tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (07/18/85)
In article <364@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: > >>What is the 'male-type' 'female-type' crap, anyway? Has the use of >>these ridiculous and superfluous terms been discussed before? >>- Tim Bessie > >Watch TV comercials for an hour, Tim. If you still think male-types and >female-types are outdated, passe', or a moot point, then you are merely >being naive (no offense intended). Despite "equality" of the sexes, >types exist and even some of the most ardent feminists I know support >different types for men a women, just not the ones we have today. I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by 'type' in this context. Maybe its because I don't watch television. What I was objecting to was the use of the words 'male-type' and 'female-type' in a context where "man," "woman," "male," or "female" might have sufficed just as well. I find that many people on this net -- and programmers in general -- like to stick the suffix '-type' on virutally every word they feel someone might object to, especially in dealing with any subject they are not particularly comfortable with. eg. "Well, this male-type person walks up to me and says 'Hey baby, whatcha up to?'" eg. "The major difference between male-type persons and female-type persons is that female-type persons have long hair and earings." Now, do we REALLY need this kind of stuff? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is, predominantly, fun. It wasn't always that way, but it is now. There seems to be no limit to it, this delight. Vistas are constantly opening up. Older generations would have a hard time understanding this, because of various psychological hang-ups, such as the Protestant Work Ethic and Freud. But we don't think about the past, not any more. - Thomas Disch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Tim Bessie {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!tim
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/20/85)
In article <503@unisoft.UUCP> tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) writes: > I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by 'type' in this >context. Maybe its because I don't watch television. What I was >objecting to was the use of the words 'male-type' and 'female-type' >in a context where "man," "woman," "male," or "female" might have >sufficed just as well. I suppose I wasn't clear. Men and women are distinguished by their respective... well... bodily parts. Male-type's and female-types are distinguished by their respective behavior. What do you expect from a woman? What do you expect from a man? These are factors that determine '-types. This is not to be confused with masculine and feminine! A man can have feminine traits, and a woman can have masculine traits. I would say a female-type is a woman with feminine traits and a male-type is a man with masculine traits. Since "masculine" and "feminine" are defined by society, the end result is that a male-type is a man who behaves the way you's "expect" him to and a female-type is a woman who behaves the way you'd expect her to. How is that for a working definition? -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "I always try to avoid cliche's like the plague!" -Rev. Wang Zeep
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/22/85)
> Male-type's and female-types are distinguished by their respective > behavior. What do you expect from a woman? What do you expect from a > man? These are factors that determine '-types. > > This is not to be confused with masculine and feminine! A man can have > feminine traits, and a woman can have masculine traits. I would say a > female-type is a woman with feminine traits and a male-type is a man > with masculine traits. > > Since "masculine" and "feminine" are defined by society, the end result > is that a male-type is a man who behaves the way you's "expect" him to > and a female-type is a woman who behaves the way you'd expect her to. > > How is that for a working definition? [FORSYTHE] To be outright honest, pretty shitty. (No offense) I would hope I don't expect certain sets of behavior from particular sexes. I probably do to some degree (ingrained), but it's something to avoid and not something to be accepting of. What sort of behavior do we expect from blacks? From Jews? From gays? The problem is that so many people deliberately "choose" to go along with the "-type" behavior you describe because they think they're supposed to. While others choose a group to belong to because they see their behavior as being appropriate for that group. Sad that this sort of thing is perpetuated. Why not just define yourself who you are and not let externals dictate what you "should" do or what group you "should" belong to. (I know, easier said than done. But so often not even *said*.) -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) (07/24/85)
In article <428@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >In article <503@unisoft.UUCP> tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) writes: >> I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by 'type' in this >>context. >I suppose I wasn't clear. Men and women are distinguished by their >respective... well... bodily parts. > >Male-type's and female-types are distinguished by their respective >behavior. What do you expect from a woman? What do you expect from a >man? These are factors that determine '-types. > >This is not to be confused with masculine and feminine! A man can have >feminine traits, and a woman can have masculine traits. I would say a >female-type is a woman with feminine traits and a male-type is a man >with masculine traits. > >Since "masculine" and "feminine" are defined by society, the end result >is that a male-type is a man who behaves the way you's "expect" him to >and a female-type is a woman who behaves the way you'd expect her to. What if I don't expect a man to behave any differently than a woman, or better yet, what if I don't have any expectations at all how a person will behave? While it is true that our perceptions are sexist (we have certain expectations of how a person will behave based on their gender), I have a hard time understanding why you would go out of your way to use an uncommon expression to categorize people along the lines of sexist perceptions. -- +--------------+-------------------------------+ | Rob Bernardo | Pacific Bell | +--------------+ 2600 Camino Ramon, Room 4E700 | | 415-823-2417 | San Ramon, California 94583 | +--------------+-------------------------------+---------+ | ihnp4!ptsfa!rob | | {nsc,ucbvax,decwrl,amd,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!rob | +--------------------------------------------------------+
tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (07/25/85)
singles:7162 net.social:796
, for me,
that's the only way to true happiness.
