an issue?  Does physical strength now mean 
     power?  What other issues may go away and what new ones would surface?

	Just because the physical body changes, doesn't mean that the
	attitudes/mind-set will change.

	At the risk of setting off a "war" here, I would say that women
	would probably have it easy, men would not.


	In society it is "forbidden" still for men to show emotion, to
	show their internal struggles.  For women it is very accepted for
	them to do with.  There would be a lot of emotional upheaval with
	an instant role-reversal.  I feel with a woman's ability in
	society to have her self-expression accepted, she would fair
	much better than a man who's been conditioned to not express
	their innermost emotions.



	Then again, I can think of many men that would accept the change
	well, and many women that would not, so the generalization is pretty
	moot.

	kath

    Having doors opened for me, and...
    
    Getting to walk out of the elevator first.
    
    -roger
    
    
    

    What I'd look forward to:
    
      - Not having to hear any more jokes about male feminists just trying
    	to get laid
      - More comfortable pants
    
    What I'd hate:
    
      - Having to correct the spelling of my name all the time
      - The choice between sex with men-in-women's-bodies or sex with
    	women-in-men's-bodies
    
    Ray

    - a few
    
    Mike Z....
    
    How does being male preclude you from being close to your children as they 
    grow up?   Seems to me that's more a product of attitude than gender.
    
    Nanci

    
    <sarcasm on>
    
    	Oh boy. I'd have a nice emotional crutch at last.
    I could blame all my problems on those dreaded white males
    and take all the credit for my successes.
    
    <sarcasm off> 

Actually, I don't see any problems with any of the things Mike mentions....


I suppose my earlier reference to "The Sneetches" was a bit obscure.  In this
story, there are two kinds of critters called Sneetches, one with "stars upon
thars", and one without.  Those with stars looked down upon those without
and didn't invite them to picnics.  Then one day a man came into town,
telling those without stars that his machine could give them the cherished
star for "only a dollar".  They all took him up on it, and now you couldn't
tell the difference between the two kinds of Sneetches.  So now the man
told the original starred group that his machine could take OFF their stars,
and so they did, proclaiming that now Sneetches WITHOUT stars were the
"in group".  So of course those with new stars had theirs taken off (for
a dollar), and it went back and forth until they were out of money.

Though the moral of the story was that external appearances shouldn't
be used to discriminate, I also felt that it suggested that just changing the
outward indicator of membership in the "in group" (be it a star or being an
"outie" vs. an "innie"), would not by itself change individual attitudes
and social conditioning.

I think that if something like this did happen, the result would be both
sexes trying to get revenge on each other for perceived and actual wrongs.
It would not be a pretty sight.

If any good were to come of this, it would have to be that the mutation
switches back and forth, so that both sexes would know that they might someday
be the victim of discrimination or offense against the other sex.

					Steve

    Mike Z. - Perfect! Girl, girl, girl, ...
    
    Re -1 Steve:
    
    There's a very thoughtful John Varley story about a woman who elects to
    go down to the clinic and become male. Her family, children and
    husband, learn to adjust. Eventually the woman (man) changes back to
    female, but she's not quite the same, and neither is her family. It's a
    nice treatment of your idea, Steve. I think it's in the collection
    "Blue Champagne."
    
    - Hoyt

    That 30% increase in pay due to gender would be nice.
    :^)

    The first thing I'd expect would be a variant of culture shock; a
    shocked culture.  Every single person would have to deal with their
    sexual identity and preferences, not as a newly maturing adult going
    through adolescence, but, as whatever and whoever they are. 
    Comfortable women who really preferred men would suddenly *be* men.
    Who would they feel comfortable dating?  Comfortable men who preferred
    women would suddenly *be* women; who would they date?  I think
    everybody would answer that in different ways, and voila, you'd
    suddenly see everyone accepting homosexuality in others, tolerating
    it; everybody could at least identify a little bit with the
    former-male-now-female-who-still-likes-to-date-women because that's
    what's familiar, in a world gone topsy.  Intolerance of homosexuality
    would go the way of the dinosaurs.
    
    At least, as a writer, thats how I'd handle it.
    
    DougO

    That's kind of a heterocentric approach, there, DougO.  Seems to me
    that just about EVERYone who's comfortable with their sexual
    orientation would get shaken up. 
    
    The only possible winners would be gay men who prefer the company of
    women, gay women who prefer the company of men (never met one of
    these), and bies who prefer the company of confused people.
    

