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