Is this sexual harrassment?
Kim Wallen
a professor said in regard to focus in writing:
"Focus is like sex, you seek a target. You zero in on your
subject. You move from side to side. You close in on the
subject. You bracket the subject and center on it.
Focus connects experience and language.
You and the subject become one."
In another class the professor said to give an example of a simile:
"Belly dancing is like jello on a plate with a vibrator under it."
Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
Thanks
Kim
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days. Rejections notified by email.
Rich Berlin
I don't see that these remarks, in and of themselves, constitute
creation of a hostile environment, but a whole bunch of them together
might. The simile about belly-dancing isn't actually sexual at all
(but I thought of it that way at first, because of the context in
which it was offered.)
I think that the first remark is a little bit questionable, but I have
a hard time calling it harrassment because the sex of the professor
makes a difference to me: coming from a male professor it would be
inappropriate and intrusive, while coming from a female professor it
would be passionate and charming.
I guess I might question the professor's judgement, but I would stop
short of making a pronouncement of harrassment unless there were a
consistent undertone of hostility towards one gender or the other
along with it.
-- Rich
--
===============================================================================
Richard...@Eng.Sun.COM SunPics engineering (415) 336-5126
The colours of the rainbow...painters cannot make. For they
compound some colours; but scarlet, green, and violet are not
produced by mixture.... Aristotle, _Meteorologica_3,2_
Colour reproduction in the fourth century B.C. apparrently suffered
from the same basic limitation as it does today. R.W.G. Hunt
james lowe 9208 U
>I would like people's reactions to this case. In a writing course
> a professor said in regard to focus in writing:
>
>"Focus is like sex, you seek a target. You zero in on your
>subject. You move from side to side. You close in on the
>subject. You bracket the subject and center on it.
>Focus connects experience and language.
>You and the subject become one."
>
>In another class the professor said to give an example of a simile:
>
>"Belly dancing is like jello on a plate with a vibrator under it."
>
>Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
>the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
Kim;
i do not think that this is harrassment; its simply the case of a very
tasteless man who lacks the class to be an effective teacher. i worry,
however, when people immediatly start to wonder if a lack of manners and
class equals sexual harrassment.
If the man had particularly centered you out (ie making a comment about your
breasts) or even just focussed on one sex (saying i like women with large
breasts) then sexual harrassment (in my opinion) would have occurred.
Please, do not start accusing this clod of sexual harrassment.
jim
james lowe 9208 U
In article <2hh6b9$4...@bi.fish.com> nsc!desktop.nsc.com!nel...@voder.pa.dec.com (Taed Nelson) writes:
>
>> i do not think that this is harrassment; its simply the case of a very
>> tasteless man who lacks the class to be an effective teacher. i worry,
>> however, when people immediatly start to wonder if a lack of manners and
>It should be noted that the original article stated nothing about the
> professor's gender.
[...]
>What if you now found out that the professor was female? Are they still
> tasteless and ineffective -- or do the comments then take on a different
> meaning?
Well, despite my dumb assumption that the prof was a man (i am curious as to
the sex of the professor, though), my initial argument stands. For a
proffessor, MALE OR FEMALE, to make such comments is tasteless and, by
being so crude, they would alienate a segment of their class (thus rendering
them ineffective).
Crude comparisions, while not copmrising sexual harassment, do not belong in
the classroom.
jim
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Taed Nelson
> In article <2hc7tc...@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> k...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu writes:
> > I would like people's reactions to this case. In a writing course
> > a professor said in regard to focus in writing:
> > In another class the professor said to give an example of a simile:
> i do not think that this is harrassment; its simply the case of a very
> tasteless man who lacks the class to be an effective teacher. i worry,
> however, when people immediatly start to wonder if a lack of manners and
> class equals sexual harrassment.
It should be noted that the original article stated nothing about the
professor's gender. The statements could have been made by either a male or
a female. The person above assumed that the person was a male, and thus the
professor became a "very tasteless man" and "an [in]effective teacher."
