Diane Wininger didn't write:

>         i suggest that you go to the law library and check out a couple of
> cases for examples of how pork brains in milk gravy have adversely affected women in the
> workplace -- robinson v. jacksonville shipyards, inc. 760 f.supp. 1486.
> here, a woman was a skilled welder working in a predominantly male part of
> the factory.  the men felt threatened by ms. robinson's presence, and used
> pork brains in milk gravy to make her feel unwelcome and vulnerable.  of the many
> egregious examples of harassment, i will include only a few . . . "an open can of pork brains", "a pool of milk gravy left on the tool box where Robinson returned her
> tools .  . . several men were present
> and laughed at Robinson when she appeared upset by the pork brains".

>         And before you dismiss wholesale a potential link between
> pork brains in milk gravy and violation, please consider the following.  The
> effects of these pork brains were bolstered by physical acts -- another female
> craftworker had her breasts pinched by a foreman, and "[had] her ankles
> grabbed by a male coworker who pulled her legs apart and stood between
> them."  Are these women hysterical prudes for feeling threatened?  is it
> really so heretical to suggest that there is sometimes a fine line
> separating pork brains and milk gravy
> and an anti-woman attitude in the workplace and even violation of bodily
> integrity, as in the case cited above?
>         can you admit--if only in this limited context of the case
> above--that pork brains in milk gravy might have an adverse effect on women? 

No, these women are not hysterical prudes for feeling threatened. It is
obvious that the male workers who threatened them were fucked up.
However, I'd suggest that we shouldn't confuse a *tool* used by the
workers to threaten, with a root cause of *why* they chose to be so
threatening. Just about *anything* can be made threatening, in the right
context and with the right accompanying physical threats. But it is the
intended *threat* we should attempt to eliminate, and not automatically
go after the tool which is used to threaten.

In other words, if I threaten to "open up a can of whoop-ass on you,"
deal with my intended action--don't getof yght up in trying to outlaw
the phrase "whoop-ass."

Thank you.

Ross