twiss@stolaf.UUCP (01/29/84)
I agree with Allan Pratt that opinions and subjectivity are going to have to enter this discussion (if anyone out there really wants to persue it). But I don't think we've addressed the question yet. I think all of us know that men and women tend to have specific traits, some probably boilogical, others societal. But how are these traits related? Maybe this is too rhetorical for real discussion, but can a person have characteristics of the other sex and still retain their identity (e.g. can a woman be a good musician without agressiveness, or i.e. can only men or women with male traits be good musicians/presidents/astronauts/ professors/programmers/etc. My whole point was, I think women can be agressive, retain their femininity, and not have their talents be put in terms of male characteristics and thus "good". Why do women have to be compared with men to succeed? Why can't they be accepted on their own terms? Tom Twiss ...!ihnp4!stolaf!twiss
saj@iuvax.UUCP (02/15/84)
#N:iuvax:9200002:000:1762 iuvax!apratt Jan 28 02:11:00 1984 ***** iuvax:net.women / houxu!welsch / 12:18 am Jan 28, 1984 3. Leave personal biases out of the discussion. ---------- I personally declare this limitation bogus (don't listen to me if you don't want to). Discussions should *include* personal biases, not only because we can't help it, but because without them, it's not a discussion but a rehashing (complete with referenced sources). I am including personal opinion in the realm of personal bias. This is all just a personal opinion; please no flames. The part you *can* flame about (or rebut) is this: I think the idea of "masculine" and "feminine" traits is a useful one. There are certain traits which are *traditionally* attributed to women, and are called feminine. Tenderness springs to mind. There are certain *traditionally* masculine traits. Aggressiveness was mentioned previously. The terms "masculine" and "feminine" are handy labels for the personality traits which fall into these classes. They are anachronistic, however. They are certainly not exclusive (by any stretch of the semantic imagination). What's most important is that they are widely accepted. When I say that a person strikes me as effeminate, I am understood. That being the purpose of communication, I declare those terms useful (there I go again!). The NEGATIVE aspect of those terms is clear: they propogate sexism. The REASON for this is clear: their roots are (firmly) in sex-based distinctions. The common root with "male" and "female" is the root of the problem, obviously. It is arguable that we can overcome that built-in sexism in our language. I would argue that we can, but I've already used up lots of space, so I'll just say so. Any takers? ---- -- Allan Pratt ...decvax!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!apratt