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