Conference turris::womannotes-v1

Denial won't make them go away but it sure keeps guys from having
to change their comfortable ways!  Who hasn't used "ignorance" as
an avoidance ploy?  Well this is THE ploy used in this conference.

Whenever a woman mentions that she has felt a negative attitude 
being directed toward her merely because she was born female, a man 
will jump in to get that "stricken from the record" every time.

And he doesn't even have to make any logical sense because the point
is only to register a counter-offensive.  He just needs to 1. discredit 
the woman, 2. cite an exception, 3, maybe discredit her again if it's 
not her first "indiscretion" and 4, go off self-satisfied that another 
myth held by those militant, man-hating, feminists has been ceremoniously 
put to rest.   Harrummph.

What I always say to myself when I see this scenario is "Sure, we all
know exceptions exist but this woman is relaying an instance where 
the rule played out.  Is the challenger denying that no man would EVER 
have a negative attitude toward a person merely because the person was born
female?  If not, then is he saying that he lacks confidence in her ability
to assess her situation?

The challenger wasn't there, and doesn't know but the most significant part 
of this scenario is that HE DOESN'T BELIEVE IT'S POSSIBLE and therefore SHE
MUST BE WRONG!!  This non-belief is what drives them to find an exception 
and "slap" her with it gleefully as if it were a trump card and she has
lost the game.

Each man seems to assume most other men are like him and therefore most
women encounter "men-like-him".  They are often shocked to hear the way
women are treated by strange men - the majority of men encountered during
an average day.  The majority of people we deal with daily are relative
strangers to whom we have no personal connection.  Given this relative
annonymity, many men find it hard to resist a little "fun" when presented
with a strange woman they personally find "interesting".  This varies from
man to man and from time to time in the same man but only in degree as in
a relatively innocuous wide smile when greeting her to a complete denial of 
her purpose, (to get the dry-cleaning, to get a meeting arranged, to get the 
car looked at, to get a loan, to get a job, etc), and a focusing instead
on his enjoyment of the situation.

Women encounter all the degrees of this singular attitude every day of
our lives and if our peers and colleagues are shocked it's because they
are thinking about women they know, as opposed to strangers, and attitudes 
that they personally hold as oppossed to the the rest of the world, many
of whom are from "other" generations.

I challenege all of you to think back to the last time you "had a little 
fun" with a stranger and then you'll begin to understand that on a steady
diet of strangers, women encounter lots of men having "just a little fun"
with them.  Did you flirt a little with the bank teller?  Touch the cocktail
waitress a little more than you would ever touch a waiter?  Smile 
patronizingly at an overworked sales clerk trying to satisfy you and feed
her kids?  "Seductively" insult a female bar patron?  Call a ticket clerk
"honey"?  Stare at a woman's chest even though you knew she knew?  Look
over the head of a woman talking to you to see if the one walking in the
room is more fun to look at?

When encounters with men are routinely milked by them for a little fun,
it adds up to a powerful message for women.  And when any of us states that 
we have receieved that message clearly and don't like it and are vehemently 
put down, it's a double-whammy.  It sounds to us like we're expected to endure 
it, (because IT does exist, believe it or not), and shut up.  When men simply
deny it and write it off, they are again confirming for themselves and for
the woman that women's words are not to be simply believed by default.

So trash this one guys, and try and prove again that women have basically 
no idea what they're talking about because you DECcies know that the world 
has CHANGED and since sexist attitudes are gone for good from YOUR life,
they are gone for good, PERIOD!
    

	RE: .2

	Why is it that your reply really upsets me?  I don't even
	know if it's just one thing in it, or a combination of
	attitudes that I see in it.  Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but
	let me try to see if I can indicate how I read it and what
	it said to me.


>	Sandy, THIS old Eagle has absolutely NO INTENTION of changing
>"comfortable ways!"  After listening to a steady diet of =w= noters
>for maybe a year it seems like we have come full circle back to the
>belief that it is perfectly sincere to acknowledge the few instances
>when we meet women whose unique sex-appeal appeals to our prejudices.
>
>	The REASON is that nobody yet has provided a "model behavior"
>that seems as likely of success with a few charming ladies (which is
>sufficient for this particular male ego.  As long as old behavior
>patterns still work for a few ... then why bother changing old habits?

