era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) (07/17/88)
If you've been reading the net for any length of time, you've seen the same group of people violate my rights repeatedly. Several of them have made it plain that they will not stop unless I sue. It was foolish of me to ever hope otherwise. Sadists and bigots willl not stop torturing people and violating their rights unless they are forced to, and they themselves are the first to admit it. Some of the people violating my rights are untraceable. They use pseudos and post from sites that do not require verification. I have a feeling that upon discovery, their codefendants will name them, so as not to take the entire responsibility upon themselves. Most post from sites that have fewer than 15 employees and do not receive federal funds, and are therefore not subject to EEO laws. That would be fine so long as their postings were not carried by sites that *ARE* subject to EEO laws. Some post from sites with EEO/AA policies, but their employers do not know they are using company resources for personal, discriminatory reasons. Some post from sites that have defrauded the phone company by pretending to be hobbies, when they are actually businesses. Some of the people violating my rights are also defrauding the government by billing the government for time they spend violating my rights, or by using government computers and phone time to violate my rights. There is actually no legal way to discriminate against a person on the basis of sex, however they've gotten away with it *only* because I haven't sued. That was my mistake and I suffered greatly for it. I am tired of suffering. They often ask me not to take my rights seriously, but they seem to take their own rights very seriously indeed. They feel that it is okay for them treat me as a member of a class, female, on the basis of my sex, without regard to my emancipated status, the rights I have fought for and established in federal court, and my preferences. That's not how things work. If one woman prefers "Ms." it does not mean you can refer to all women that way. If an older woman specifically requests to be referred to as Mrs. that woman has a right to be addressed according to individual preference. Not only may a woman be referred to without regard to marital status, but also without regard to sex if he prefers. The fact that bigots have no respect for the Constitutional rights of emancipated women who prefer equal treatment without regard to sex and are accustomed to being treated the same way as men, does not mean that all women have to submit to traditional or stereotypical treatment based upon sex. The law is clear, and disparate treatment based on sex is something women submit to out of habit or socialization, but not something the law requires. The people who have been deliberately violating my rights hundreds and hundreds of times on Usenet, are going to act very indignant when I sue. It is okay for them to violate my rights, but not okay for me to defend my rights. They haven't been calling me slimeball or f*ckhead, or the usual epithets of flamers, they have been making pointed references to my sex. My sex is no different from my religion or ethnicity, except that it is, if anything, even more personal and private. Imagine if they had been making hundreds and hundreds of deliberate references to a person's color or religion. Would you tell that person not to take offense and not to sue? In addition to publishing every detail of my life they could get their hands on, they have mentioned many times that I am emotionally disabled. I have been the victim of much abuse from which I never fully recovered. It is grounds for a civil tort when somebody deliberately and knowingly inflicts emotional distress on someone who is emotionally disabled. Oleg mentions that I'm on disability and Bill Vajk has asked many times why I'm not rich. I'm not rich because I haven't sued the rich people who have been violating my rights hundreds of times publicly, and I intend to remedy that error. The only help I get is the right to sue in forma pauperis, without paying court fees, and to have subpoenas served without any cost to me. I will seek damages from those who can be traced and who have violated my rights repeatedly. I asked them not to, others asked them not to, many people explained the grammar of inclusive pronouns, and the legal issue is perfectly clear. I will also seek to have all sites not subject to EEO/AA laws, dropped from Usenet unless they sign a nondiscrimination pledge, so that other sites cannot be liable for discrimination by people at sites that do not require verification and do not recognize antidiscrimination laws. I will also seek to ensure that no site subject to EEO/AA laws devotes any resources whatsoever to Usenet while it remains a discriminatory activity. That means not one second of computer time, not one moment of phone time, and not one minute of paid employee time. If you feel that violates your rights, you might have spoken up when my rights were being violated. Turn about is fair play. I've endured as much as any human could be expected to, and it is time for the payback. Several of the bigots have stated clearly that unless I sue them and win, they will not stop violating my rights. That's how things stand. I appreciate the email from those who respect my rights and are concerned. I hope that my lawsuit will make Usenet a legal, nondiscriminatory activity that any citizen can participate in without having to fear defamation or discrimination. I had first thought of suing only for that purpose and not seeking monetary damages, but the repeated references to my poverty by Kiselev and Vajk have shown me that that would be a serious mistake. A large part of the reason they do not respect my rights is that I am poor. If defending my rights in court can also remedy my impoverished condition at the expense of those who have been attacking me both for being nontraditional and for being poor, the justice would be not merely righteous, it would be delightfully poetic. Because I have been through this before, I know how to represent myself in court. I also know how to prepare the necessary subpoenas and legal briefs. I know my rights and the law regarding my rights. And I know that unless I sue, the bigots will continue to violate my rights repeatedly. I wasn't born with equal rights--I had to fight for my rights, and they are precious to me. Telling me not to take my rights seriously, is also discriminatory. My legal rights are just as serious as anyone else's. As for the problem of proving the authenticity of postings, there have been sufficient numbers of them from the same people, and suffient known people who have read them and archived them, to resolve any doubts. Most of the bigots are proud that they treat women as members of a class, and not as unique individuals, and brag openly about treating women differently from men on the basis of sex, so there is no problem about proving discrimination. As for proving harm, I've been in therapy during the entire time I've been posting, and the emotional distress I sufferred whenever the bigots repeatedly violated my rights, has been documented. And if they try to countersue with their lies and distortions about what I've posted in the past, there are plenty of people who read the originals and will testify to the truth. The difference is that while they claim I said things I didn't, they admit openly that they have repeatedly violated my rights. They simply claim that they will not recognize or respect my rights unless I sue, so I have no choice in the matter. I think the benefits of making Usenet a legal, nondiscriminatory activity, which corporations, universities, and government agencies can legally participate without liability for discrimination, outweighs the inconvenience to those who fear losing their "right" to post articles that are discriminatory or defamatory in nature. The loss of a few outlaw sites and a handful of bigots will result in a lot better signal to noise ratio, more productive discussions, and a more democratic atmosphere. --Mark
jgreely@dulcimer.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (07/17/88)
In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: > As for proving harm, >I've been in therapy during the entire time I've been posting, and ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >the emotional distress I sufferred whenever the bigots >repeatedly violated my rights, has been documented. Finally, the truth is out! Thanks, "Mark". I've been wondering for some time now. -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu) "This had better be important! I'm smack in the middle of an especially melodramatic monologue!" -- Lord Manga Khan (JLI) ..!{att,pyramid,killer}!cis.ohio-state.edu!jgreely
cs3551ad@geinah.unm.edu (David Schnedar) (07/17/88)
--Mark, can --Mark state a decent reference for these rights --Mark claim.
I claim that it is a violation of my rights that people say the sky
is blue. Should I sue. Acording to --Mark, you have to call me by a
name or pronoun of my choice.
In the future please refer to me as:
"THE GRAND PUBA, MASTER OF ALL HE SEES OR THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHICHEVER IS
BIGGER"
Or use this as a pronoun when refering to me:
"THE ONE WHO'S NAME MUST NOT BE SPOKEN"
If you don't use the above when refering to me I won't sue, but I will
be deeply hurt and insulted.
--Mark's nonsense about this "right" being supported by a quote from
a court record is nonsense. I would like a reference from a majority opinion,
a concurrent opinion, a lower court decision, a law, or the constitution.
If --Mark can't find this, a quote from a book written by and idiot with
a law degree would be better than nothing.
>--Mark
I use "--Mark" because --Mark does. --Mark seems to be real picky about
how I refer to --Mark, but --Mark hasn't posted --Mark's prefered method
of address lately.
--Mark, please post the syntax and semantics --Mark would prefer us to use
when refering to --Mark. Can I please use "you". Not using it is very
difficult.
From the mind of:
THE GRAND PUBA, MASTER OF ALL HE SEES OR THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE WHICHEVER IS
BIGGER.
or you can call me Puba for short.
please excuse any misspelled words or poor grammer, but it is my
constitutional right to wright bad english.cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (07/17/88)
In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes:
I know it is foolish to get caught up in this madness, but I think this is
the first time this all has leaked into misc.legal, so this somewhat-ranting
posting raises more questions than it does threats.
I particular, you make constant repetitive reference to some "right" and to
the EEO/AA laws. And you threaten to sue for damagea on the one hand, and to
try to get the Feds to hassle folk on the AA front on the other. Let me take
a shot at the obvious:
In order to sue for damages, don't you have to sustain some? Can you
_really_, to the satisfaction of a court, demonstrate some actual financial
loss you have incurred based on this alleged discrimination? If not, then
you may or may not have a suit, but I think that "damages" isn't what you'll
be suing for. [and what is this "right" anyway? you're pretty vague about
it in your posting]
As for the AA laws, again I thought that they make very specific
impositions on companies that come under their purview, and again, just
stamping your feet is NOT enough to cause any real legal action: you
can cause some hassle (but triggering investigations and such), but I
think that there are obligations on a complainant that you don't even
hint at having evidence for (in fact, given the rather broad sweep of
your claims, it is pretty unlikely that you probably have any specific
evidence against ANY of the to-be-defendants).
