era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (07/18/88)
In article <1420@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >Mark is all you have a right to -- and if someone associates a *true fact* >-- your gender, with your name, then me thinks you have a pretty poor case >for "defamation". > >Karl Denninger (ddsw1!karl) Data: (312) 566-8912, Voice: (312) 566-8910 Spoken like a true bigot, Karl. You've come a long way, but you've still got long way to go. I remember when you were sure I had no right to my name. And all your friends agreed. Why? Well, since you couldn't give a nondiscriminatory reason, you gave a discriminatory one. You were sure I wasn't entitled to my name because of my sex. And you found out differently. Now you're saying that you think I'm not entitled to the pronouns appropriate to my name. And again there is only the discriminatory reason for your belief--I can't possibly be entitled to the same pronouns men use because I'm female. It is getting rather tiresome at this point. Men have no patent or copyright on undiminished names or on undiminished pronouns. Both are in the public domain. And you cannot deny somebody something on the basis of sex alone. But bigots will never believe that. What about the women (or female pseudos) who claim that they prefer diminutive terms? That's no problem. That's *their* preference. When the first women dared to wear pants, previously clothing restricted only to men (remember the Bloomer girls?), many women were outraged. And there are still women who have never worn pants on any occasion and never will because they feel it is unladylike. That's their right. But they cannot force other women not to wear pants. And women who prefer traditional forms of address cannot force other women to have the same preference. Haven't any of you Libertarians ever heard of individual freedoms? Some women would never want to work at what they consider to be a man's job. Some women would never want to earn what they consider to be a man's salary. In China, for 2,000 years, most women wanted to have bound feet because they didn't want to walk around on what they considered to be men's feet. But men have no legal right to be the only ones to practice law or medicine, or to do contruction work or plumbing, or to run for Presidennt, or to earn a living wage, or to have healthy feet. It just takes people a long time to realize these things. Some people are born with rights they take for granted and even abuse. Others have to fight for equal rights, battling the whole world single-handedly for each right on a case by case basis. Women in particular have this problem. If a woman gets a nontraditional job, chances are the pay will be less, if a woman gets the job and equal pay, the woman won't be given the same title, if the woman sues and gets the same, job, pay, and the title that goes with it, the company will probably give men in similar positions more responsibility. If the woman goes back to court and manages to get the same job, pay, title and responsibilities, it will probably be necessary to sue again to get equal promotional opportunities. Get the same job, pay, title, responsibilities and promotional opportunities as men, and they'll still insist that you can't wear the clothing appropriate to that job and must wear clothing that is unprofessional and makes you look like somebody's wife or secretary. Sue yet again and win the right to the job, the pay, the title, the responsibilities, the promotional opportunities and the robes of office, and they'll say that you still can't have a name or terms of address similar to those men have. Go back to court, if you have energy left at this point, and win the legal right to the job, pay, title, responsibilites, promotional opportunities, robes of office, and equal terms of address, and they'll probably rape or kill you. After all, they can't possibly treat a woman the same as a man, can they? The answer is yes, they can. They may have to be forced to in each case, but just as Chinese men found they had no real difficulty marrying women with unbound feet after footbinding became illegal, and most men in America today would rather not die than submit to surgery performed by a woman surgeon, tolerance can be learned. Why don't you try, Karl? In article <1158@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) wrote: >Those users on machines who *cannot* receive soc.* "cannot" get it because >management (or someone in charge) has decided that these types of >discussions simply will not be carried on their machine; that they do not >want to bear the cost of transport. Period. Has it ever occurred to you that sites subject to EEO/AA laws might not want to carry discriminatory postings on their machines-- that they do not want to bear the cost of transport for articles that violate the laws they are subject to? >If you're really so upset about not getting soc.*, then get your own >hardware and set up your own Usenet system. Then you can carry and >redistribute anything you want. Alternatively, convince management that >soc. is a good thing to carry and propagate. Excellent suggestion. If you're really so upset about not being able to violate my rights, set up your own Usenet system. They you can carry discriminatory or defamatory articles or anything you want. Alternatively, convince management at large corporations, universities and government agencies that discrimination is a good thing to carry and propagate. You'll have a lot of convincing to do, since they could lose federal subsidies and be held legally liable, but you are welcome to try. >Deception in any form is bad. Organized >intentional deception with the intent to *spend others money without their >consent* is even worse. And I suppose you asked each large site if it was okay with them for you to violate my rights before you posted? Or were you hoping they wouldn't notice? Doing something that leaves others open to charges of participating in or funding an overtly discriminatory or otherwise illegal activity is also wrong, Karl. And doing it without their consent is even worse. --Mark
