Re: And why. . .? (long)

mpresley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> 
>...The original question (about women participants) was tendered with
a bit of
> comedy. My subsequent post was therefore in a kind of irreverent vein.  I
> personally do not consider myself 'sexist', but I do recognize a
> fundamental physical and psychological difference between the sexes...

Physical, yes. But it seems to me that what the psychological
difference is (or perhaps more accurately, what the differences are)
are still in the process of being discovered. Men can be empathetic
and women can be vicious and ruthless. I think a lot of the ostensible
differences are based on stereotyping and cultural influences.
 
> What is a sexist?  Someone who considers women inferior?  Not me. 
> Different, yes.  But certainly not inferior.    

Stereotyping can be sexist as well as outright bias.

> Still, I suspect that most Wagner listeners are men--especially when it
> comes to the Ring.   
> 
> And I think it attributable to putative content.  Not the philosophical
> stuff; but rather the trappings: killing, thievery, banishment, wild sex,
> etc.  Think about the difference in gender between those that might want to
> watch a Meryl Streep movie and those who enjoy the Terminator.
>
I am a man (a football fan, by the way) and would rather watch Meryl
Streep than the Terminator any day. I think she's one of the greatest
actresses I've ever seen and I wonder why she gets sterotyped as a
'women's' actress. A friend of mine did that the other day, saying he
wouldn't rent 'The Hours' (a masterpiece, in my opinion), because he
thought it was a 'women's movie'. Streep has given magnificent
performances in 'Deer Hunter,' 'Sophie's Choice,' and 'Ironweed,', to
name only a few, and I can't see that those movies wouldn't appeal to
men as much as to women.

Charles