What if you now found out that the professor was female? Are they still
tasteless and ineffective -- or do the comments then take on a different
meaning?
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Camilla Cracchiolo
I don't attend that class. Maybe the professor is leering at the women
as he says it or something. But on the face of it, no. I would say
by themselves they're not sexual harrassment.
Terry Van Belle
>I would like people's reactions to this case. In a writing course
> a professor said in regard to focus in writing:
>"Focus is like sex, you seek a target. You zero in on your
>subject. You move from side to side. You close in on the
>subject. You bracket the subject and center on it.
>Focus connects experience and language.
>You and the subject become one."
Well, you weren't very explicit about what aspects of these two
quotes bother you, but here's what I see:
I wouldn't say that the mention of sex is harassment. Sex is
practised by both genders and is not per se degrading to women.
I would be a little troubled by the pursuit metaphor developed in
the first 5 sentences, especially with its connotations of disregard
for the "target's" desires, but that's only one perspective.
In our culture there are examples of both men and women chasing
members of the opposite sex. Think about the phrase "a good catch."
>In another class the professor said to give an example of a simile:
>"Belly dancing is like jello on a plate with a vibrator under it."
Again, mention of a vibrator isn't necessarily degrading to women.
Neither is belly dancing, per se. I know several women who are as
independent as I've seen who take belly dancing courses.
>Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
>the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
In my opinion, no. If you come from a background that isn't very
frank about sexuality, then the professor's use of sexual metaphors
and talk about vibrators may be a bit shocking, but definitely not
anti-women.
Now if he (I'm assuming the professor is male) started making rude
jokes about vibrators or belly dancers, or if he implied that there
was no problem in pursuing someone who is clearly not interested,
then I'd be more concerned.
Terry Van Belle
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
sr...@crux1.cit.cornell.edu
>Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
>the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
Well, I suppose that depends on the people involved... hostility
is in the eye of the beholder.
I presume it is women who might find these remarks to be harrassment.
I wouldn't expect grown women to find these remarks hostile; but for
an women or girls who do, perhaps they would be better off in a more
sheltered all-women's environment like at a single-sex university.
I think that any woman who raises more than an eye-brow at such remarks
really does need society to protect them from the presence of men in
most social circumstances.
However, I don't think that we can restrict someone for talking about
'sex' in public and especially here where no individual or collective
is singled out for deameaning remarks.
I don't mean to be blaming anyone; or blaming someone because they
do take offense at such a remark. I am just trying to look at this
situation realistically. I personally have never met anyone who would
pay much attention to the above remarks.
steve
seidman
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Tom Impelluso
|> I would like people's reactions to this case. In a writing course
|> a professor said in regard to focus in writing:
|>
|> "Focus is like sex, you seek a target. You zero in on your
|> subject. You move from side to side. You close in on the
|> subject. You bracket the subject and center on it.
|> Focus connects experience and language.
|> You and the subject become one."
The person compares sex and focus, and then describes what focus is.
Seems to me the structure would have made more sense if the person said:
Sex is like focus, you seek a target. You zero in on your
subject. You move from side to side. You close in on the
subject. You bracket the subject and center on it.
Focus connects experience and language.
You and the subject become one."
Seems to me, all the person did was TRY to describe FOCUS,
and instead, describe one aspect of his/her view of SEX. S/he seems like
a fool.
|> In another class the professor said to give an example of a simile:
|>
|> "Belly dancing is like jello on a plate with a vibrator under it."
|>
I just had a long talk with some craniofacial surgeons with whom I
am collaborating. One of them said, when describing a smile:
A smile, in itself, is static. The beauty of a smile is the moment of onset.
The dynamism of the smile is beauty. The beauty is the vibration
of the wrinkles.
Harrasment? No. Seems to me s/he needs a focus -- a person to harrass.
Creating an uncomfortable environment? Possible. But one needs to know
more about the context.