Altogether, this sounds like it is not much of a matter for misc.legal.
But then, probably everybody but me already knew that....
__
/ ) Bernie Cosell
/--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238
/___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.comstein@c3pe.UUCP (Mike Stein) (07/18/88)
I think Trish O Tuama has given a pretty clear explanation of the
scope of the EEO/AA laws. Mark's only hope for success that I can see
is intentional infliction of emotional distress, though I think it's a
slim one. (Mark, you know what *in forma pauperis* means; have you ever
heard *de minimis not curat lex*? Yes, I know it doesn't seem *de minimis*
to you, but I think you have a tough row to hoe with a jury.)
While I don't think Mark does (or should) have a hope of winning a
suit, nevertheless I think Mark does have a point of simple politeness:
If Mark likes being referred to as "he" and "him", why is it so important
to so many of you to insist on calling Mark "she" and "her" regardless of
the fact that it upsets Mark so? I have a friend whose birth certificate
reads "Cynthia." She hates both that and Cindy; those who would remain
friends with her call her "Cync." Do any of you have names that you really
don't like? There are rights which are not legally enforceable, but which
are nevertheless our due as members of society: please, thank-you, and
other such things. Yes, Mark's postings are often inflammatory and full
of name-calling, and I'll take special exception to Mark calling Michael
Berch a rapist - that's defamation of character, not just infliction
of emotional distress. But for the rest of it, is that any reason to
respond in kind? If you find Mark a pain, well, that's why God gave us
'n' keys and (for rn users) KILL files. Of course, I'll say the same thing
to Mark: though I support you on this narrow point, nevertheless your skin
is too thin. You can call me anything, as they say, except late for dinner.
It's what you *are* that's really important, not what people say about you
(short of accusing you of crimes to cause the police to take you away and
things like that). I don't see how anything said here damaged your ability
to gain employment, Mark, nor that anyone has accused you of a crime.
Now, on the subject of kicking government sites off Usenet, Mark may
win this one without firing a shot. I used to be sysadmin of dolqci (U. S.
Dept. of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Services). The Powers That Be decided
that anything other than the comp.* groups plus a few random others (e.g.,
dc.general for announcements of user group meetings and the like) were not
proper use of government computer resources. Thus soc.singles and misc.legal
were banished. Of course, so was soc.women. You may find this a Pyrrhic
victory, Mark.
One thing that I remember is Mark's mutterings about a dark conspiracy
of sysadmins to torment him. (There, I said it. Hey, it didn't hurt!) I
sent him an email note setting forth my position, but that was during the
Great Pseudo Hunt and may not have gotten through. Basically, as sysadmin
I had many things to do, and policing the net was not one of them. *Any*
news maintenance I did was an "own time" project, and since I was holding
down two jobs as it was (really - the RFP for the new contract said I was
doing one job plus a third of each of three others!), my goal was just
to keep anything from breaking, and let it go at that. I had no time to
examine all postings for offensive language, or even to write a utility to
do so. This is cross-posted to news.admin; I wonder how many of you
sysadmins out there are in the same boat as I was.
But (as the summary line asks) who is Usenet anyway? On whom would
any papers be served? Yes, there are people who work to keep the net
going, but really it's a distributed, anarchic cooperative effort. If
any site starts getting rude, neighboring sites may pull the plug, but
there's no Net.Police with power to *order* anyone to refuse feeds to
violators (though there are some who may *suggest* that violations of
net.etiquette have occurred, and that doing something would be a *good
idea*, and who have been around long enough and selflessly done enough
for the net.community that their opinions on the subject may be worth an
extra moment of consideration).
So let's stop goading Mark, and Mark, let's stop making shotgun ac-
cusations. Furthermore, Mark, I propose that rather than getting your
revenge through our poor overburdened court system, you take very appro-
priate retaliatory action against those men who you claim torture you by
referring to you with the feminine pronoun just because you have two 'X'
chromosomes: refer to them as "she" and "her" and see how they like it.
