mokhtar@ubc-vision.CDN (Farzin Mokhtarian) (04/09/84)
@ Note: This is also a response to Scott Berry and William Gulley. I don't see where the confusion is. I did say that being an initiator could be a new role for a woman but I didn't say that is necessarily the case. What it means is that even after initiating something, she *could* still be acting out roles. If that is the case, it is not a great improvement. Any behaviour is not a role. A social role is a standardized, stereo- typed, expected type of behaviour in a specific situation. It is somewhat like a uniform for the mind to wear. The person wearing it shows his/her willingness to be like others to be accepted. Not doing it could turn one into an outcast. I think it is the presence of roles which is boring not their absence. It takes strength to not fall into the trap of assuming a role and assigning roles the same way that it takes strength to manage without the acceptance of people `important' in one's life. Tell me you are being lazy or safe. I think you are being *unfair*. But it's really your choice. And I do think this is serious talk. People go through crises in their lives re-evaluating their ways and beliefs. I think the wiser they are when they are young, the better off they will be. It is aweful realizing later in one's life that their whole life would have been different if only they knew better. It is roles that practically tell people how to live. Tell me I am being paranoid but you can't tell me I act out roles. Farzin Mokhtarian, UBC, Vancouver, BC