Ability to instruct?
Hah hah hah hah hah
And a writing professor no less!
Hah hah hah hah hah hah ha
Tom
Robert Hartman
>
>>Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
>>the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
We've heard from a lot of men about this, and (surprize!) there seems
to be a general consensus among those men who cared to post that the
remarks do not consitute sexual harrassment.
Personally, I think it would be rather enlightening to hear from women
about whether or not they think it is, and why.
After all, the legal standard is a "reasonable woman" standard. It
might be nice for us to know what a sampling of reasonable women would
say about it.
I think we can trust the moderators to filter out the "how dare you say
it is," and the "I don't believe it," replies and other flamish noise.
I hope that the men who are tempted to send flamish e-mail will stop to
consider that that sort of obnoxious and chilling behavior is exactly
what the "hostile environment" portion of the law is intended to
penalize.
-r
Camilla Cracchiolo
: We've heard from a lot of men about this, and (surprize!) there seems
: to be a general consensus among those men who cared to post that the
: remarks do not consitute sexual harrassment.
: Personally, I think it would be rather enlightening to hear from women
: about whether or not they think it is, and why.
: After all, the legal standard is a "reasonable woman" standard. It
: might be nice for us to know what a sampling of reasonable women would
: say about it.
: I think we can trust the moderators to filter out the "how dare you say
: it is," and the "I don't believe it," replies and other flamish noise.
: I hope that the men who are tempted to send flamish e-mail will stop to
: consider that that sort of obnoxious and chilling behavior is exactly
: what the "hostile environment" portion of the law is intended to
: penalize.
On the other hand, perhaps you need to pay closer attention. I am
female; I presented my opinion some time ago that this does not
by itself constitute harrassment. Nor did I even find the statements
offensive.
My address (cam...@netcom.com) is, I think, fairly obviously female.
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
BENJAMIN AARON FIORE
n.COM (Rich Berlin) writes:
>Kim Wallen asked about a couple of remarks by a professor....
>
>I don't see that these remarks, in and of themselves, constitute
>creation of a hostile environment, but a whole bunch of them together
>might. The simile about belly-dancing isn't actually sexual at all
>(but I thought of it that way at first, because of the context in
>which it was offered.)
>
>I think that the first remark is a little bit questionable, but I have
>a hard time calling it harrassment because the sex of the professor
>makes a difference to me: coming from a male professor it would be
>inappropriate and intrusive, while coming from a female professor it
>would be passionate and charming.
>
While this statement is very accepted I find it very disturbing. Why is it
that a woman can make certain statements and be witty and charming yet when a
man says the same thing he is distasteful? Why is it wrong for men to speak
of sex in such a way and encouraged for women to speak as such? It seems that
common opinion says sexual harassment is always and only inflicted by Man and
received by Woman. In actuality, it seems to come the other way quite often
only a lot more openly and purposefully and men are expected to take it as
jest.
Cindy Tittle Moore
>>k...@emoryu1.cc.emory.edu (Kim Wallen) writes:
>>
>>>Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
>>>the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
>We've heard from a lot of men about this, and (surprize!) there seems
>to be a general consensus among those men who cared to post that the
>remarks do not consitute sexual harrassment.
>Personally, I think it would be rather enlightening to hear from women
>about whether or not they think it is, and why.
Hmph. Well I didn't post a response because this tends to be a very
tiresome and predicatable thread. However, this is my take on it.
The comments by themselves, in complete isolation of my entire
upbringing and experience are merely obnoxious and unimaginative.
However, they are so much like many other similar comments that I have
heard all my life that they make me rather angry, even in isolation.
Remember, we never arrive here at 25 years of age, hear two comments
like this, and get angry. At 25 years of age, virtually *every* woman
has heard stuff like this for at least *20* years. Some ignore it,
some think it's normal, and some are getting angry. Fortunately, more
are getting angry about it. If you hear the same type & set of
comments all your life, your response is a little different than if
you hear the comments once or twice.
