Responding to Wendy, Neil wrote:

...

I prefer to think of myself not as a shit-stirrer but as a crap-defuser.

Very noble, very idealistic, but above all very futile. You're not going to change anyone's perceptions of anything by forcing your own on them. Rather you're going to get them digging their heels in.

Indeed. There is nothing remotely as effective at getting me to ignore your posts, dismiss your opinions, and reinforce my commitment to my own position as taking that kind of insulting "anybody who agree with me is not only wrong but disgusting and stupid and evil" tone. By contrast, there are those, on this list and elsewhere, with whom I violently disagree, but whose posts are so well-thought-out and reasonable that they cause me to seriously re-think my own position. Gratuitous nastiness is never going to acheive the kind of results you can get from a willingness to talk to the other person as if you actually respect them as an intelligent human being. After all, if you don't respect my opinions, why should I respect yours?

On the other hand, you can leave the women alone and have them unrealistically impervious to any kind of injury whatsoever. It's one of those charming double binds that us writers have to struggle with.

Personally, I *much* prefer to see women and men treated equally in this way. Reading a piece of fiction where I felt the author was deliberately being "nicer" to the women because they were women would annoy me intensely. Both because that *is*, in my view, sexist, and also because, more likely than not, the result will be an inferior piece of fiction.

(Hmm. I seem to be feeling unusually contentious today...)

-- Betty Ragan ** bragan@nrao.edu ** http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/~bragan Not speaking for my employers, officially or otherwise. "Seeing a rotten picture for the special effects is like eating a tough steak for the smothered onions..." -- Isaac Asimov