It may give you satisfaction, them an interesting lesson, and all of us
a very instructive experiment. (I guess you'll have to refer to Trish
with the masculine pronouns.) Quite frankly, I personally think that "she"
and "her" just refer to "that person who is neither you nor I and has two
'X' chromosomes, breasts (usually, if not surgically removed) and a vagina."
I see no belittlement in that; it's just a statement of fact just as surely
as I have an 'XY' pair and a penis. OK, so Mark feels differently; I'll
refrain from using "she" and "her" just as I call my friend "Cync" even
though I don't find anything wrong with "Cindy" or "Cynthia." Now, children,
play nice, and no lawsuits.
- Mike Stein
{ uunet, decvax }!decuac!c3pe!stein
Disclaimer: I don't even work here! oleg@gryphon.CTS.COM (Oleg Kiselev) (07/18/88)
In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: >It is grounds for a civil tort when somebody deliberately and >knowingly inflicts emotional distress on someone who is emotionally >disabled. Oleg mentions that I'm on disability... That's information YOU have made public. If you did not wish that info to be known, you should not have flounted it earlier. If referring to your (publicly known) gender can be constituted as a "knowing infliction of emotional dissterss" then your repeated rabid attacks on men of the NET in general and women who disagree with you can be equally construed as deliberate attempts to inflict emotional disstress. A class action suit? And there is this matter of "pseudo"s. I, for one, am very disturbed and offended when someone tries to insinuate that I am nothing but a "pseudo" designed to harrass some lunatic. Another law suit? >The only help >I get is the right to sue in forma pauperis, without paying court >fees, and to have subpoenas served without any cost to me. Right. Use the money that we pay to support you to extort more money from us. And after all this Skyler complains about the attitude we all take to MES! >I will also seek to have all sites not subject to EEO/AA laws, >dropped from Usenet unless they sign a nondiscrimination pledge, >so that other sites cannot be liable for discrimination by people >at sites that do not require verification and do not recognize >antidiscrimination laws. You ARE mad. EEO/AA laws prevent EMPLOYMENT discrimination. You are not employed at all. These laws will not help you. And you seem to be not too familiar with the structure and nature of USENET to contemplate something like this... >... but the repeated references to my poverty by Kiselev and >Vajk have shown me that that would be a serious mistake. A large part >of the reason they do not respect my rights is that I am poor. Bullshit. Your "rights" as you see them (a grammatical nuisance built out of your persecution complex and inability to deal with your gender) have been violated only in the sense that people have been applying "normal" usage to pronouns. Your financial status is of no interest to me other than the fact that *MY* taxes are paying for your bills in general and for your access to the NET in particular. You are a LIAR, Mark. *I* have only referred to your "poverty" at most 2 times, both in the last 2 weeks, when the analogy between you and K*nt Paul Dolan was brought up. You make it sound (as you always do) like Vajk and I spend all our time discussing your private affairs on the NET, always remembering to mention that you are a "sick, old Jewish woman on wellfare" *** Mark, do not threaten people unless you are ready to be responcible for your actions. Last time someone has taken you up on your threats was when Larry Lippman (sp?) has exposed you as a liar. We all recall what has happened then. -- Oleg Kiselev ARPA:{lcc|bilbo|frodo}.oleg@seas.ucla.edu (213)452-2435x354 USENET: oleg@gryphon.cts.com UUCP:...!{trwrb|ucla-cs}!lcc!oleg old adress: oleg@quad1.quad.com (still forwarded) DISCLAIMER: I speak for myself only.
jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (07/18/88)
this is getting out of hand. you can't get away from this person. i've already added /usr/lib/news/expire -f era1987@violet.berkeley.edu to my daily expirations, and the lines /From: era1987@violet.berkeley.edu/:j /From: era@killer/:j to my News/KILL file, but still these postings get thru. what do you have to do to stop paying for MES's ravings on your own system??? - 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
sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) (07/18/88)
No, net.perverts, I don't want to see *those* briefs, I mean... If MES files this lawsuit, I would appreciate it if he[*], or some neutral party (e.g., Berkeley's netnews admin) posts a copy of whatever legal paraphenalia gets filed, so that I (and all other interested netters) can file friend-of-the-court briefs on it. [*] If my reading of MES's complaint is correct, he feels that although he is a woman, being referred to by the pronoun "she" is a violation of his right to be called whatever he damn pleases. I don't think this will last ten minutes in a court of law (otherwise, someone could have sued the NYT into using `Ms.'), but I am quite happy to comply with MES's wishes in this respect. -- -- "Men, if we lose this [soccer game], we'll be the shame of -- the civilised world... and America!" -- _The Goon Show_ (BBC) -- bloom-beacon!athena.mit.edu!sethg / POB 53, MIT Branch, Camb., MA 02139
kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Bob Kusumoto) (07/18/88)
*** Flame on ***
OK, you've endured hell for just existing on the next and posting whatever
you want. You even been through therapy to help yourself. Then why are you
still here? I don't ever read things like soc.women or misc.legal, but if
your problems are coming from USENET, why don't you quit using it then. If
people started doing stuff like that to me, I'd probably quit reading for sake
of my health. You don't seem to have taken that step and instead, opted to
endure this abuse from others. For that reason alone, I don't see why I should
have any pity on you.
