Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Possible Ban on '... DO IT ...' Bumper Stickers Message-ID: <2696@randvax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 14-Sep-85 13:37:59 EDT Article-I.D.: randvax.2696 Posted: Sat Sep 14 13:37:59 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 07:25:03 EDT References: <1128@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: edhall@rand-unix.UUCP (Ed Hall) Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica Lines: 46 In article <1128@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes: >Even with that widening, the point is still too narrow when it mentions only >the cultural attitude toward women's sexual availability. What about men's >sexual availability? Reading this set me off thinking about some past events in which women *assumed* that because I was male that I was automatically ``easy''. Talk about being stereotyped! (OK, OK, maybe there *have* been some times when I fit the stereotype... :-) ) But this is merely an aside. What I find interesting is: >Or more generally, the atmosphere in which sexual >identity has become such a huge part of personal identity. What's the first thing most people ask about a new baby? [Is it a girl? Is it a boy? Is it a healthy girl? Is is a healthy boy?] Rare is the person who does not catagorize by sex when they meet a new person; it is almost as if the catagory ``person'' contains what's common between the ``female'' and ``male'' catagories, rather than ``female'' and ``male'' being merely variants of the ``person'' catagory. Is this right? Have we become too preoccupied with the dichotomy of the sexes? Human nature being what it is, you'll probably always have a certain segment of society developing an ``us vs. them'' mentality whenever you have such a strong dichotomy... This can lead into: > And in particular, >the link to rape and other sexual violence is still there. It's a thin link, >but the same one that links pornography to violence. Just as much as >viewing pornography may in individual cases trigger sexual violence, so >too may the hundredth repetition of "Hey Joe -- gettin' any lately?". Or >............... or bumper stickers that seem to say that what's _really_ >neat about some occupation or hobby is that its practitioners 'do it' in >some notable way. I'm trying to stay out of the pornography debate, at least for now. But I generally agree with what Mitch is implying: the problem is society, and the causes and expressions of its mentality of sexual exploitation are nearly all-pervasive. > -- Mitch Marks @ UChicago -Ed Hall decvax!randvax!edhall