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