    Ray, a 'heterocentric approach' is exactly what I was trying to avoid.
    The effect I was trying to describe is that since everyone would be
    shaken up, nobody would be quite so sure of themselves as to condemn
    other people's activities.  Everybody would be personally aware of
    the fact that nearly all of the social conventions, nearly all of what
    we've been taught, no longer applies...and that people would be just
    thrown into the new situation with no training or counseling, just
    out there, confused, wondering if their past habits of liking
    whatever-sex-they-liked should instantly reverse, or if they should
    become same-sex oriented, or...
    
    What I tried to say is that gay-bashing in such an atmosphere would
    likely evaporate, because nobody would be so arrogantly sure of
    themselves or "what's right" any more.  Heterocentric?  You decide.
    
    DougO

>   <<< Note 518.21 by DELPHI::RDAVIS "Man, what a roomfulla stereotypes." >>>

>    these), and bies who prefer the company of confused people.


   Is it your intention to characterize bis as being "confused"??


   kath   

    >   Is it your intention to characterize bis as being "confused"??
                       -< Because that's how it reads. >-
    
    Kathy,
    
    I thought his note read that *everybody* would be confused by that
    switch.  Bis who already like both men and women would presumably only
    appreciate this switcheroo if they also like their lovers to be
    confused.  That's how I read him, anyway.  And he *did* address the
    note to me.
    
    DougO      

    what would i look forward to?
    
    NO MENSTRUAL CYCLE!!!!!!!!
    
    lee

    in re .25
    
    after 33 years of cycles and currently 'flashing' that is one
    thing I would also give up gladly.
    
    Bonnie

    If I became a woman, and my car breaks down, then someone would
    actually stop and offer help!  (People hardly ever stop for guys with
    disabled cars.)
    
    Paul
    

Re: .27

You think so?  Consider - the person who might stop knows you used to be
a man, and therefore you must know how to repair cars (it's genetic, right?)
And if the person driving by is now a man, they used to be a woman and never
learned about cars (also genetic :-)).  So why should they stop?


When thinking about this some more, it became obvious that there would be no
long-term effects of a one-time switch, since the effects would be confined
to the current generation only.  I also don't think there would be any
significant sociological shifts from a one-time switch.

				Steve

    DougO hit it on target.  My point was (and I seem to remember saying
    this) that anyone (regardless of sexual orientation) who was happy with
    their current sexual orientation would end up, um, disoriented.  With
    the possible exception of a possible subset of bisexuals who (A) didn't
    care what their own sex was, and (B) got off on disoriented people. 
    
    The (A) clause seems unlikely, but some people do find confusion
    attractive.  Movie examples include Barbara Stanwyck / Henry Fonda in
    "The Lady Eve" and Katherine Hepburn / Cary Grant in "Bringing Up
    Baby".  Crimeny, I hope no one interprets this as a claim that
    Stanwyck, Fonda, Hepburn, and Grant are all bi.  Oh, wait, I don't mean
    that they AREN'T bi, either.  Oh, forget it.
    
    Ray

    I would enjoy being a beer-swilling, crotch scratching, opinionated, 
    slob for a week (something that men get away with far better than
    women) and then I would get over it.
    	Linda

A little late and a little off the subject but regarding:         


.19>	There seem to be more mother-child activities than father-child
   >     activities for younger children.

-mike,

Turn those mom-child activities into -mike-child activities. I did
MOMS-AND-TOTS swimming with my daughter this summer. I wasn't the only
topless mom there either. (there were two)

Nice scenery!

Dave

    > When thinking about this some more, it became obvious that there would 
    > be no long-term effects of a one-time switch, since the effects would be 
    > confined to the current generation only.  I also don't think there would 
    > be any significant sociological shifts from a one-time switch.

    Steve, I would hope that disorienting an entire planet on something so
    fundamental as their gender roles would affect their viewpoints about
    every social interaction they ever again participated in.  Just from
    watching other people, they'd see, for example, women dominating
    conversations (because the people who'd been dominating conversations
    all their lives would keep doing so, and those are mostly men now.)
    That kind of disorienting shock would crop up every day!  I think it
    would cause profound sociological shifts.
    
    DougO

Re: .32

I disagree, Doug.  You're making the same assumption that many others are,
that social conditioning would instantly switch as well as gender.  I don't
believe that would happen.  I think that the former men would quickly 
establish themselves as "top of the heap" and that that other than some
temporary disorientation, not much would change in the grand plan of things.

