Subject: (no subject)
From: supaflu design studio (supaflu@earthlink.net)
Date: Wed Sep 15 1999 - 21:03:47 CDT
i think there is a difference in defining female characteristics as
belongiong to 'a woman, both in gender and in sex' or being those
behaviours you might need to pass as a women... i think there's nothing
wrong in identifying these behaviours, even if that might be
generalizations. i am not making judgements on anybody doing this. you're
not rude, i'm trying to be argumentative too, just don't say i preach, i'm
not church going.
anne
>At 06:54 PM 9/15/99 -0600, you wrote:
>i didn't say you generalized,
>>explain to me what is so wrong when i say, and yes, maybe generalized that
>>to me arguementative behaviour seems to be one of the behaviours that count
>>when you are trying to pass as female...
>
>
>it just seems to me that generalizing either gender to be argumentative is
>unfair. I am argumentative. but im not argumentative because I am of the
>female gender. (btw im not "passing" as a woman. I am a woman, both in
>gender and in sex) I am argumentative because its fun and it helps me see
>both sides of an argument. The fact is, by generalizing women as
>argumentative (not that there is anything wrong with being argumentative),
>you make unfair judgements on people depending on their gender and not them
>as an individual. And thats what i thought YOU said we shouldnt do... I
>wasnt taking it as a personal attack, rather, i was taking offense to be
>generalized and i was simply pointing out that you werent practicing what
>you preach. Im not trying to be mean or rude - just argumentative.
>
>-lindsey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Thu Sep 16 1999 - 23:04:43 CDT