Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mit-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!intelca!qantel!dual!lll-crg!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) Newsgroups: net.singles,net.social Subject: Re: The use of '-type' Message-ID: <476@mit-vax.UUCP> Date: Sat, 27-Jul-85 13:25:35 EDT Article-I.D.: mit-vax.476 Posted: Sat Jul 27 13:25:35 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 31-Jul-85 20:11:18 EDT References: <968@peora.UUCP> <1424@mtx5b.UUCP> <344@unc.UUCP> <396@unc.UUCP> <442@unc.UUCP> rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) writes: >In article <428@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >>Since "masculine" and "feminine" are defined by society, the end result >>is that a male-type is a man who behaves the way you's "expect" him to >>and a female-type is a woman who behaves the way you'd expect her to. > >What if I don't expect a man to behave any differently than a woman, >or better yet, what if I don't have any expectations at all how a person will >behave? This is what I explained to Rich. If someone told you that "Ms. X is a female-type" you wouldn't (theoretically) have any idea what they meant. That is good for you and just demonstrates the uselessness of "-type". -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX Wang Zeep:"Lord Fred, how can I show them you are the True God?" Lord Fred:"Because I said I am." Wang Zeep:"Seriously." Lord Fred:"Look, it works for every other religion."