			Steve

    Re .33: I don't think Doug was implying any kind of shift of
    conditioning; he said the now-women/former-men would continue to
    dominate the conversations (which may well be true). He then suggested
    that the observation of this might provide everybody with some insight
    (which I wouldn't count on, humanity being what it is).
    
    My opinion is that, once the initial rash of mass suicides, panic,
    looting, and head-for-the-hills behavior subsided, the people who had
    always been in charge would continue to be, primarily because they had
    the training and experience to do so. (Unless, of course, it turns out
    to be purely a person's hormones that determine who wants to/is able to
    be boss! In that case, all the former-men would become disinterested in
    running things [overtly], and the former-women would stand up and take
    charge.)
    
    But that's all too serious and grim. This was more fun as a lite
    topic...
    
    -b

.34>    But that's all too serious and grim. This was more fun as a lite
.34>    topic...
    
Sorry, folks.  I know I titled the topic "Fun with Mutations..." but I really
didn't want this to be considered "lite".  I like the turn the discussion has
taken and think it should continue as so.  Perhaps what will shakeout from a
more serious analysis will be answers as to how we may actually achieve a
better Valuing Differences environment or just more insight.  

Please continue...

    well I wouldn't be a happy camper.  I'd much rather be a woman than a
    man, for lots and lots of reasons, and I don't want to change!  The
    biggest benefit I can easily think of -- you can color the snow without
    getting so cold -- isn't enough.  So I want to be visiting the moon
    when the earth gets zapped.

    > I disagree, Doug.  You're making the same assumption that many others 
    > are, that social conditioning would instantly switch as well as gender.
    
    Well, there's certainly room for disagreement here, but lets be
    accurate; that is *not* my assumption.  I've said several times that 
    I think everyone would be very confused and shaken up in their gender
    roles and social conditioning, and that they would not instantly
    'switch'.  
    
    > I think that the former men would quickly establish themselves as 
    > "top of the heap" and that that other than some temporary disorientation,
    > not much would change in the grand plan of things.
     
    Oh, you don't think the sight of Mrs President Bush dealing with a 90%
    female Senate would have a profound effect on the way the news gets
    made and reported, upon the way the average person-in-the-street looks
    at the trappings of power and ability?  I think such a huge reversal
    would stand gender conditioning, as reinforced in our every day lives,
    on its head.  Everyone would say to themselves, "wow, thats *soooo*
    disorienting! But those women are handling it!  Wow, what baggage I've
    been carrying around in my head about what women can't do!  Wow, what
    nonsense I've always expected from other people because 'thats how men
    are, thats how women are'."
    
    In short, everybody would have all their old tapes, their old habits of
    thought, their old assumptions about what people can do, shaken to the
    core, by seeing such a reversal.
    
    When you deny it, you're suggesting that sexism doesn't play much part
    in our society today, I think.  Do you really mean that?
    
    DougO

    - more than a few...
    
    Mike -
    
    I never noticed that the fact that I'm female ever gave me anymore time
    to devote to parenting than my daughter's father had.  It's simply a
    matter of setting your own personal priorities, not a matter of gender.
    
    Nanci

Re : .37

No, I don't at all mean that sexism doesn't exist.  And in .37 I read quite
a different story from what I read into your earlier notes.  I agree with
what you say in .37 about "old tapes, old habits of thought".  But I disagree
that people would suddenly wake up to the error of their ways - instead,
those who had been on top before would do what was necessary to stay there,
and the women-turned-men would have a largely uphill battle to do anything
about it.

If you presume that the men-tuned-women don't also instantly lose their
positions in society (in Congress, in management, etc.), then it follows
that there won't be much change overall.  Individually, yes, some may become
enlightened, especially if the switch was temporary and unpredictable, but
in the grand scheme of things, no, I don't think it would matter much.

The problem I see is that you, Doug, and others are attaching absolute values
to gender, whereas I feel it is more a case of "them vs. us" that causes
most of the sexism that is rampant today.  Those who change are naturally
going to try to preserve their familiar social status, even if their
outward indicator of status has changed.

The only way I see this sort of a change making a real difference is if it
happened randomly and NOT universally.

					Steve

    Steve, there are some 'absolute values' attached to gender.  Feminists
    have mentioned before, "if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a
    sacrament".  Now you're postulating that former men in positions of
    power, who might now suddenly understand what the risk of pregnancy can
    do to a career, *wouldn't* change their ideas on who should control a
    woman's body, themselves or the government?  And how profound a change
    would that be, for some powerful person who's been proclaiming
    "right-to-life" all his born days, to suddenly be faced with a personal
    stake in the equation, reverse [her] position, and start to wonder how
    many other issues he had previously ignored that [she] would now have
    to rethink?  How many former-men would LOSE THEIR ROLES in the
    corporate world in the next 5 years because they accidently got
    pregnant and took long maternity leaves?  The more I think about it,
    the more facets of everyday life I see where gender roles have become
    so ingrained in everyday life that such a switch would profoundly
    influence the way a person would have to think about *everything*.
    
    In more general terms, I agree that its going to be a situation of
    'them vs us', but the laws and institutions of our world have so
    strongly entrenched the male position that there is no way the former
    power wielders would be able to retain those powers as new-women.  In
    their attempt to do so, they'd change the way gender is used in law and
    custom.  Can you imagine the turmoil in the Middle East?  How fast
    would laws and customs about veils and escort by males change?  That is
    admittedly an extreme example; but in our more subtly sexist western
    world, changes would also have to be made.
    
    DougO

Re: .40

The problem with statements such as "If X was Y then A" is that it's too easy
to accept them as absolute truths.  I'm not saying it's NOT true, but this
is called "argument from fantasy".  Nobody really knows.  You believe one
thing would happen, I may believe another.  It makes good discussion, but I
don't think for a moment that I have a corner on prescience.

I happen to believe that there's a lot less sexism embodied in the literal
laws than you seem to believe.  I think it's largely a matter of how the
laws are applied and interpreted by those in power.

Some things would certainly change - there may indeed be quick changes in
thinking regarding reproductive issues, but I still think that those in power
would tend to stay there and wouldn't just wilt before the "new men".  They'd
just change the rules so as to keep themselves in power.

And after 20 or 30 years, you'd be hard pressed to notice any difference.

				Steve

    OK, it is all a thought-experiment, and neither of us has a corner on
    prescience as you say.  Were I to write the book with this premise,
    you'd not even recognize the society for all the changes, 20 or 30
    years down the road.  You'd see funded abortions, daycare, dual
    parenting leave, and myriad other changes to reflect the new realities
    in social interactions, demographics, etc.  Lore about "the Great
    Change" and the scientists would still be arguing about it.  But you
    don't have to believe it, and I won't be trying to convince you.
    
    DougO

On the serious side of this idea...

There are some people who are defined by their gender who would probably have a
hard time with the change.  These are the sexist people in society, and I
believe that you'll find women in this group as well as men.

There are other people (and I think that I am one of them), who would suffer a
touch a confussion, but after a short while they would understand that it really
doesn't change who they are.  These people will continue to do as they have in
the past, if they were in power, they will remain in power.  I'd venture a guess
that most of the people in this group are already pretty successful in life, so
you wouldn't see the change in gender suddenly making someone successful.  Note
that being successful in life does not imply that you are in this group.

As for some changes in polices that affect reproductive issues, yes, there will
be some, but I think that that is the exception to the general rule that things
won't change.  Using that on my original response means that I won't have
greater clothing options.  (Shucks!  I was just starting to like the idea of
wearing a short skirt to show off my legs!)

Rich

.36>    well I wouldn't be a happy camper.  I'd much rather be a woman than a
.36>    man, for lots and lots of reasons, and I don't want to change!

I am curious, what are your reasons?

I had a thought while reading your reply...  Have we become so ingrained to our
genders that we can feel no real empathy for the other gender?  If this is true
then your statement above is sexist although I guess you probably didn't mean it
to be that way.  And we all do this!

We need to become mental hermaphrodites.  In a way, this exercise does force
this because it causes you to consider gender boundaries.

    I guess I didn't spell out any (serious) reasons for preferring to
    remain a woman because I must admit that some of them are sexist (I
    like the way women think, *whatever that is if anything*, better than
    the way men think); because some of them have to do with personality
    itself (ex, I am not a very competitive person, and men *seem* much
    more competitive than women, this is likely part innate and part
    conditioned); because I can't help but find that many of my experiences
    as a woman in our culture are impacted by men's public selves (the wolf
    whistles, being chased around desks <I am not making this up>, being
    told 'I will not consider you for this job because you are a woman',
    and more) and I don't want to become one-of-those.  You should pardon the
    expression, but identification-with-the-oppressor is a well documented
    phenomenon in psychology; I don't want it to happen to me.
    
    and besides believe it or not I am just comfortable and happy with
    being a woman.  I know what it is to be a woman, I like it, and I don't
    want to change.  (I realize that the proposed scenario does not allow
    me any choice! :-)
    
    There are other parts to it too.  I don't know what it is like to be a
    man, and don't really understand it, and so a part of me fears to
    become something so unknown (I see this as a general trait of humans).
    I don't think it is a question of empathy; if anything I have too much
    of that!  It is hard to be a woman in our society, and it is hard to be
    a man in our society too.  To me there's no point in comparing degrees
    of difficulty.  It's a damned shame that it is the way it is, and we
    all need to try to make it better for us all, without stomping on some
    other groups' pursuit of freedom.
    
    I can't deny there is some predjudice in me.  Some is based on race,
    some is based on gender.  When I was very young I thought myself free
    of predjudice, and virtuous!  Experience has taught me otherwise, and
    still teaches; I try to live and act 'right' and overcome these things.
    
                                        

    Mike -
    
    See .48.  :-)
    
    Nanci

    If everyone "changed" into the opposite sex, we'd have status quo,
    wouldn't we?  
    
    Or, are you implying that we'd all still have our "natures,"
    and our personalities, and only the body of the other sex?
                                        ----
    Bill

.51>    Or, are you implying that we'd all still have our "natures,"
.51>    and our personalities, and only the body of the other sex?
                                            ----

As originally stated, the mutation caused a "gender change".  Now, what would
this mean to you?  Would your "nature" change if you suddenly went from the
M-model to F-model body?  Don't forget that this is happening to all species
on the planet.  Your memories were "male" but reality is now "female".  You
now have a major responsibility that you didn't have before - continuation of
the species...  Do you think the females-->males would now seek to dominate
(protect?) you so that you could carry out this responsibility?  What are the
female hormones now doing to your body/mind?  What do you now fear as a female?
Who are you gonna nurture, etc?

How could you NOW apply this concept of "gender change" to Valuing Differences?

    If everybody's sex was changing, then everything would still be the
    same because, if you were married, your wife would become you husband
    and you'd be the wife.  Same for girlfriend-boyfriend, etc.  I don't
    see what the big deal is?  If you're gay, no big deal, you should
    still be attacted to who you were before.
    
    /p

>         <<< Note 518.54 by CLO::FORNER "Frank, let's go to Cheers!" >>>


	You're assuming that the visual/physical aspect of relationships
	don't exist....that a person loves another simply for what they
	are inside and that the outside has no effect.

	Take a homophobic man, change him into a woman, with all his thoughts
	and ideals intact.  Would he then be able to make love to a man
	(who was once a woman), or would his fear/repulsion of male-male
	sex get the better of him?  (Just an example, I could think of
	many other ones, this was the easiest).

	You would have a physical male (the ex-woman) making love to a
	psychological male (the ex-man).



	Would the ex-man and the ex-woman be able to over come the
	psychological factors?


	kath

    re: .-1
    
    	I don't know, but can you imagine the fun of trying?
    
    /p

    re .55 The male-changed-into-female wouldn't have to be 
    'homophobic', just strongly heterosexual, to wind up 
    totally inhibited. The idea of making love to a man doesn't 
    turn me on now, and I believe that a mere change of plumbing 
    wouldn't alter my tastes/desires. (Being a woman and engaging
    in lesbian sex, now _that_ could be interesting.)

> (Being a woman and engaging
>    in lesbian sex, now _that_ could be interesting.)

Even if you knew she was a man 'inside' ?

.55>	Would the ex-man and the ex-woman be able to over come the
.55>	psychological factors?

.55>	kath

I think you have just defined the crux of the problem which this exercise tries
to expose...  If this were the real thing, the ex-man and the ex-woman would
HAVE TO over come the psychological factors in order for the human species to
continue.

Now, with the spirit of the exercise still in your mind, what can men and women
do right now to make life more agreeable for men and women?

    re .58 That would kill it for me. As I said, I go for women,
    *real* ones. A man in a woman's body would still be a man,
    same as I would. 

    >re .58 That would kill it for me. As I said, I go for women,
    >*real* ones. A man in a woman's body would still be a man,
    >same as I would. 
    
    	So you would then be attracted to the *real* woman in a man's body
    	in that case, correct? The fact that it happened to be a man's body
    	wouldn't matter because you would be in love with the *real* woman
    	inside, or not?
    