My response would be first to ask the guy to knock it off (this also
makes me angry, because WHY DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO CALL THE GUY ON
OBNOXIOUS BEHAVIOR????). But I try to be polite and make it clear I
consider them unacceptable. It's after the polite requests fail that
I'm willing to get nastier and talk to people higher up. I have not
yet had to bring formal charges; I have found that talking to
supervisors clears the problem up pretty quickly.
I think it sucks that I have to do this in the first place. And I've
had to do it sufficiently often that my patience is rather thin. No,
it's not "fair" to the next guy <-- that response gets VERY old too.
It's not fair to *me* to go through the same steps OVER AND OVER again
with what seems like every tenth male I meet.
*Why* are men unaware in the first place that these comments are so
pervasive and poorly received by women in the first place? *That's*
what bothers me. *Why* is the guy clueless? Cause no one teaches
him. Why does no one teach him? Why it must be because it's *normal*
to harrass women.
I'm quite glad to see this changing. I think the perceived
outrageousness of the steps being taken stem from the fact that such
behavior is so widspreadly considered normal. The reaction is kind of
like "why on EARTH are you putting him in jail for brushing his
teeth". But the reaction really should be more like "that's what you
get when you steal cars." (Do I really have to say that I don't
consider sexual harrassment to be equivalent to either brushing one's
teeth OR stealing a car?)
As for the particular case that started this thread, I have no
comment. Nothing has been provided other than two quotes. Do not
construe my above comments as any kind of commentary on that
particular situation.
Now, I can predict every single one of the followups that are bound to
occur. I promise, should any wind up in my mailbox I will give it to
Muffy or Paul to approve or not, since I doubt my objectivity on this
particular issue.
--Cindy
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Greg Hennessy
> Robert Hartman <har...@informix.com> wrote:
> #After all, the legal standard is a "reasonable woman" standard.
In the case Harris vs Forklift Systems Inc, case 92-1168, verdict
released November 9, 1993, Justice O'Connor wrote:
This standard, which we reaffirm today, takes a
middle path between making actionable any conduct that
is merely offensive and requiring the conduct to cause a
tangible psychological injury. As we pointed out in
Meritor, -mere utterance of an . . . epithet which engen-
ders offensive feelings in a employee,- ibid. (internal
quotation marks omitted) does not sufficiently affect the
conditions of employment to implicate Title VII. Con-
duct that is not severe or pervasive enough to create an
objectively hostile or abusive work environment-an envi-
ronment that a reasonable person would find hostile or
abusive-is beyond Title VII's purview.
The legal standard is "reasonable person" not "reasonable woman".
Greg Hennessy
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Gordon Fitch
| >I think that the first remark is a little bit questionable, but I have
| >a hard time calling it harrassment because the sex of the professor
| >makes a difference to me: coming from a male professor it would be
| >inappropriate and intrusive, while coming from a female professor it
| >would be passionate and charming.
ba...@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (BENJAMIN AARON FIORE):
| While this statement is very accepted I find it very disturbing. Why is it
| that a woman can make certain statements and be witty and charming yet when a
| man says the same thing he is distasteful? Why is it wrong for men to speak
| of sex in such a way and encouraged for women to speak as such? It seems that
| common opinion says sexual harassment is always and only inflicted by Man and
| received by Woman. In actuality, it seems to come the other way quite often
| only a lot more openly and purposefully and men are expected to take it as
| jest.
The reason the statements might be seen as more witty and
charming coming from a woman has to do with cultural
expectations. If the utterance falls into the category of
traditional (aggressive, controlling, penetrating) male
sexuality, then when a man utters it one may suppose he is
assuming a traditional role, unless he is being manifestly
ironic -- something that can be very hard work with some
audiences, as anyone who posts much on the Net knows. If a
woman makes the identical statement, she is perforce
breaking the role, and thus making irony explicit. In
general, the meanings of many statements depend on who
says them, and to whom.
