Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: re:  They say we're moving ahead!
Message-ID: <2832@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Jul-84 15:04:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2832
Posted: Sun Jul 15 15:04:47 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 15-Jul-84 23:31:10 EDT
References: <435@hou5g.UUCP>, <8335@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

Women who are attractively dressed (where "attractive" is defined by
the viewer) may very well distract some men when driving, or doing
whatever else.  Thus using the word "hazard" to describe them is
technically correct.  The problem is that the word "hazard" also tends
to assign blame, and there is where the trouble lies.

In the case in question, I think that if the actions of some male
drivers watching a female roadside vendor are hazardous, then the
drivers are responsible for changing their reaction.  Trees *are*
sometimes cut down for the benefit of drivers, but I tend to think that
people should receive more consideration than trees.

I don't think that the incident demonstrates anti-woman sentiment as
much as anti-change and anti-me sentiment.  Whenever a change occurs
that tends to disturb established conditions, attention is focused on
the change.  If there is some negative effect of a change, people will
usually suggest reversing the change rather than even thinking of changing
the environment to accomodate the change.  And people would rather that
a problem, any problem, be fixed at someone else's expense.

The woman simply did something which was novel, and got someone upset,
and the suggested solution is to remove the novelty.  I hope that saner
minds prevail and the woman is allowed to sell hot dogs in peace.