Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: gazit@cs.duke.EDU (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: (none)
Message-ID: <658695744@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 90 16:35:20 GMT
References: <9011130452.AA13272@uunet.uu.net>
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)
Lines: 35
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

| The question is: to *which* men does one want to appeal?  Some of
| us are turned off by the look and behavior promoted in these
| magazines.  Of course, we likely the men who are considered "less
| than eligible".

In article <9011130452.AA13272@uunet.uu.net> mydog!gcf@hombre.masa.COM writes:
>the personality can be rebuilt on military lines.  The imprisoned
>women to whom Hillel Gazit refers -- taking time to achieve a
>certain appearance -- are maintaining what power they can over
>their lives.

Two comments:
1) The original debate was about why women paint their faces.
   I claimed that attracting men is not all the story, and gave
   a simple counter-example.  You present some (reasonable)
   explanation to the fact, but it is still a counter-example to
   the original claim.

2) There is one kind of soldiers that stands (relatively) well in
   POW conditions.  This are the soldiers that have never liked the
   army, from time to time disobeyed commands, etc.  In short,
   these are the smart-ass trouble makers.

   Since they had never bought the usual bullshit they still don't
   buy it; and they continue to be trouble-makers, but now they make
   the troubles to those who imprison them...

The real question that should be asked is why women (and men) buy the
cultural bullshit, not why the cultural bullshit says X and not Y.

>Gordon Fitch  |  gcf@mydog.uucp  |  uunet!hombre!mydog!gcf

Hillel                                                gazit@cs.duke.edu

"most women look awful without makeup." -- Caryn S. Prater