------------
Sometimes it is easier to do the impossible than to do the embarassing.
- Ashleigh Brilliant
------------
- Tim Bessie
{ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!timfsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/25/85)
In article <pyuxd.1277> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >The problem is that so many people deliberately "choose" to go along >with the "-type" behavior you describe (male-type or female-type) >because they think they're supposed to. While others choose a group >to belong to because they see their behavior as being appropriate for >that group. Sad that this sort of thing is perpetuated. >Why not just define yourself who you are and not let externals dictate what >you "should" do or what group you "should" belong to. (I know, easier said >than done. But so often not even *said*.) Why do we care about society's values instead of just defining our own? Because man is a social animal (like the wolf or ape), and not a natural loner (like the cat or the hawk). We depend on society to create for us a suitable environment for living, and in return we must make a reasonable effort to support the society and live by its rules. Many of society's rules are purely arbitrary, but as Dr. Fred Brooks says about software engineering, "Almost any systematic set of rules is more effective than having no plan at all." Why bother speaking the same language everyone else speaks? Why not just invent your own language, and then look for a group that speaks it? :-) Frank Silbermann
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/26/85)
181 net.social:799
chrisa@azure.UUCP (Chris Andersen) (07/26/85)
This message is empty.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (07/27/85)
>>The problem is that so many people deliberately "choose" to go along >>with the "-type" behavior you describe (male-type or female-type) >>because they think they're supposed to. While others choose a group >>to belong to because they see their behavior as being appropriate for >>that group. Sad that this sort of thing is perpetuated. >>Why not just define yourself who you are and not let externals dictate what >>you "should" do or what group you "should" belong to. (I know, easier said >>than done. But so often not even *said*.) [ROSEN] > Why do we care about society's values instead of just defining our own? > Because man is a social animal (like the wolf or ape), and not a natural > loner (like the cat or the hawk). We depend on society to create for > us a suitable environment for living, and in return we must make a > reasonable effort to support the society and live by its rules. > Many of society's rules are purely arbitrary, but as Dr. Fred Brooks > says about software engineering, "Almost any systematic set of rules > is more effective than having no plan at all." [SILBERMANN] As I've said a hundred and fifty times before, we don't exist to serve the needs or wants of society, society exists to serve OUR wants and needs. Putting it the other way around strikes me as silly. > Why bother speaking the same language everyone else speaks? Why not > just invent your own language, and then look for a group that speaks it? > :-) Because communication is (usually) a multi-person event, and commonality of language is necessary. When it comes to something that's my own business, like what I choose to do or how I choose to act, what business is it of anybody else's how I do it? What business is it of theirs to label it and pin that label on me? -- Providing the mininum daily adult requirement of sacrilege... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/27/85)
217 net.social:803
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (07/27/85)
27 Jul 85 17:25:35 GMT Lines: 35 Xref: qantel net.singles:6085 net.social:648 27 Jul 85 17:25:35 GMT Lines: 31 Xref: seismo net.singles:8909 net.social:921 27 Jul 85 17:25:35 GMT Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA Lines: 24 Xref: harvard net.singles:6162 net.social:670 Summary: In article <748@ptsfa.UUCP> rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <428@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >>Since "masculine" and "feminine" are defined by society, the end result >>is that a male-type is a man who behaves the way you's "expect" him to >>and a female-type is a woman who behaves the way you'd expect her to. > >What if I don't expect a man to behave any differently than a woman, >or better yet, what if I don't have any expectations at all how a person will >behave? This is what I explained to Rich. If someone told you that "Ms. X is a female-type" you wouldn't (theoretically) have any idea what they meant. That is good for you and just demonstrates the uselessness of "-type". -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."
tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (07/27/85)
In article <464@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: > ... >I just wanted to say the using "-type" merely assigns a framework of >archTYPical values to a person, I never meant to insinuate it was a good >idea. Hmm... so "X-type" might replace "like an X"? Oh goodie! NEW FROM K-TEL! The "Madonna" album all you computer-types have been waiting for: "VIRGIN-TYPE" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ It is, predominantly, fun. It wasn't always that way, but it is now. There seems to be no limit to it, this delight. Vistas are constantly opening up. Older generations would have a hard time understanding this, because of various psychological hang-ups, such as the Protestant Work Ethic and Freud. But we don't think about the past, not any more. - Thomas Disch ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Tim Bessie {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!tim
tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (07/27/85)
In article <24@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >Many of society's rules are purely arbitrary, but as Dr. Fred Brooks >says about software engineering, "Almost any systematic set of rules >is more effective than having no plan at all." > >Why bother speaking the same language everyone else speaks? Why not >just invent your own language, and then look for a group that speaks it? >:-) > Frank Silbermann Frank, are you implying that society's rules are systematic? That would be the joke of the century. - Tim
tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (07/28/85)
In article <36@unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: >In article <unisoft.514> tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) writes: >> I feel that people develop images because they either don't feel they >>are good enough just being themselves, and are consciously trying to be >>something they aren't; > ... >But what does it matter what other people think of you? All that matters >is what you think of yourself. Remember that, should you ever be arrested >by the police. > Isn't that what I was saying? I *thought* I was. I was just complaining about the fact that people DO change themselves DRASTICALLY to fit what they imagine (justifiably or otherwise) other people expect them to be. - Tim
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/31/85)
In article <518@unisoft.UUCP> tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) writes: >Frank, are you implying that society's rules are systematic? That >would be the joke of the century. > - Tim They could be systematic. The system may just be too complex for any one person to understand. Even if they are not systematic, my point still holds. We can choose to live according to society's preferences, or if we don't approve of these rules, we can disreguard them, and willingly pay the consequences. But, to ignore them and pretend these rules don't exist is foolish. Frank Silbermann
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (07/31/85)
Tim Bessie: >>> I feel that people develop images because they either don't feel >>> they are good enough just being themselves, and are consciously >>> trying to be something they aren't; Frank Silbermann: >>But what does it matter what other people think of you? All that matters >>is what you think of yourself. Remember that, should you ever be arrested >>by the police. Tim Bessie: > Isn't that what I was saying? I *thought* I was. I was just > complaining about the fact that people DO change themselves > DRASTICALLY to fit what they imagine (justifiably or otherwise) > other people expect them to be. I was being sarcastic. If you are ever arrested on suspicion of murder (assume you are innocent, but a victim of circumstantial evidence) it darn well will matter what other people think of you! Namely the police, judge, and jury. The whole purpose of educating children is so that they will gradually become the type of person that will fit well into society -- i.e. to be able to earn a living and associate in normal ways with other people, according to society's norms and standards. The idea that each one of us should develop our own behaviors independently of what society expects is pure bunk. Some of us, for whatever reason, came out of childhood as misfits. We can choose to remain misfits and make the best of it, accepting society's punishments, or we can re-educate ourselves and redo whatever went wrong in our childhood. Changing oneself is a terribly difficult and frustrating process. But it's much easier than trying to change someone else, especially someone else who doesn't WANT to change. And even this is much easier than trying to change EVERYBODY else to fit our own conception of what society OUGHT to be like. Frank Silbermann
djw@lanl.ARPA (08/02/85)
All you really have to do is move... The people in Cincinatti and the people in San Francisco and those in Santa Fe have little in common... > >Changing oneself is a terribly difficult and frustrating process. >But it's much easier than trying to change someone else, especially >someone else who doesn't WANT to change. And even this is much easier >than trying to change EVERYBODY else to fit our own conception of what >society OUGHT to be like. > > Frank Silbermann
tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) (08/02/85)
