Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ora!daemon
From: netcom!avery@apple.com (Avery Colter)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Female human aesthetics
Message-ID: <17884@netcom.UUCP>
Date: 2 Jan 91 02:31:54 GMT
References: <658245246@lear.cs.duke.edu> <1990Nov11.171709.25842@arris.com> <17316@netcom.UUCP> <13359@chaph.usc.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Netcom- The Bay Area's Public Access Unix System {408 241-9760 guest}
Lines: 24
Approved: ambar@ora.com

wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber) writes:

>In article <17316@netcom.UUCP> ames!claris!netcom!avery@ncar.ucar.EDU (Avery Colter) writes:
>>I sense a very broad collectivization of the genders which seems to
>>stand in stark contrast to the whole core of our capitalist system.

>Just what does this mean?  Is "collectivization" the same thing as
>segregation?  Or is it sexism?  Or is it sexual integration?

Sorry if that wasn't clear. I meant that something like a taste for
certain human qualities is individual to individual, and a lot of
generalizations try to cast these tastes as global things.

I meant that one can say that someone who is X can be said to be
attractive to the group of people who state a preference for X, but
that it would not be possible to take any other group Y and say,
"people with X are attractive to group Y".

Ugggh, hard to put into words....

-- 
Avery Ray Colter    {apple|claris}!netcom!avery  {decwrl|mips|sgi}!btr!elfcat
(415) 839-4567   "I feel love has got to come on and I want it:
                  Something big and lovely!"         - The B-52s, "Channel Z"