kmw@iheds.UUCP (08/10/83)
I've noticed a disturbing assumption in some of the postings relating to
sexist language.
Implicit in some of the articles is that either:
Women who are disturbed by sexist language, attitudes, etc.
can point this out and try to get them changed.
or:
Women can overcome sexist language, etc. by working hard and
proving competence.
Why does the former preclude the latter? Of course I'm not going to let
the fact that the letter was addressed to "Mr. Kathleen Wilber" stop me
from reading it! Of course I'm not going to stop listening to the speaker
because he called us "men"! And so on.
But why shouldn't I also write a note to the company that mailed the letter
and ask them to use names as given on their mailing list, not automatically
prepending "Mr."? Or point out to the speaker that "men" is no longer
acurate? I don't scream, throw tomatoes, or walk out; I assume I'm giving
them information that had genuinely not occurred to them. (By this I mean
either that it really was never pointed out before ("I didn't know it
bothered you."), or they didn't know it bothered a lot of women ("I knew it
bothered one woman who spoke to me, but I thought it was just her.").
It does bother many women to be referred to as men, and the women who are
not bothered would also not be bothered by being referred to as "employees,"
"attendees," "engineers," or whatever the group is. The change seems
reasonable to me - but it won't happen unless we ask.
Kathy Wilber (iheds!kmw or mvuxt!kw)reo@teltone (R.E. Overby) (08/15/83)
Debbie, I really enjoyed your answer to Rosemarie Newberry. I think her example of gross male insensitivity was a classic! It is ***highly*** unlikely that the women on the net could not answer *all* of the questions that an unrepentant FORTRAN PHREAK like me could ask about UN*X. It was so presumptuous to say wise "men" that Rosemarie's hurt and indignation are certainly a normal reaction. That excerpt made me ashamed of my (male) peers unthinking slight to *all* the women on the net. Your question was incisive in that it cut away the emotion (darned hard to do when you're angry) and stressed the objectives, not how many petty things the woman has to overcome to do that job. This excerpt from my net mail message to a woman who stated that the term "woman doctor" was offensive to her seems to fit into what you were saying about job performance. Had I seen the sentence Rosemarie quoted BEFORE I wrote this, the tone would have been more conciliatory....but so soon I got old, and so late, smart. ********************************************************************** ............................... reasons many patients have a preference for DOCTORS of a particular gender. Even if my wife's doctor were *legally* qualified to give me my FAA Flight Physical, I would not ask her to do it. *I personally* would feel very it to be a very awkward situation. Perhaps *not everyone* would. Perhaps that's why the supermarket has more than one kind of soap.....we ALL have personal preferences....even though one product (read--person) may be functionally indistinguishable from another. FLAMES DOWN LOW! **************** For women to get just recognition of their worth and their real capabilities in the professional area please, please remember that so long as the clear majority of legislators, judges, and regulatory officials are men, antagonism only makes your progress more difficult. The greatest strategists (military and political) have always known the secret of greatness (and success) is to select the time to negotiate and the time to fight. Don't drive away your quiet conservative supporters with haggling about what you CALL a job or object.........your goal is to GET THAT JOB and show what you can do. It is as true for women as it is for men... Performance goes in the bank....promises are as permanent as the hole in a bucket of water when you pull your finger out! xxxx, you sound intelligent, articulate, and ambitious. Be a great strategist and get men to help you achieve the goals you have set for yourself. Senseless inflammatory rhetoric is more harmful to the speaker than the listener. Read Ginger Grover's voting results on the question "would you vote for a woman for president?" The vote (over 70% male) was 25 YES to 3 NO! We are willing to help a woman succeed because MOST of us think you have not had a fair chance. Hey, partner, just meet us half way, you know we're not ALL MCP's! Sincerely, Robert Overby (aka Grandpa * 2) uw-beaver!teltone!reo ************************************************************************** Debbie, this started to be mail and the more I thought about that "wise men" quote, the more it seemed to need a more public forum. REO