    	This simple concept certainly generates a lot of thought. This is
    	fascinating... 
    
    	-Erik
    

    I agree with Lee and Bonnie that the biggest benefit of turning into a
    man would be no more menstrual cramps!!!  What a relief!
    
    On the down side, I'd never be able to wear most of my jewelry
    again. :-(   
    
    Maybe so many women would refuse to give up wearing their clothes and
    jewelry after turning into men, that it would become the style for men
    to dress in drag!
    
    I think that if I turned into a man, I would rather date
    women-who-used-to-be-men than other men-who-used-be-women, even though
    as a woman I'm now attracted to men.  I think I'm more curious about
    what it would be like for a man to make love to a woman, than I am what
    it would be like for a man to make love with another man.  Actually, I
    think I'd be rather confused about it.  But, that wouldn't really be
    any different for me either, because sex, dating, love and romance,
    etc., has always confused me anyway!
    
    Lorna
    

.62>    I agree with Lee and Bonnie that the biggest benefit of turning into a
.62>    man would be no more menstrual cramps!!!  What a relief!

But then wouldn't you miss knowing your body is functioning normally?  
Regular menstruation is a pretty good indication of your health, is it not?
Have you ever tried to alleviate some of this cramping?  Is this possible?

What do men need to know NOW about menstruation that would make the situation
better for women?
    
.62>    On the down side, I'd never be able to wear most of my jewelry
.62>    again. :-(   

Why do you wear it now?  Why would this change if you were to become a male?
    
.62>    Maybe so many women would refuse to give up wearing their clothes and
.62>    jewelry after turning into men, that it would become the style for men
.62>    to dress in drag!
    
Would clothes play such an important role?  Women-->Men would now be able to go
"topless" as a past reply indicated.  Do you think Men-->Women are now suddenly
gonna cover up?  Why?

People seem to assume "contemporary norms" will not change when replying to this
note...  What "contemporary norms" could we NOW do without that would make life
easier for humans?

    re .63, what contemporary norms could change to make life better?  I
    don't know.  Based on your reply to my reply, all I can think of is men
    wear dresses and very feminine jewelry and women go topless?  Is that
    the right answer?  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

>But then wouldn't you miss knowing your body is functioning normally?  
>Regular menstruation is a pretty good indication of your health, is it not?

    	It is perfectly possible for someone to be healthy and
    otherwise function normally without regular menstruation.  Regular
    menstruation is only a pretty good indicator of your reproductive
    system (and I say only "pretty good" because even when your cycles
    *seem* normal, there can be problems).  Irregular cycles are a
    lot more common than you'd think in otherwise perfectly normal
    and healthy women.

    	amy

>    *seem* normal, there can be problems).  Irregular cycles are a
>    lot more common than you'd think in otherwise perfectly normal
>    and healthy women.


	Actually, I think women with "irregular cycles" are probably
	more common than women with "regular" ones.    (Being on the
	pill doesn't count.)


	kath

    Now in the interest of fantasizing; just suppose that my husband and
    I change roles completely and totally.  The following role reversals
    would certainly appeal to me:
    
    1.  Never have to make the bed in the morning!
    2.  Never having to worry about my greying hair.
    3.  Never having to worry about my beer belly pot!
    4.  Never having to worry about who's going to bring our sons
        to football/basketball/or any ball practice!
    5.  Never worrying about what to have for supper tonight!
    6.  Never having to worry about the washing!  Ironing!  Folding!
        And the 'putting it all away.
    7.  Never having to miss those Saturday afternoon football games
        because of housework!
    8.  Never having to do dishes, just sit back in my lounge chair
        and read the paper.
    9.  After I'd be done reading the paper (from point 8) sit back and
        take a nap!
    10. Never having to vacuum out the cars!
    10b.Never having to vacuum anything at all!
    11. Never having to deal with school issues, teachers, problems
        etc.
    12. Never having to get up early on Sunday mornings and help the
        13 year old deliver 52 copies of the Sunday Telegraph.
    
    I'm beside myself with ecstacy at just the thought of all these
    positive changes in my life.  When does the gender switching begin?
    
    Absolutely delighted . . . .
    

re .68

Don't forget though that you would have to mow the lawn and do other gardening.
Then there is all the snow shovelling.