	Since no one has givin you something on a platter, there's
	no reason not to try and invent something.  It sounds like
	a lazy attitude.  "I don't really care enough to try".  Yeah
	we were all brought up in a sexist society, so of course
	sexist attitudes will work with some women.  I agree that you should
	be able to show someone how you appreciate their looks, it
	depends on how you show them.  Leering is offensive.


>	Until somebody comes up with a better method with a proven track
>record of success ...  We might as well make sure every "interesting"
>woman is well aware of our initial interest if we are to progress from
>being strangers to a more personal connection.  OK - so WHAT if it only
>works maybe 1 time in 10 ...  so get out and have more "fun" making our
>presence known to more women.  One male can't keep all 10 happy anyway!
>The nine who go harrumphing off into the distance have self-selected
>themselves out of future "fun" and that's their choice.  Otherwise we
>male would have to deal with decisions and that quickly becomes stress!

	So what if you've just insulted 9 women in 10, you got one
	person who wasn't and you only care about what you get out
	of it.


>	She looked attractive and elegant in a black leather slit skirt,
>silky top, heels and hose!  Now how obvious does a guy have to BE to be
>noticed noticing her and letting her know we _ARE_ attracted ???  Too
>little and you get no reaction.  Too much is perhaps better because then
>you get a chance to start a dialog that might lead to a dinner date.  She
>didn't expect to meet any Eagles there that day so obviously her choice
>of a flattering outfit was either intended for someone else's appreciation
>or it was intended as general-purpose attention-getter.  So BE SURE she
>knows she has gotten our attention!  Then do with that whatever the
>situation suggests.

	Maybe she likes those clothes for herself.  I feel like you're
	implying that some things are okay because she asked for it
	by wearing those clothes.


>	Suppose she is annoyed and this is going to be the first, last
>and ONLY chance to visually appreciate this lovely lady who has such a
>non-receptive attitude ...  Might as well appreciate as fully as we may
>as we won't get a second chance ...  Perhaps it would be inconvenient
>to carry a camera around just to snap pictures of women you'll never see
>again looking angry ...   But on the other hand ... it could be a "fun"
>hobby if you enjoy photography and being shouted at in public places ...

	Dammit, women aren't put on earth for men's "visual appreciation".
	

>	DECcies are by and large a boring bunch anyway if they lack the
>basics of (sexist) visual appreciation of the artfully displayed female
>face and figure.  Why SHOULD anything change?  It's been said many times:
>Women often look LOVELY when they are angry!  And besides ... the other
>alternative appears to be whining about how fair and equalitarian we are
>and how no women are BUYING that line of BS any more than they believe
>our lines about only being interested in a woman's MIND or PERSONALITY!

	Telling women that they look "lovely" when angry is really
	belittling their right to be angry.  Who cares if they
	look lovely or ugly when angry.  They're angry and you caused
	it.

>	The BOTTOM LINE:	Maybe we "strike out" a lot ...
>				but it's worth the effort for
>				the occasional "home runs" we get!

	What if you got more "home runs" if you changed how you
	played the game?  (I really hate these sport euphemisms).
	Do home runs matter if we lose the game?


	I dunno, were you being sarcastic, attempting to be amusing,
	or is it that I don't understand what you're trying to say?

	...Karen

    
    	I always smile at all women I meet, if I am in a good enough
    mood to be able to smile.    Yet a *lot* of women seem to take
    this in a hostile way.    Oh well,  I understand that this is
    one more conditioned response from having to deal with so many
    male sex nuts.
    
    	Yet I am alone, and lonely sometimes.   How to get to know
    someone?   Over the years I can only recall two relationships
    where it was initiated by an approach from the woman.  Obviously,
    most of the time I will have to do the approaching myself, or remain 
    alone.   Yet the hostile response is becoming more common, and now 
    I am developing my own conditioned response.   As my friend Mike 
    says; "I'm going to just be a robot.   F*** all this human 
    interaction."    I don't think this is a healthy response, but 
    it's real.

    	When I moved to a larger city, the hostility and isolation
    became worse.   As frustration set in I began resorting to more
    dramatic or unique approaches, that only lit off more hostility.
    In my attempts to find the solution, I undoubtedly appeared
    sexist or rude from time to time.   The solution was found in 
    moving back to the smaller town where the general tension level 
    wasn't so high.   Even here it's getting bad though, I may have 
    to go completely rural or disappear into the wilderness.   Is the 
    emotional distance between people inversly proportional to the 
    physical distance ?

