Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!genrad!grkermi!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re: Madonna, role model
Message-ID: <1197@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Jun-85 14:24:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1197
Posted: Mon Jun 10 14:24:58 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Jun-85 07:36:17 EDT
References: <273@cmu-cs-g.ARPA> <841@ccice5.UUCP> <2222@topaz.ARPA> <1625@reed.UUCP>
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious oyster)
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 23

In article <1625@reed.UUCP> ellen@reed.UUCP (Ellen Eades) writes:
>> >> The more successful role-models that young girls have while growing up,
>> 
>two-dimensional, blatantly sexual being.  How is a person like
>Madonna going to help an adolescent develop a balanced
>character?? 
       ...etc.

   This may be a dumb question (and I'm not just responding to Ellen, but to 
all the "role-model" stuff I've been reading lately), but what is the theory
that says people have to have role-models, and how valid is the theory?  This
is a real question, since my education is lacking in psychology/sociology.
It seems to me that anybody who would really use somebody like Madonna (or
G. Gordon Liddy, for men) as a role-model would not use a better model even
if they WERE available.  From my personal experience, the only "role-models"
I have are negative examples ("If I ever start talking like G. Gordon Liddy,
please slap me several times-- hard." :-).  Can anyone enlighten me?
-- 
 - joel "vo" plutchak
{allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster

"Take what I say in a different way and it's easy to say that this is
all confusion."