But cultural expectations are notoriously ambiguous. One
person's cultural expectations are not another's. If I
were to liken "focus" to sexual intercourse in the manner
quoted, for example, I would expect every intelligent
person to understand that I was ironically simulating a
masculinist fathead, possibly to cheer up my students on
a rainy day. But it is possible there would be those who
would be constrained, because of irony deficit, to take me
seriously, or who would find behind my choice of humor
a serious and direct pupose ("kidding on the square"
being the ancient, and very succinct, term). The most
practical solution, it seems to me, would be for them to
depart my class, and take another....
But they can't, because education doesn't work that way.
And here is a part of the concept of harassment which I
think needs to be discussed: the backdrop of authority
which holds the victims (real or self-imagined) in a
situation which they might otherwise be able to solve
simply by exiting. Why not question the unfreedom which
hold the target of harassment in place?
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Robert Hartman
> ...
>The legal standard is "reasonable person" not "reasonable woman".
>
>Greg Hennessy
Tell me, Greg, what's the difference?
-r
ps. I know that you were taking me to task a little bit. But let
me return the favor. If the reasonable person in question has a
woman's perspective, things might appear differently than they do to
a reasonable man who's never experienced sexual harrassment before.
Andrew Dinn
> a professor said in regard to focus in writing:
>
>"Focus is like sex, you seek a target. You zero in on your
>subject. You move from side to side. You close in on the
>subject. You bracket the subject and center on it.
>Focus connects experience and language.
>You and the subject become one."
>
>In another class the professor said to give an example of a simile:
>
>"Belly dancing is like jello on a plate with a vibrator under it."
>
>Do you these remarks constitute sexual harrassment (in
>the sense of creating a hostile environment)?
No to the question as communicated, since I cannot see that talking
about sex in such an impersonal manner should be something which
should worry anyone. Of course the same words spoken in particular
circumstances might be very different (e.g. two people alone with a
lewd look on the professor's face while gazing up and down the
student's body would obviously be harassment OR spoken out of the blue
in response to an unrelated question OR said to someone who the speaker
knew had recently been through some difficult sexual experience). But
these are likely to be unusual circumstances.
Initially, I thought the first comment was rather sexist in that it
seemed to describe sex from a male point of view. Having checked it
more carefully I am not so sure it could not also describe a woman's
actions. Whatever, I think it is an awful metaphor.
Andrew Dinn
-----------
there is no map / and a compass / wouldn't help at all
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Eric Hollander
>The reason the statements might be seen as more witty and
>charming coming from a woman has to do with cultural
>expectations. If the utterance falls into the category of
>traditional (aggressive, controlling, penetrating) male
>sexuality, then when a man utters it one may suppose he is
>assuming a traditional role, unless he is being manifestly
So you're saying that for a man to have a certain traditional sexual role
isn't ok? Everyone so far has at expressed that the comments were a stupid
metaphor, and I agree with that, but if those comments would have been
"charming" if spoken by a woman, then that means that they are not
inherently sexist. If they're not inherently sexist, then to say that it's
not ok for a man in a traditional male role to say them is to judge him
based not on what he says, but based solely on his own, personal choice of
gender role. To say that a man cannot act within the traditional male role
is just as restrictive as saying that a woman is not allowed to leave her
traditional role. While I personally prefer women who depart from
traditional roles, I don't seek to impose that on anyone.
e
--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to femi...@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism...@ncar.ucar.edu. This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
Serge A. Winitzki
> >The reason the statements might be seen as more witty and
> >charming coming from a woman has to do with cultural
> >expectations. If the utterance falls into the category of
> >traditional (aggressive, controlling, penetrating) male
> >sexuality, then when a man utters it one may suppose he is
> >assuming a traditional role, unless he is being manifestly
> So you're saying that for a man to have a certain traditional sexual role
> isn't ok? Everyone so far has at expressed that the comments were a stupid
> metaphor, and I agree with that, but if those comments would have been
> "charming" if spoken by a woman, then that means that they are not
> inherently sexist. If they're not inherently sexist, then to say that it's
> not ok for a man in a traditional male role to say them is to judge him
> based not on what he says, but based solely on his own, personal choice of
> gender role. To say that a man cannot act within the traditional male role
> is just as restrictive as saying that a woman is not allowed to leave her
> traditional role. While I personally prefer women who depart from
> traditional roles, I don't seek to impose that on anyone.
