Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!hao!hplabs!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Language Flamage and net.mcp Message-ID: <5391@tekecs.UUCP> Date: Fri, 31-May-85 14:27:06 EDT Article-I.D.: tekecs.5391 Posted: Fri May 31 14:27:06 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 20:36:31 EDT References: <256@spar.UUCP> <5354@tekecs.UUCP> <264@spar.UUCP> Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR Lines: 83 Well, Michael, you've made a lot of noise about what the original point is and isn't, but none of it answers *MY* point, which I will repeat: Societies that have languages with no "inappropriate" gender references - that is, gender is referenced only when it is that of a known person - are not known for their lack of sexism. Finnish, Turkish, and Bengali have been cited by various people over the last few years on this net. This suggests to me that your efforts relative to the English language are likely to be wasted. This may not be directly related to anything Marie ever said. I don't care. (And I mean no disrespect for Marie when I say that. That *should* be obvious.) That has no effect on its validity. And, by the way, the last time this discussion came up, some people DID suggest that non-gender-specific pronouns be used even when referring to someone whose sex was known. Likewise, whether you support this or not has no bearing on the validity of my argument above. > Would net.{unix, lang.c, auto, religion.christian, motss} allow > those who hate {unix, C, cars, christianity, gays} to overwhelm > their bandwidth with the kind of antithetical sentiments > corresponding to those below: > > *Provocative clothing is a major factor in rape. > > *Women have no business being proud when other women overcome the > historical male prejudice in our society. > > *Quotas to improve women's chances of employment in traditionally > male dominated fields are harmful because they make men feel guilty. > > *Today's high incidence of rape is a fact of life that women should > fatalistically learn to live with. > > *The proposed nonsexist language is a waste of time, is ambiguous, > will remove useful distinctions from the language... > > *Women use too much toilet paper. > > Nobody is saying that men should stop disagreeing with women. > > But net.women could be a useful place where men and women > of opposing viewpoints could at least come to have understanding > and appreciation for each other, if not come to agreement. > > Why must there be such a huge GLUT of negative contributors who must > immediately overwhelm each and every feminist statement by weight > of sheer numbers alone? I suggest you go back and read every article appearing on net.women regarding these subjects. It seems to me that it's been about thirds between: 1. The sentiments above 2. Feminist and similar points of view 3. Somewhere in the middle But I suppose you think that constitutes a glut. Net.women is for the discussion of issues relating to women. It is not, and was never intended to be, limited to points of view that you (or I, or anyone else) happen to approve of. > >Stop wasting your time and get on to something really constructive. > > Like what? Toilet paper? > > -michael No, actually I was thinking of things like rape prevention and fighting discrimination. But if you require 150 line articles just to argue about who made what point when, I guess the net would suffer terminal gridlock from the articles which would result should you ever decide to address those issues. Yeah, it's a cheap shot. So was yours. Jeff Winslow PS. Actually, the toilet paper discussion has provided some needed comic relief on this newsgroup. I figured the guy would get nice and toasted, as he should. And he did. I want to say to Sophie and everyone else who took the trouble to reply that I very much enjoyed all your comments.