	Often feedback is the key.   Until I can coax some response
    from the woman I would like to know, I am pretty much in the
    dark.    The mistakes are alway the worst, when I am just trying
    to guess what will be the right thing to say.   If I offer a
    relationship, or just a smile, this first step is taken pretty much
    blind.   After some feedback develops, then it is possible
    to go from the realm of the ritual approach to actual communication.
    
    	Last night I talked to a saleswoman in some electric gizmo shop.
    Simple conversations, inner conflicts;   "She's very pretty.   Is
    she attracted to me, or just being a good salesperson?   Should
    I ask her out?   Is that her boss over there?   She probably is
    married or is already 'taken' somehow.   She seems a little nervous,
    am I too wild looking for her?   She seems a little to straight-laced
    to put up with me, is she even my type?   Why do I keep looking at her
    sweater, her profile?    Will she get angry or shut me down cold
    if I ask her for a date?    Is it appropriate to ask while
    she's so busy?   Will I ever see her again if I don't ask? ...."
    
    	Oh well,  in this case I didn't ask.   Maybe I'll go back,
    maybe not.   But in either case the conflict still lives on in my mind...
    "I could have been more aggressive.   If I had asked then at least
    I'd know.   But she was busy, maybe I would just have annoyed her."

    	I just want to please, to be pleased, but this is all getting 
    very tiring.    Perhaps I'll take up a safer, and less confronting
    new hobby.   Hang-gliding or ice climbing or something.
    
    	Alan.

    
    			Merry Christmas Everybody!

    

    re .5
    
    Sometimes I get weary of men who say that women don't like the
    guys who are 'too nice'. When I met Don 23 years ago this spring
    he was definitely the nicest guy I had ever gone out with. Several
    of my friends told me that they would commit some unspecified
    act on my person if I dared break up with him...because he was
    such a nice and decent guy...
    
    and even tho he wasn't the  cutest guy I'd evern known or the
    tallest and he didn't have any hair...I married him and have been
    married now for 21 years next June.
    
    but I'm not a Rockett or a movie star either....I'm short and
    have always been rounder than I like, and I wear glasses, and
    have other figure flaws that make me less than the sort of woman
    that a guy would gravitate to when he first walks into a room.
    
    Every romance I have ever had came about because I got to be
    a man's friend first and the rest followed.
    
    and I know that my dating days are way in the past, but I have
    had many men who have become my friends over the years so I can't
    believe things have changed all that much.
    
    So to any man who thinks that his problem is that he is "too
    nice" may I at least suggest that part of his problem could
    be that he isn't willing to look for the nice women! The women
    who are less than 10s, even a few 2's and 3's even ...to use
    a the movie analogy...much as I deplore it!
    
    When I think of all the dances I never went to or never got asked
    to dance at, and all the nights I never went out on dates as a
    teenager, because I didn't measure up to the prevailing standard
    of attractiveness at the time, then I can't help but wonder if the
    guys who complain about being 'too nice' just aren't willing to
    look for the kind of woman who would appreciate them, and love them,
    but wouldn't look like a model or movie star.
    
    Bonnie

    I seem to be changing my attitude lately and enjoying the results.
    Please note that the group of women I run with has a different outlook
    than other groups.
    
    Having grown up in the south I was taught to call women ladies.
    I did that in my little circle and got bodyslammed. B^) I was told
    that calling a woman a lady was an attempt to force her into a
    predefined mold. Ladies act such and such, ladies don't do such
    and such. These women were not ladies! Outspoken women all.. well
    most all. B^)
                                                                
    Personally I like strong women. Ladies can keep their pews warm. Women,
    on the other hand, have the option of keeping whatever they want warm. 

    Sorry, Joyce: this has little or nothing to do with "attitude".
    
    re: leering (etc) the only way to "get" a woman
    
    There have been a few (several) men I've met who seem to attract
    every woman I know who've had even one conversation with them.
    
    Needless to say, they are happily attached to some lucky (and equally
    wonderful) woman they met ages ago.
    
    Also needless to say, they would never make "pin-up of the year"
    -- rather they are extraordinarily average-looking.  One of them
    (an ex- of mine -- no, I didn't dump him; quite the opposite) is
    distinctly pear-shaped, balding, and has a bulbous nose.  But he
    has NEVER had a problem finding a woman to love.
    
    The attraction to such men?
    
    They LISTEN!!!!!!!!!
    They REMEMBER what you've said!!!!!!!!!
    They CARE about how you feel!!!!!!
    They know what you have told them is the truth (as you see it) and
    let you know that you AS A PERSON (your feelings, your opinions,
    you worries, your dreams) are IMPORTANT.
    
    They look at your EYES!!!!!!!!
    
    And they do all this for anyone they like, no matter whether or
    not they would like to get into bed with you.
    
    You are never afraid of such a man -- he isn't using you, he won't
    belittle you.
    
    He treats you like a nice PERSON.
    
    Anyway, my point is that if you simply treat a woman as a "neat
    person" rather than as a "possible mate" (or "possible lay/cuddle"),
    you MAY find yourself quite in demand.
    
    Lee

    Re .5, I agree with Bonnie, and not only do men usually mean that
    no gorgeous woman has fallen in love with them, but men have all
    these predetermined qualifications women have to have.  I've read
    the singles ads, and I've read stuff by RANCHO::HOLT and I know
    you want a woman who's probably not only gorgeous, and intelligent,
    but who's also willing to hike and climb mountains all over
    California!!!  I mean, really, it's not as though all were looking
    for was some woman with a heart of gold or something!
    
    Lorna
    

Fortunately, every once in a while you run into a woman who'se gorgeous
and intelligent and you completely forget about those mountains in
California... and besides, she might have a hobby that she cares
about as much as you care about hiking.

Besides, as was already mentioned, gorgeous really means "nice smile"
and "intelligent" means "listens -- and hears -- and understands."

Martin.

    RE: Eagles and Devils
    
    I got the definite impression that our resident "feathered friend"
    was just trying to ...er...stir the pot a little.
    
    In response to which....one of Sandy's comments referred to touching
    a waitress in ways or degrees different than you would a waiter.
    Many men do this, and it has nothing to do with attempting to make
    connections with women - it has to do with showing one's power over
    them. As an example, in my teens I was a member of a semi-religious,
    very well-known service organization. Well, to be specific the *men's*
    orgainization was well-known. The rest of use were sort of an
    auxiliary.
    
    Anyway, the teen-aged girls organization was always signed up to
    serve at the banquets that the men's organization had. NOT, you
    will note, the teen-aged *boys* group.
    
    Some of these ol' fellows were what my mother would've called "fanny
    pinchers". And they were. As 12-year-old girls we met in the kitchen
    between courses and traded information as to who at what tables
    was pinching that night. These were men in their 60's - their 80's
    and with their wives in attendance.
    
    This was accepted and expected. This is how women are trained. THis
    is how we get the messages we get. This had *nothing* to do with
    getting to know someone better.
    
    Nor does it...ever.
    
    --DE
    

    re .2, and .12, Steve, please don't be upset by women refusing not
    to grow.  Eventually, you won't even get "the occasional home run"
    with your sexist attitudes!!  At any rate, I'm glad I know you and
    know that you're not really the sleazebag you portray yourself to
    be in .2 :-)!  (Or are you?  One never knows!)
    
    Lorna
    
    P.S.  How could you be attracted to a woman in a black leather slit
          skirt?????!!  Have you NO CLASS??? (sorry)
    

    re:  Dale's comment
    
    One of the worst mixed messages from my childhood was "Don't let
    boys/strange men take advantage of you" and "Let relatives and
    respected friends of the family do what they want.  They are more
    important than you are".
    
    I felt so betrayed when I tried to tell my mother that I did not
    like being kissed by some of my uncles because they held on to me
    too long, got me sticky, and 'acted funny'.  She was upset with
    me and told me to get over it and not to offend the relatives.
    I created all sorts of devious ways around this.  I learned that
    if I kept busy in the kitchen and was only seen with platters of
    food in my hands I had some small defense against it ('Watch out!
    I'll drop the squash!').

    Yes, I am a working grandmother looking forward to retirement of
    the coast of Maine.  That stereotype is very close to women of my
    age for many years.  The working and the fact that I am single is
    the exception.
    