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/18/88)
At the risk of being included as a defendant in this rather bizarre lawsuit and of being flamed by some, here are some comments: In article <12176@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >... I remember when you were sure I had no >right to my name. And all your friends agreed. Why? Well, since >you couldn't give a nondiscriminatory reason, you gave a discriminatory >one. You were sure I wasn't entitled to my name because of my sex. I think you will have a hard time to claim that you have a right to be called certain things. You may have the right to call yourself whatever you wish, and certain statutes and precedents give you the right not to be referred to in certain insulting or defamatory ways, but I don't think there is a way under the law to force anyone to refer to you in any particular way. >And you found out differently. Now you're saying that you think I'm >not entitled to the pronouns appropriate to my name. And again there >is only the discriminatory reason for your belief--I can't possibly >be entitled to the same pronouns men use because I'm female. It is >getting rather tiresome at this point. Men have no patent or >copyright on undiminished names or on undiminished pronouns. Both >are in the public domain. And you cannot deny somebody something >on the basis of sex alone. But bigots will never believe that. I think you will find very little acceptance in a court of law for the idea that female pronouns are "diminished". Pronouns used are not a matter of rights, but of language conventions. To refer to a woman with female pronouns is not discrimination, but proper English. >What about the women (or female pseudos) who claim that they prefer >diminutive terms? That's no problem. That's *their* preference. >When the first women dared to wear pants, previously clothing restricted >only to men (remember the Bloomer girls?), many women were outraged. >And there are still women who have never worn pants on any occasion and >never will because they feel it is unladylike. That's their right. >But they cannot force other women not to wear pants. And women who >prefer traditional forms of address cannot force other women to have >the same preference. Haven't any of you Libertarians ever heard of >individual freedoms? Ah, but there is no law saying that I have to abide by everbody's preferences when speaking to or about them. Of course that might be the polite thing to do, but there is no law requiring politeness. Also, by your own style of reasoning, you are discriminating against and slandering women who prefer traditional forms of address and traditional roles by calling them "female pseudos" and by saying that what they prefer are "diminutive terms". >Some women would never want to work at what they consider to be >a man's job. Some women would never want to earn what they >consider to be a man's salary. In China, for 2,000 years, most women >wanted to have bound feet because they didn't want to walk around >on what they considered to be men's feet. But men have no legal >right to be the only ones to practice law or medicine, or to >do contruction work or plumbing, or to run for Presidennt, or to >earn a living wage, or to have healthy feet. It just takes people >a long time to realize these things. I agree with you there, but I think you overestimate/overstate the influence of USENET if you think that postings here are significant enough to prevent you from holding any job you want. If you don't think that, then the above paragraph is irrelevant to this discussion. >and most men in America today would rather not die than submit to >surgery performed by a woman surgeon, tolerance can be learned. Caught yourself in your own trap. The sentence above implies that one runs the risk of death by submitting to a a woman surgeon. Replace "submit" with "refuse", or "refuse to submit", and it says what you intended. A few more comments: Mark, you have a tendency to ascribe crimes like rape and childabuse to men as a class, and to ascribe evil motives to anyone who dares to disagree with you. That makes you a royal pain in the ***, and I believe that it is largely for that reason that people flame you, not because you are either a woman or because you prefer non-traditional (and ungrammatical) forms of address. As has been stated in some of the groups in the context of the JJ discussion, USENET sites probably are not liable for the contents of messages which pass through them, since the USENET as a whole functions as a sort of "common carrier". Thus all this talk of sueing such sites is illusory. As for the individuals, I'm sure they can prove that they have flamed men as well as women over the course of their net-careers; unless you can show that their flaming you has caused you specific damage in your job or such like, you stand no chance. Your emotional distress is easily dealt with: stop reading articles which come from certain people, or stop reading netnews altogether. There is noone who forces you to read netnews, and reading netnews is not a constitutional right. Wolf Paul -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (07/18/88)
In article <12176@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >Some people are born with rights they take for granted and even >abuse. Others have to fight for equal rights, battling the whole >world single-handedly for each right on a case by case basis. and others, such as MES, abuse people while fighting for rights which haven't been denied. it's not that people on the net want to discriminate against MES, it's just that some people can't stand her constant whining and complaining and just plain don't like HER. one would think she'd get the message and just go away. and $100 for the first person MES sues who sends me copies of all the pre-trial pleadings and all the other legal filings. - john. -- John F. Haugh II +--------- Cute Chocolate Quote --------- HASA, "S" Division | "USENET should not be confused with UUCP: killer!rpp386!jfh | something that matters, like CHOCOLATE" DOMAIN: jfh@rpp386.uucp | -- with my apologizes