Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hogpc!houti!ariel!hou5f!hou5g!jdh
From: jdh@hou5g.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: re:  They say we're moving ahead!
Message-ID: <435@hou5g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Jul-84 14:42:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou5g.435
Posted: Fri Jul 13 14:42:26 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jul-84 01:44:35 EDT
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 16


The article about the hotdog woman clearly demonstrates
that society in general (in the form of the restaurant owner 
and the town officials in specific) finds the fact of womanhood 
a sufficient enough accusation to use it as an reason in and 
of itself for banning her.

The hotdog woman is not making efforts to hide that fact that 
she's a woman.  Because she is not dressed in a manner that 
would allow people to assume she's a man (which of course people 
do unless it is proven otherwise), she is deemed unacceptable.

Regardless of the (obvious) motive of the restaurant owner,
the fact that SUCH an accusation can seriously be considered
(or even seem a logical possibility!!!) proves that woman-hating 
is rampant in this society.