In article <67@unc.unc.UUCP> fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) writes: > >In article <518@unisoft.UUCP> tim@unisoft.UUCP (Tim Bessie) writes: >>Frank, are you implying that society's rules are systematic? That >>would be the joke of the century. >> - Tim > >They could be systematic. The system may just be too complex >for any one person to understand. Even if they are not systematic, >my point still holds. We can choose to live according to society's >preferences, or if we don't approve of these rules, we can disreguard >them, and willingly pay the consequences. But, to ignore them and >pretend these rules don't exist is foolish. > > Frank Silbermann What I am saying is, "society" has many rules, almost each one having a completely contradictory rule. For example, you hear people saying how having many lovers is promiscuous and "bad." Yet, the media presents images of beautiful, sexy people being extremely sexual with EVERYONE, and with both reslects on society, and effects it, so that you get two conflicting ideas about sexual behaviour. To be more general, people say how good it is to be individual and artistic, yet how one should be a "team playing" and "go along with the stream." Aren't these opposite views? They may apply to different situations and people, how the ideas themselves are always floating around and being applied to every conceivable time, place and person. What makes one right and one wrong, according to society? You are right, society IS complex. It is not consistent within itself, and you cannot form a value system based on all the ideas it has to present. You must therefore pick and chose which ideas you like, and throw others away, at least for the moment. You must also think for yourself, no matter HOW much pressure there is from ANY aspect of society. Anyway, that's the way I want to run my life, and I find its the happiest, most rewarding route. - Tim ============================================================== There's nuthin' sadder'n a wet troll. - The Outlandish Wizard ---> Tim Bessie ----- {ucbvax,dual}!unisoft!tim ---> Unisoft Systems; 739 Allston Way; Berkeley, CA 94710 ---> (415) 644-1230 TWX II 910 366-2145
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
> The whole purpose of educating children is so that they will gradually > become the type of person that will fit well into society -- i.e. to > be able to earn a living and associate in normal ways with other people, > according to society's norms and standards. The idea that each one of > us should develop our own behaviors independently of what society expects > is pure bunk. [SILBERMANN] That's funy. I always thought it was the idea that we were "supposed" to fit in to roles imposed upon us and not express our individuality that was (and is) PURE BUNK. You're right though. The whole purpose of THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF EDUCATING CHILDREN is to fit them into boxes that will enable them to "perform well in society". Along the way, over the past n000 years, somebody lost sight of the fact that the society exists to serve the needs of the individual, not the other way around. (If you doubt this, apply my old test: if the society somehow decided that its purposes would be better served if it got rid of all the people in the society so that things would "run better", what would you have left? I think that serves as evidence of the order of priorities.) > Some of us, for whatever reason, came out of childhood as misfits. > We can choose to remain misfits and make the best of it, accepting > society's punishments, or we can re-educate ourselves and redo whatever > went wrong in our childhood. > Changing oneself is a terribly difficult and frustrating process. Ahem... -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (08/06/85)
of
the suffix "-type", intended to denote nothing other than whether one has
a "Y" chromosome or not, into claims of sexism, the coldness of technical
people, and especially that thing I used to always oppose in here, the
currently popular attitude of achieveing happiness through self-admiration!
(No, actually I agree with most of what the poster said about the futility
of creating images of yourself that aren't true to yourself, though.)
--
Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (08/10/85)
FRANK SILBERMANN: >> The whole purpose of educating children is so that they will gradually >> become the type of person that will fit well into society -- i.e. to >> be able to earn a living and associate in normal ways with other people, >> according to society's norms and standards. The idea that each one of >> us should develop our own behaviors independently of what society expects >> is pure bunk. In article <1406@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >That's funny. I always thought it was the idea that we were "supposed" to >fit in to roles imposed upon us and not express our individuality that was >(and is) PURE BUNK. > >The whole purpose of THE CURRENT SYSTEM OF EDUCATING CHILDREN is to fit them >into boxes that will enable them to "perform well in society". Along the way, >over the past n000 years, somebody lost sight of the fact that the society >exists to serve the needs of the individual, not the other way around. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Society exists to serve the needs of the individual." Which individual? Wait, let me guess. Are his initials R_L_R ? Frank Silbermann