Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: "The Invisible Partners"
Message-ID: <1269@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 20-Jul-85 19:58:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1269
Posted: Sat Jul 20 19:58:40 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 22-Jul-85 06:33:04 EDT
References: <2135@pucc-h>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 23

Jeff,

While a lot of what you extracted from "The Invisible Partner" was
quite interesting, one thing worth watching out for when making statements
like that is the erroneous stereotyping that such thinking promulgates.
Who is to say what behaviors are "unmasculine" (not "right" for a male),
"unfeminine" (not "right" for a female), or for that matter, feminine
and masculine?  I think a lot of people reject certain elements of
their personalities (like sensitivity in men, or assertiveness in women)
because they subscribe to the notions that these behaviors are inappropriate
for their sex, and that's a great big pompous load of selfdamaging bullshit!
Some people even go so far as to say "I have behaviors or feelings that are
'against' the nature of my sex [whatever that is!], therefore I *must* be
a homosexual, or a transsexual, or who knows what".  You are what you are,
and anyone who tells you that certain parts of you exclude you from (or
automatically include you in) some particular group can go fuck themselves!
And that goes for any part of YOU that says the same sort of thing to the
rest of you.

End of speech.
-- 
"Because love grows where my Rosemary goes and nobody knows but me."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr