Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site stolaf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!whuxle!pyuxll!abnjh!u1100a!pyuxn!pyuxww!mhuxm!mhuxl!ihnp4!stolaf!twiss
From: twiss@stolaf.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: new discussion & limits - (nf)
Message-ID: <1343@stolaf.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-Jan-84 19:18:13 EST
Article-I.D.: stolaf.1343
Posted: Sat Jan 28 19:18:13 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 01:18:24 EST
References: <1489@pur-ee.UUCP>
Organization: St. Olaf College, Northfield MN
Lines: 18


	I agree with Allan Pratt that opinions and subjectivity are going
to have to enter this discussion (if anyone out there really wants to 
persue it).  But I don't think we've addressed the question yet.  I think
all of us know that men and women tend to have specific traits, some
probably boilogical, others societal.  But how are these traits related?
Maybe this is too rhetorical for real discussion, but can a person have
characteristics of the other sex and still retain their identity (e.g.
can a woman be a good musician without agressiveness, or i.e. can only
men or women with male traits be good musicians/presidents/astronauts/
professors/programmers/etc.  My whole point was, I think women can be
agressive, retain their femininity, and not have their talents be put in
terms of male characteristics and thus "good".  Why do women have to be
compared with men to succeed?  Why can't they be accepted on their own
terms?

					Tom Twiss
				...!ihnp4!stolaf!twiss