Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!mokhtar
From: mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: When are you a man/woman/lady?
Message-ID: <1056@ubc-vision.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Sep-85 23:30:16 EDT
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.1056
Posted: Mon Sep 30 23:30:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 1-Oct-85 02:28:15 EDT
Sender: mokhtar@ubc-visi.UUCP
Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 29

> Subject: Re: When are you a man/woman?
> I object to being called a lady, especially in the implications
> of the above.  Is Farzin saying that s/he is going to judge
> whether or not I am 'deserving' of this term (I assume that what
> is meant here by 'lady' is something like, a woman who exhibits
> traits of decorum & modesty which are considered assets by 
> the patriarchal society we live in)? What gives Farzin the right
> to judge, and who says I would want to 'deserve' such an
> appelation anyway?!  Thanks, but no thanks; ... 

> Yes, I know, you wouldn't have called me a lady anyway...
> Ellen
  
Well, you could be a lady even if you don't "exhibit traits of decorum &
modesty considered assets by the patriarchal society we live in". At least
that's what I think but that may be too unorthodox. I simply looked at it
as a woman who has earned extra respect, but respect is achieved in many
different ways depending on whose respect you want to have. So there is no
universal definition of lady.
 
One other point: I see "ladylike" as a state a waman has reached not as a
pattern of behaviour to follow in order to qualify. This means that if one
is a lady, one doesn't act like a lady but one just *is* a lady. 
  
  Farzin Mokhtarian
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
"The essential thing is being a person. Being a man or woman is not the issue."
    


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com