    I am not going to change my stereotype to change someone's attitude.
    That is so much bullsh*t and a cop out.  
    
    When I am in a meeting discussing the new system we are developing
    I expect everyone in there to listen to my words and not prejudice
    there ability to grasp the concepts I present with my age, my joy
    in being a grandmother and the fact that I am looking forward to
    retirement.
    
    This is what I mean about attitudes.  
    
    I feel very strongly that I am a feminist...but I feel just as strongly
    that I can leave my House and Garden on the coffee table because
    that is what I enjoy.  If you like Scientific American.  I am not
    out to impress my sisters with any false image of me as a woman,
    nor do I intend to negate the things I enjoy doing to create a new
    image for myself.
    
    Attitudes are as I said in the base note very difficult to
    prove...maybe I did not make myself clear...
    
      .  I am talking about assuming you have to be careful not to
         hurt a woman's feelings
    
      .  I am talking about not listening to a woman's input during
         a meeting
    
      .  I am talking about deciding a woman's career based on the
         fact that she has also chosen to be a mother
    
      .  I am talking about the attitude that men are stronger and 
         can handle stress...
    
    So many times we have heard men say "She wants to change me".  Aren't
    we suggesting in the previous note that we as women change to change
    the attitude.
    
    I suggest we as individuals examine our attitudes and consider if
    they are valid before we even begin the process of evaluating the
    thoughts and ideas of a person.
    

RE: .1

"Whenever a woman mentions that she has felt a negative attitude being directed
toward her merely because she was born female, a man will jump in to get that
"stricken from the record" every time. 

And he doesn't even have to make any logical sense because the point is only to
register a counter-offensive.  He just needs to 1. discredit the woman, 2. cite
an exception, 3, maybe discredit her again if it's not her first "indiscretion"
and 4, go off self-satisfied that another myth held by those militant,
man-hating, feminists has been ceremoniously put to rest.   Harrummph." 

Why can't we find a way to speak and listen so that the listener doesn't need to
discredit the speaker and put to rest the overzealous words used?

"Given this relative annonymity, MANY MEN find it hard to resist a little "fun"
when presented with a strange woman they personally find "interesting".  This
varies from man to man and from time to time in the same man BUT ONLY in degree"

This is a good example of an overzealous statement which is not necessary which
is objectionable.  You are provoking, and then blaming.  This is why there are
many discreditations and overzealous words which need to be objected to.

"to a complete denial of her purpose, (to get the dry-cleaning, to get a meeting
arranged, to get the car looked at, to get a loan, to get a job, etc), and a
focusing instead on his enjoyment of the situation."

What???

"I challenege all of you to think back to the last time you "had a little fun"
with a stranger and then you'll begin to understand that on a steady diet of
strangers, women encounter lots of men having "just a little fun" with them.
Did you flirt a little with the bank teller?  Touch the cocktail waitress a
little more than you would ever touch a waiter?  Smile patronizingly at an
overworked sales clerk trying to satisfy you and feed her kids? 

OK... Thinking back...  I can't remember the last time I 'had fun with' a
stranger.  I can remember a *lot* more women flirting with me a *lot* more
insincerely then I have ever flirted with women.  The only smile I can remember
giving a sales clerk is one to let them realize that I DO appreciate their help.

Oh, but I'm such a male-chauvanist pig underneath, Eh? You (thinking especially
of Ann Broomhead in H_R, but NOI) *know* that, right! Now you are denying me
what I am!  I request that you stop it.  AND stop inferring that men are the
only ones engaged in denial! 

"When encounters with men are routinely milked by them for a little fun, it adds
up to a powerful message for women." 

Should the "when" be there?  Should there be an "If" there? or perhaps an 'Are'?
When we are accused of being an MCP underneath it all, what encounters do you
*not* percieve as men having 'a little fun'.

"because IT does exist, believe it or not"

I believe it exists...  I think that You percieve a lot more then is intended.
I'm not talking about being pinched... I'm talking about being insulted when
someone holds a door open for you.

RE: .3

I can't agree with Eagle, but...

"So what if you've just insulted 9 women in 10, you got one person who wasn't an
you only care about what you get out of it."

