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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!think!mit-eddie!mit-vax!csdf
From: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: New book for single women
Message-ID: <720@mit-vax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Aug-85 11:18:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-vax.720
Posted: Tue Aug 27 11:18:26 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:39:50 EDT
References: <124@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe)
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 62


>Frank Silberman
>> Since this book is the female equivalent of "How to Pick Up Girls",
>> I suppose I shouldn't be surprised at the hostile reaction in net.singles.
>
>No, this books isn't the equivalent of "HtPUG"--not by the title: the
>title indicates *marriage*.  Does HtPUG advocate marriage?--this isn't a
>rhetorical question, I haven't read it, so I don't know.  But at any
>rate, on the *covers* these two books are very different: HtPUG says
>it's for men who want to get dating while HtFaHiTD says it's for women
>who want to end their dating days (oh, all right, their *single* dating
>days) (and there isn't any indication *from the titles* that HtPUG isn't
>for married men, while HtFaHiTD is).

I think this sort of sums up some of society's expectations of singles
(remember that irritating "-type" discussion?)

I think it says that "Guys just wanna go out and get laid" while "Gals
gotta find 'em a good man." It often makes me ill to know that these
outdated stereotypes exist strongly enough to sell that many books.

It reminds me of an anecdote:
A female I know (who is undoubtedly a living archetype of some kind) was
surprised to hear that one member of a gay (male) couple had given the
other some flowers. She had assumed that guys didn't like getting or
GIVING flowers and that the only reason they ever bought them was that
they were expected to by their (female) SO's.

Now this is not a stupid person, mind you. She happens to be a very good
student here at MIT. 

I've seen a lot of discussion on net.singles about attitudes and
stereotypes and it always generates a fury of "get out of the dark ages"
kind of flames. I assert that stereotypes that continue to survive
(yeah, even the ones you wish would go away) because somebody is fitting
them.

Look: here's one now:
>> If a woman doesn't want to grow old alone -- if she wants a family,
>> then she's ought to marry.  And to do that, she's got to meet a man.
>> What's wrong with that?

Well, to give this discussion a direction:

It seems to me that a lot of people approach stereotypes by either:
	a) trying to pretend they're not there
	b) attacking them viciously

Why not just decide that you are not going to be bounded by them
yourself, while allowing others to cling to them -- if not live in them
-- if they want to.

Food for thought.

-- 
Charles Forsythe
CSDF@MIT-VAX
"We pray to Fred for the Hopelessly Normal
	Have they not suffered enough?"

from _The_Nth_Psalm_ in _The_Book_of_Fred_