jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/18/84)
> The article about the hotdog woman clearly demonstrates > that society in general (in the form of the restaurant owner > and the town officials in specific) finds the fact of womanhood > a sufficient enough accusation to use it as an reason in and > of itself for banning her. I think you missed the point. The excuse (not reason) was not that she is a woman, but an attractive one. > The hotdog woman is not making efforts to hide that fact that > she's a woman. Because she is not dressed in a manner that > would allow people to assume she's a man (which of course people > do unless it is proven otherwise), she is deemed unacceptable. Wrong. Even silly. She is deemed unacceptable because she's taking away business from some bozo's restauarant. Even if she *were* a man, a different excuse would be found to remove him. > Regardless of the (obvious) motive of the restaurant owner, > the fact that SUCH an accusation can seriously be considered > (or even seem a logical possibility!!!) proves that woman-hating > is rampant in this society. The only reason the accusation might be seriously considered is that most people know that men tend to be distracted by attractive women. It has nothing to do with the self-indulgent myth of woman-hating. Radical feminists would not find themselves the butt of so many jokes if they would not use this kind of hyperbole, which would make the yellowest of journalists green with envy. (!) The only thing rampant in this case is your article. Jeff Winslow