Rich

Note 518.69                   Fun with Mutations...                     69 of 69
STARCH::WHALEN "Vague clouds of electrons tunneling " 6 lines  23-OCT-1990 16:15
                           -< Men do housework too >-
			      --------------------	
    
    
    Only when absolutely necessary, Rich.  ;-)  Personally, I belong to the
    Bill Murray school of housekeeping (ref: Ghostbuster's II)  There are
    simply different shades/degrees of "dirty".
    
        - Larry

    Thinking about this, I tried to imagine being pregnant. Two feelings
    came out: 1) Oh my Dog, my body is going through this incredible,
    inexorible change and I can only watch and wait; and 2) a suffusion of
    love for this creature soon-to-be forthcoming. Scary... Attractive...
    Pregnancy must be one mega-roller-coaster. I wish I could.
    
    - Hoyt

    Re:  .69
    
    He doesn't rake, mow the lawn, or shovel snow!!!!!!!!!!!!!  I DO!!!!!
    
    He does have a garden but NEVER pulls the weeds!
                                                   
    Still sounds like a deal to me!  Plus all the biological functions
    
    I could get rid of!!!!!!!!!
    
    
    

    
    Heheheh..your hubbie gets away with too much,I get to do ALL those
    things plus the lawn and snow shoveling..:-)
    
    I'm a liberated male..yeah..that's what i am..:-)
    

    re .72
    
    Good grief! You're married to a sloth! I'd strongly recommend a
    mutation in your case, meaning that you ought to behave just like him
    and allow things to fall apart for some time. I can't believe you take
    it that lightly, my wife would have whipped me had I ever behaved half
    as bad...
    ...Paul

    
    	Chances are he probably wouldn't even notice... :-)
    
    	-Erik (who has lived with male roommates on both extremes)
    

    RE: Paul
    
    
    >my wife would have whipped me had I ever behaved half
    >  as bad...
   
    Actually, it sounds as though YOU are the one with the problem....
    
    
    

    re .76
    
    Oh well, it was a figurative form of speech, of course, we never got
    physical (during our arguments, that is..).
    What I meant is that I believe in sharing the household tasks, I'd feel
    like a leech if I wouldn't join in. And if both partners are working,
    it's a disgrace if the man leaves his wife struggling all alone against
    a non-stop job. Guess it's the problem when folks switch directly from
    "Mom's Inn" to "My better half's hotel"...
    Defintely, if there would be a mutation that turned me into a woman and
    I'd end up with such a lazy clown as husband, I'd have dreams involving
    him, some evil maniac and a chainsaw.
    ...Paul

.71> - Hoyt

>                                                         2) a suffusion of
>    love for this creature soon-to-be forthcoming. Scary... Attractive...
>    Pregnancy must be one mega-roller-coaster. I wish I could.
    
I think you are only the second guy to express this in the string and you have
touched upon one of the reasons why I entered the base note...  How do you
suppose you would feel about your mate at this time?  Does the impending
"miracle" kind of overshadow your feelings for (what would now be) him?
Could you elaborate on the "Scary" and "Attractive" feelings you think you
would feel?

    re -1: scary and attractive feelings, when I imagine being pregnant
    
    I off-handedly mentioned roller-coasters in my comment. Roller-coasters
    actually display the scary aspect of pregnancy: there's that part where
    you're firmly seated, then lurch forward, then you're being pulled up
    that massive first hill, approaching the summit... and you can't get
    off. There's nothing you can do except ride it out. It's at that moment
    that I silently scream for the assistance of one of my parents. Scary.
    This neglects the possibility of abortion, I guess, but I didn't allow
    for that. There's the inevitability, that all these things are going to
    transpire over the next nine months, culminating in a life-threatening
    crisis from I might never fully recover. My body will be misshapen. Get
    big, slow, clumsy, uncomfortable, then go into pain. Inevitably. And
    all this is happening *inside* -- like in the movie Alien!
    
    The attractive part is only a faint appreciation of that soft light I
    see in the eyes of mothers holding their infants. They are *so* much in
    love. And the dads walking their kids to the corner store Saturday
    morning, talking in that ridiculous sing-song: "See the dogGEE? BIG
    doggee." During my late-to-arrive dating years I got to exercise the
    dozens of graces and gestures of romance that I'd stored away during a
    youth of reading books and watching films. I have this lobe, untapped,
    full of stuff to do with kids. I seriously don't think I'll die happy
    if I never teach a kid to throw a baseball. But mostly that love light.
    I fall in love with mothers in love with their teeny tots, regularly.
    
