Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site terak.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!oliveb!hplabs!hao!noao!terak!doug
From: doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers,net.tv
Subject: Re: "Little Boy Lost" (TWILIGHT ZONE)
Message-ID: <831@terak.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Oct-85 13:07:34 EST
Article-I.D.: terak.831
Posted: Mon Oct 28 13:07:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 09:34:09 EST
References: <366@lzwi.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Calcomp Display Products Division, Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Lines: 20
Xref: noao net.sf-lovers:6394 net.tv:3520

> "Little Boy Lost" was also, in my opinion, very sexist.

I think I know what you're trying to say, and if so I definitely agree,
but I think "sexist" is the wrong word.  Well, maybe partially correct
in that mother-instinct was used instead of father-instinct.

But there was something else wrong.  Perhaps "selfish" would be a better
word.  Nobody knows why the boyfriend was glued to that city, instead of
doing what I would have done in his position -- gone with her on the
assignments.  Perhaps that is what seems sexist; a REAL man doesn't
follow a woman when her career requires relocation.

Anyhow, I was struck by something else.  Why were American actors,
portraying Americans living in America, speaking British???  I mean,
I can understand that an English writer might slip up and put in a
British phrase or two, but why didn't the actor ask, "Why am I talking
about the line being engaged?".  And why didn't the director holler,
"Not 'trunk call', 'long distance'!"
-- 
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {calcom1,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug