tims@mako.UUCP (05/30/84)
> "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
Not true. A fish can't ride a bicycle. 8-)
Actually, I've always kind of resented this saying. It says that men have no
place in women's lives, which I don't believe, and hope is not true. I wonder
what the purpose of the statement is, I suspect it is to cause resentment.ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (06/01/84)
-- >> > "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." >> Not true. A fish can't ride a bicycle. 8-) >> Actually, I've always kind of resented this saying. It says that >> men have no place in women's lives, which I don't believe, and hope >> is not true. I wonder what the purpose of the statement is, I >> suspect it is to cause resentment. Well, I'm the guy who quoted it, and have done so more than once. It's not that men have no place in women's lives, simply that they need not de facto because of an imagined way the world works have any predefined place. And vice versa. No, my purpose was not to cause resentment, just to sweep some dusty thoughts from the subconscious shelves of egregious metaphors. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 31 May 84 [12 Prairial An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/01/84)
> > "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." > Not true. A fish can't ride a bicycle. 8-) > Actually, I've always kind of resented this saying. It says that men have no > place in women's lives, which I don't believe, and hope is not true. I wonder > what the purpose of the statement is, I suspect it is to cause resentment. The statement wasn't meant to imply that men have no place in women's lives, although given that a fish can't ride a bicycle it could, I guess, be taken that way. What it meant to say was that a woman doesn't *need* a man in her life, which is certainly true. It can be interpreted as "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle because a fish can't do anything with a bicycle", true; but it can also be interpreted as "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle because a fish can get along quite well without a bicycle." The latter is, I believe, what was intended. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
trb@masscomp.UUCP (06/02/84)
> "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle."
This statement is as valid and useful as
"A man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle."
In my opinion, it's not valid and not useful at all.
I also think that anyone who offers it as wisdom is a fool.
Andy Tannenbaum Masscomp Inc Westford MA (617) 692-6200 x274tracy@hcrvax.UUCP (Tracy Tims) (06/04/84)
A friend of mine claims,
``A woman without a man is like a fish without a hook.''
Tracy Tims {linus,allegra,decvax}!watmath!...
Human Computing Resources Corporation {lbl-csa,ihnp4,utzoo}!...
Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 416 922-1937 ...hcr!hcrvax!tracy guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris) (06/04/84)
> > "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle." > This statement is as valid and useful as > "A man without a woman is like a fish without a bicycle." > In my opinion, it's not valid and not useful at all. > I also think that anyone who offers it as wisdom is a fool. Well, if taken literally, it can be picked apart easily; however, the intent is simply to say that a woman doesn't need a man, and a woman without a man is OK. Perhaps we should come up with an alternate phrasing - "A woman without a man is like a woman without a bicycle."? After all, a man or a bicycle may be convenient, but many women do without one or the other with no trouble. I suspect the hyperbole of the statement originated from some amount of anger at people who were insisting that a woman without a man is missing something necessary. Guy Harris {seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy
colonel@gloria.UUCP (George Sicherman) (06/13/84)
[><=='>] Why not just rearrange it? "A WOMAN NEEDS A FISH LIKE A MAN NEEDS A BICYCLE." Surely you agree with that! -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...seismo!rochester!rocksanne!rocksvax!sunybcs!gloria!colonel
timothy@druxt.UUCP (06/17/84)
I can't belive that so much time, effort and other resources are going to the topic of fishes with/without bicycles. *sigh* I will probably resent having said this. Tim decvax!ihnp4!druxt!timothy
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter F. Barbee) (06/25/84)
The phrase is not an analogy but rather a colloquialism, it is not bound by semantic logic. It is merely a simple phrase to indicate that women do not need men. The key word now is need. I like the company of women, even the romantic and special company that a lover/partner provides, but I do not need women, I want them. (I'm amused at the word 'them' in the last sentence but let's not get into fantasies just yet) The wonderful thing about women's lib is that eventually we really will have a society of peers. Now let's get busy and get it done. Peter Barbee decvax-+-uw-beaver-+ ihnp4--+ allegra-+ ucbvax----lbl-csam-+--fluke!tron sun-+ ssc-vax-+