    Interestingly, thoughts of my mate didn't even occur to me. The common
    concern about appearence (I'm a fat pig and he doesn't love me anymore)
    wouldn't come up for several reasons, I think: I'm not so oriented
    toward my physique, I'm confident of my mate's regard, and I think
    preggers folk are lovely. For me, the implications for my mate would be
    the burdens of child rearing: the time and the financial cost of a  
    small child (and maybe not working for a living!).
    
    If it were medically possible, was covered by Blue Cross even, would I
    do it? I don't know. I'd consider it.
    
    - Hoyt

    RE:  .79
    
    What a sensitive and caring note!  You must truly be a 'gentle/man'!
    
    Your wife is a lucky woman.  My childbearing years were spent with
    
    an alcoholic husband.  I guess I missed out on A LOT!
    
    TTFN
    

      My sister had her first baby last June. I recall seing her
      returning triumphant after giving birth, exhausted and looking as
      if she'd gone through hell, but pleased with herself and her little
      girl... Earlier on, I remember that special glow in her face when
      someone admired her belly during the months of pregnancy, that
      awareness of a new life slowly maturing in her; and when I saw the
      category of love that she had for her new-born after all the pain
      she'd gone through, it somehow dawned on me that we men are the
      lesser creatures.   
      I had talked with her a lot about the way she felt during pregnancy
      and the birth process, and I felt downright inferior when I tried
      to picture how I'd have behaved. She laughed tears when I told her
      that I would have probably slapped the doctor if he wouldn't have
      done anything to prevent the pain, and that I'd have been cursing
      the little sucker that I was pushing out of me under unbearable
      pain for being an inconsiderate, loathsome little swine!
      No, personally I'd be much too gutless to run willingly into such an
      amount of pain and sacrifice. It takes a different kind of courage
      than the one we men think to possess to give birth, and I just
      wouldn't cut the edge. I'd chicken out. I nearly faint when I see a
      woman giving birth on some TV documentary, not to say what would
      happen if I'd witness it personally...I'd probably get a heart
      condition.       
      Forget mutations in my case! I'd rather stay a man if I had the
      choice. For all the whining about stress and pressure we men can't
      cope with, life as a man is a damn lot easier than as a woman.
      We're less sophisticated emotionally, we have a healthy inertia
      that gets us going most of the time and our brain is blessed with
      the capability to engage itself in an idle loop for most of the
      time! We've got the better career prospects, we become more
      interesting and attractive with age, we don't have to cope with
      children, menstruation, pregnancy, ginecologists, sexual
      harrassment... Uh-oh, I'm surely glad that it was my daddy's
      y-chromosome that made the race!  
      ...Paul  

    RE: .79 and .81, men's imagination of what bearing children
                     might be like...
    
    Not for naught do men "create" by sculpting, painting, composing,
    dancing, making music, etc.  (Also, organizing, building, farming,
    fishing, etc.)  We gotta do SOMETHING creative, when we realize
    that women own that ultimate, creative act of making the baby.
    
    Bill

    Re .82: Interesting idea, but I can't buy the suggestion that making
    (i.e., giving birth to) a baby is particularly creative. Once
    conception has occurred, the baby will grow whether the mother is
    thinking about it or not, hardly what I'd consider deliberate
    "creation".
    
    On the other hand, the *raising* of a child could indeed be a creative
    act; what you teach the child, and how, could affect not only the child
    him/herself, but many, many others. It's a long-term commitment,
    though, and maybe some folks prefer to do their creating in nice, finite
    chunks, instead of a twenty-year project with a subject who will be
    fighting them for much of the way... ;-)
    
    -b

    re: .83
    
    I agree the baby grows in the mother "automatically", but 
    she sure has an enormous effect on it, in terms of what she
    does and what she doesn't do --  on the physical level...
    And lots of folks think she has an enormous effect on it
    on the psychological/spiritual level, as well.  And the end result is
    another person, not just some dried paint on stretched canvas.
    So, I think that is terribly creative.  The scientific explanation
    of what is happening minute by minute can make it seem to be
    just a lot of chemistry, just as the scientific explanation of
    neurons and emitters can make dabbing paint on canvas seem to be just
    the movements of a very complex robot.  But I think birthing and
    painting are *both* creative, but the male is only "working" for an instant
    at the conception.  Obviously, the male's presence has a big effect
    on the pregnant woman, but the real work is done by the woman.
    
    I do agree with you that "raising" the child to adulthood is
    also a creative act, and *both* parents can (and should) give
    that their best effort.
    
    Bill