I think if Eagle thought that there was a better way to get 1 out of 10 results,
he'd try it...  but he's tried too much with too little success.  Most women
don't respond to egalitarian treatement... they interpret it as not interested
or boring.

"Maybe she likes those clothes for herself."

What does that mean, that nobody else should look?

"I feel like you're implying that some things are okay because she asked for it
by wearing those clothes." 

I don't think that Eagle means to imply that...

"Dammit, women aren't put on earth for men's "visual appreciation"."

Does this mean We can't appreciate women visually???

RE: .7

That's always a possibility for some men that are looking at the wrong women...

For the most part I prefer to stay away from 10s... really, nobody is a 10, some
people just have their best parts visible... the person who may be a 3 at first
glance may have a warm heart...

RE: .9

"I am not going to change my stereotype to change someone's attitude."

I'm not clear on what you think Eagle is suggesting...

RE: .8 Stereotypes

I think Eagle is right... there aren't many good (as 'women' see them) male
stereotypes to serve as examples...  Whenever the question is asked 'that
do women like in men?'  The answers that aren't given don't seem to be terribly
helpfull to men.... Maybe we could try (again)?

Jim.

    re .22
    
    I want to thank you for the suggestions in reply .22.
    
    Let me give you an example where I think I acted in the way you
    suggested.
    
    Background...my expertise is in Accounts Payable.  I have over twenty
    years experience in Payable Policy, Procedure and Systems.  I worked
    in the largest A/P group in this company until two years ago when
    I came to Logistics to another aspect of accounting.  I was a
    supervisor, worked with Career Development for the A/P staff, worked
    on a team that implemented our system in various other A/P locations.
    I was a member of a team that developed policy and instituted
    organizational changes that resulted in a smooth, running organization
    and an exemplary audit.
    
    Situation...shortly after I came to Logistics the A/P group that
    reports to the same accounting manager that I do lost their supervisor.
    At that time I went to the acting manager and told *him* that I
    would be glad to provide any support he needed until he replaced
    his supervisor.
    
    One day I overheard a conversation he was having with the MIS
    department.  He felt he needed to have a programming change to 
    use a new prefix.  I interrupted and explained the procedure.  His
    comment was "Well it won't hurt to try it her way."  I was never
    told that it did indeed work.
    
    Shortly after that the manager scheduled a meeting with my former
    manager around organizational changes he was considering.  My
    experience would have been just as valid as my former manager. 
    
    Several months after this last experience...I was finally asked
    by the manager to help in his A/P group.  He needed someone to do
    some data entry.
                    

    
    I think one of the oversights the eagle is making is the difference
    between "valid_role-models" and stereo-types.
    
    Personal role models are great becuase they are "personal".  They are great
    because they are models and not molds.  You can relate to a role
    model but still make changes to fit your own personality and life
    style.  If you are exposed to the available role models then
    you may pick and choose role models to suit you.  But
    remember they are "personal" role models - not mandatory for everyone
    of your sex, race, age and creed!  I can choose the role model for me 
    and you can choose for you.  Unfortunately because of stereotypes,
    sometimes we are only exposed to those models appropriate for our
    sex.
    
    Stereotypes are restricting.  It is no longer a personal choice,
    but societies choice.  Society chooses women should be this, men
    should be that, old people should be this and young people should
    be that.  If people accept a few basic stereotypes
    ( I am assuming there are only a few, since your basic logic is
    that people are too lazy to accept individuals) then if they meet
    some one who they "ASSUME" should be stereotype "A" because
    this person is of age "X", or sex "Y", or career "Z", and the person is
    not, then that person is viewed as abnormal, weird, etc.  Immediately
    communication is made difficult because of the stereotype.
    Often times people will try to change the weird person because they
    don't fit the correct stereotype.
 
    Examples of harmful/restricting stereotypes:
    
        Stereotype - Women are mothers.              
        Stereotype - Men are chauvinistic.   
        Stereotype - Men are fathers.
        Stereotype - Good mothers stay home with their children.
        Stereotype - Good fathers bring home a paycheck to support their
                     children.
        Stereotype - If a man smiles at you must mean he wants something
                     more.
        Stereotype - Engineers are boring!
        Stereotype - Boys play with guns and trucks.
        Stereotype - Girls play with dolls.
    