No, it is NOT ok for a man to have the sexual role of always dominant,
"inherently" superior being. It is NOT ok anymore, even though it has been
ok for a long time. It is NOT ok anymore to be oppressive or violent, even
though it may have been part of the traditional role of man.
As for the inherent sexism - there is no inherent sexism in those words.
The expression "women must know their [assumed inferior] place in relation
to men" is sexist, because it is explicitly proclaiming the sexist
attitude.
Consider another example. The expression "this is like sex, this is like
when you drive in all the way ..." is clearly made from a male viewpoint.
(These are not necessarily the words said on that ocasion, it's a made-up
example.) Therefore it assumes that the audience is male, and so
discriminates against women. If the statement were made by a woman, it
would strike the audience as uncharacteristic because the woman would be
assuming an unconventional role, just like Gordon Fitch said. The reason it
would not be considered sexist is that sexism is largely originating from
males and is expressed as discrimination against women; and since this is
the most important side of sexism today, one wouldn't spend effort on
monitoring whether women always express egalitarian views. From a woman,
this metaphor sounds out of place and stupid, which it is, because sex
ISN'T just driving in, it is only so for the male. It is a factual error,
and in a society without sexism would be considered erroneous. It is like
saying "Imagine a ball which falls up on the cloud after you throw it" -
just a wrong statement, a factual mistake. Only in the context of the
struggle towards the true equality of sexes would an erroneous statement
about sex acquire status of an offense. Again, I am not saying that it
follows that the words said by that professor constitute offense; though, I
think that if the professor were male, he should try harder to avoid such
metaphors than a female professor should. Only in the today's context of
the oppression of women would this be true; if men were oppressed and
discriminated against in our society, the same would apply to women.
In short, my point is that there is no question of abstact sexism here. We
are not discussing abstract relations between imaginary sexes. We are
discussing the relations between long oppressed and long dominant sexes,
and we are trying to undo the wrong done to both females and males.
--
Serge Winitzki
Gordon Fitch
| >The reason the statements might be seen as more witty and
| >charming coming from a woman has to do with cultural
| >expectations. If the utterance falls into the category of
| >traditional (aggressive, controlling, penetrating) male
| >sexuality, then when a man utters it one may suppose he is
h...@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander):
| So you're saying that for a man to have a certain traditional sexual role
| isn't ok? Everyone so far has at expressed that the comments were a stupid
| metaphor, and I agree with that, but if those comments would have been
| "charming" if spoken by a woman, then that means that they are not
| inherently sexist. If they're not inherently sexist, then to say that it's
| not ok for a man in a traditional male role to say them is to judge him
| based not on what he says, but based solely on his own, personal choice of
| gender role. To say that a man cannot act within the traditional male role
| is just as restrictive as saying that a woman is not allowed to leave her
| traditional role. While I personally prefer women who depart from
| traditional roles, I don't seek to impose that on anyone.
No remark is inherently anything. Its meaning is partially
derived from its environment, especially who said it, to
whom, and under what circumstances.
People who act "within" traditional roles, especially the
traditional male role in American culture, do not do so in a
vacuum. At some point they will impinge on others who do
not share their values -- they will cease to be "within."
And that being the case, they must expect some kind of
conflict.
My question is how to carry on that conflict.
--
)*( Gordon Fitch )*( g...@panix.com )*(
--