Now you want to sue to make USENET this "perfect" world and cut off sites
that won't come up to these restrictions that you have come up with. That's
unfair to those people who are totally innocent of your accusations. In fact,
you could be cutting out some people who have been contributing to this net
and bettering it, but they won't just because they can't get to it because
their system has been legally denied use of the net. Sorry, but if the choice
is cutting off a bunch of people from the net or cutting off one vocal person,
I would choose to cut you off.
*** Flame off ***
--
Bob Kusumoto | Follow me!
Internet: kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu | I'll play the game you want me,
BITNET: kus3@sphinx.uchicago.bitnet | Until I find a way back home.
UUCP: {ihnp4!gargoyle,oddjob}!sphinx!kus3 | --- Genesis, "One for the Vine"peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (07/18/88)
Who is this MES person? Why does she get so ****ed off when people refer to her by feminine pronouns? Peter Desnoyers peter@athena.mit.edu
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (07/18/88)
In article <4461@sphinx.uchicago.edu> kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu.UUCP (Bob Kusumoto) writes: >*** Flame on *** Flames belong in alt.flame. > OK, you've endured hell for just existing on the next and posting whatever >you want. You even been through therapy to help yourself. Then why are you >still here? I don't ever read things like soc.women or misc.legal, but if >your problems are coming from USENET, why don't you quit using it then. I see. Well, there's a black man who is an FBI agent who has endured hell being harassed by his fellow agents because of his color. He hasn't quit his job, as you seem to feel he should. There are Oriental students at universities all over this country who are being harassed on the basis of their ethnic origin and are going through hell, but I don't see you suggesting they drop out of school. Many women are going through hell because of harassment by employers and coworkers, particularly if they have nontraditional jobs, but that doesn't mean they have to stay home and have babies and not work, or only do traditionally female types of work. Please keep your flames in alt.flame from now on, particularly if they involve telling women or minorities to get lost if they don't like being discriminated against or harassed. --Mark
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (07/18/88)
In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: >Who is this MES person? Why does (sexual term) get so ****ed off when people >refer to (sexual term) by feminine pronouns? I am an emancipated woman, and I am accustomed to and have established my legal right to equal terms without regard to sex. Do you know what the word "feminine" refers to? That's right, it refers to sex. And so do "feminine pronouns." Pretending you know my sex but don't know my name is an interesting ploy to violate my rights yet again. I am a person, a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark. Do you call everyone named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the basis of my sex? If you're not an attorney, or law student, have somebody explain that last statement to you, while I add you to the list of named defendants. The reason my name is Mark, is so that people will have no need to use diminutive, sexual, exclusive terms to refer to me. Otherwise, if I had a traditional name, and was referred to with traditional pronouns, every single reference to me would refer to my sex instead of to me. Think of it this way, Peter. I am a man in the Constitutional sense that all men are created equal. The inclusive sense. I am not female, my sex is. I am not blue, my eyes are. Now read this slowly ard repeat it to yourself several times: Emancipateed women have the same rights as men. Emancipated women have the right to be treated exactly the same as men, without regard to their sex, that is, without regard to the fact that their sex may not be male. Sex is not always relevant, and does not have to be mentioned in every statement. When one federal judge had a need to mention my sex, it was written thus: "...plaintiff states a complaint on the basis of his sex (female)...." It is because of the irreparable harm done me by the Usenet bigots, that you would know my sex before you know my name, and refer to me differently than you have ever referred to anyone else with my name. For the first year I posted, nobody used diminutive terms to refer to me, and there no problems. Then the bigots started their harassment campaign, encouraging people like yourself to treat me as a class member, baed on sex, rather than as a unique individual, and to judge my postings on the basis of my sex rather than according to their merits. Your site, MIT, Peter, didn't use to admit females. There is still a lot of discrimination at your site, but most people are more discreet about it than you are, because they don't want to lose federal funding. Should they lose their funding due to your posting, just because you wanted to have a little fun, they might not be too pleased with you. Do you think you could discriminate against women on your own time, your own computer, and nnot post in such a way as to make MIT liable? It is obvious that you have never encountered an emancipated woman, and like Judge Teitelbaum, are accustomed to women who submit to diminutive terms and other forms of sexual stereotyping. I don't. If you have any more stupid questions, don't hesitate to ask. The first Black to say, "Don't call me boy," got similar treatment from bigots like you. They said, "Why does that ol' colored boy get so teed off when we call him boy?" I hope the analogy helps you overcome your learning disability. --Mark