    Those are just a few of the mild stereotypes I have run across.  As you
    know they are limiting.  Using these stereotypes a man who chooses to stay
    home with his children is not normal, A woman who chooses not to have 
    children or marry is told she will regret it.  
    
    Even so called "new and improved" stereotypes are limiting; 
    such as "All moms must be super moms - have great career,
    have husband, have 2 kids, and be a housewife".  Now if a woman just
    decides to give up her career and stay home with her children she is 
    considered by her femminist sisters to be a failure or as giving
    in to the old stereotype. (I use to be guilty of this!)

    Examples of "Personal" role models are infinite - I can choose anyone
    or many people to be my role model.  They can be people that are
    part of my life such as mothers, sisters, fathers, brothers, or
    some one I don't know but admire such as Sally Ride, Martin Luther
    King, maybe even Mario Andretti.  The important thing is my options
    are open.  Parents however must expose the children to these other
    role models and let them know than can do or be whatever they choose.
    
    Of course all of this is only my opinion that I wanted to share.

    May we all learn from one another and be role models for each other.
    

    
    
      
    

    My least favorite stereotype was skipped:
    
    	[Single] women seen in public are available.
    
    Crud, if I never got another date-offer via mail or stranger calling
    me up, I could die happy!  I may be out and around, but that doesn't
    mean I need to be adopted and kept at home!
    
    <Whew>!  Thanks, I needed that.
    
    Well, I know, folks get lonely (me too).  But I agree with Bonnie
    (who we all know *is* gorgeous), it's best to make friends first.
    If you only chase after interesting-_appearing_ people, you'll wind
    up in bed with some real kooks!  Oh, just call me "Jaded", I know.

    in re .25
    

    Yeah, but you wind up with some real kooks anyway so why not at
    least go for the best-looking kooks?????  ;-)
    
    As unfair as it seems to many women looks are often THE most important 
    factor in a man's decision of whether or not to get to know a
    particular woman better. 
    
    It's been said that men fall in love through their eyes and women fall 
    in love through their ears.  I know, it's a "gross generalization"
    isn't it?  Where DO these gross generalizations come from??  ;-)  
    
    It's only being honest with ourselves if we define what we absolutely 
    must have and search for the love of our lives among the people who 
    possess that quality.  I don't think anyone will argue with that.
    What some will argue with is that men "should not" have looks as their 
    first screen.  I'll be the first to say anyone can have anything they 
    damn well please.
    
    If your desires are superficial they are STILL your desires and you 
    do yourself and your partners no favor trying to deny them.
    
    And I don't buy the blanket assumption that good-looking people and
    interesting people are on opposite ends of the scale; therefore
    I don't think a man or a woman who searches out attractiveness or
    money is doomed to a life of "kooks" or "airheads".  Now THAT would 
    be a gross generalization!  But the rich and the beautiful aren't
    going to get much sympathy and they know it.  So generalizations
    about them don't get challenged much.  In fact, most of us welcome
    such generalizations.  They help us cope with our lesser luck.

    RE .27   I fall in (& out of) love thru my ears. 
             Looks are not a factor. The body does show signs if
             a person isn't taking care of her/himself. Much can
             be read thru body language. When the body language
             reveals certain signs, that's when seeing is believing.
    
                                                       Russ

    Oh, I agree--people are entitled to their own criteria.  I just
    mean to raise a flag about superficialities.  Not that superficial
    relationships are Bad, or any other gross rule like that, but a
    warning that if you jump at the first person with the right eye
    color (or whatever your favorite), they may not meet all the kinds
    of qualifications you'd like.  It's a matter of expectations.
    
    (I'm probably a bit crosser about this than I think I am.  Please
    excuse me: I'm having a hard time being responsible and helping
    other people be responsible in a situation involving this sort of
    thing.  I'd say more, but I'm trying to respect the parties's privacy,
    since it's not me.  Thanks for the reminder!)
    
    Russ has reminded me of a couple of other things, indirectly.  How
    many times have I heard, "She doesn't wear makeup because she hates men."
    Or "He married an ugly woman because he doesn't respect himself."
    Heavens!  Where do people get those ideas?  They're such an unhappy
    interpretation of another's life.
    
    I too like watching people move.  I'd like to learn to draw, because
    I think it would develop my appreciation of everyone.