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/18/88)
In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: Is not the complaint of: }they have mentioned many times that I am emotionally disabled. Substantiated by: }Ihave been the victim of much abuse from which I never fully recovered. and }I've been in therapy during the entire time I've been posting, and ? Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
giaccone@ur-tut (Tony Giaccone) (07/18/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: >>Who is this MES person? Why does (sexual term) get so ****ed off when people >>refer to (sexual term) by feminine pronouns? > >Pretending you know my sex but don't know my name is an >interesting ploy to violate my rights yet again. I am a person, >a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark. Do you call everyone >named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to >treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the >basis of my sex? If you're not an attorney, or law student, have >somebody explain that last statement to you, while I add you to the >list of named defendants. > Now maybe I've seen too much television law, and maybe I just have a screwed up notion of how things work in our legal system, but shouldn't we be treating this proposed lawsuit a little more seriously? Maybe all you folks out there, who are more familiar with the law, or more familiar with Mark's postings, have a better idea what's going on here. However, I'd feel a lot better about this whole thing if someone with some real legal expertise gave us his/her opinion on the status of such a suit. After all it seems likley that even if this suit has no justification* at all, that just filing it could cause us all some trouble. After all legal harassment seems to be all the rage these days. What about it folks, anyone out there care to render an informed opinion. Tony *It hardley seems that Peter is being overtly sexist in refering to Mark as her, when it's obvious that Mark's sex is female, and given common usage the word "her" seems appropriate. I hardley think that this instance is grounds to include Peter in the suit, then again what do I know.
dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) (07/18/88)
In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > If you've been reading the net for any length of time, you've seen > the same group of people violate my rights repeatedly. Several of > them have made it plain that they will not stop unless I sue. It ] ENOUGH ALREADY !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! I have been following this (more or less) for several years or at least until someone up the chain from here decided that we didn't get stuff posted to alt.groups when posted alone. Now, I see this mess has contaminated misc.legal. I sincerely hope that Mark Ethan Smith brings this matter to litigation. Furthermore, when she does (go ahead, sue me, Mark, I'll provide a precisely definable place where you can find me and MY attorney) I hope that the nation's news media have a field day. This matter doesn't belong on USENET, it belongs on Ted Koppel's NIGHTLINE, or Larry King on Talknet, or, for that matter, Talk Back with Bob Larson. I wonder just how much fun some of the Christian radio network shows would have with this issue. Genderized personal pronouns do not constitute discrimination. Goddamnit, people, there is something fundamentally wrong with a society when this kind of legal tripe (which might be the stuff a 1L student at Carolina argues in "Moot Court" at the Student Union) can even disgrace the docket. An aside. . . My life insurance salesman actually asked me (in all sincerity) whether or not I was pregnant. Being the bearer of male genitalia, I can assure the Net (and the insurance company) that this question does not apply. Nevertheless, this particular insurance company was sued for discrimination and lost two judgements to MALE individuals who claimed "discrimination" on the insurance application. (Hence, the question in all sincerity. No, I don't doubt it one bit, and would love to see the legal citations.) Mark, you have to prove that your matter is one which may be properly brought to trial. It isn't. Furthermore, you have to prove that you were not contributorily negligent (or otherwise). Your original complaint may have had some merit, but this business about suing the Net, the Federal Government, and the Camp Fire Girls :-) (that's a joke, people) over this has no merit. Watch ** my lips ** - simply because someone does something which you do not like, EVEN IF IT IS IN THE FLIPPING FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, does not mean you have grounds for litigation. Come and sue me, Mark. I'll make sure that you have many guests at the trial. How about major radio and TV networks, the Charlotte Observer, and all the Christian media you can shake a stick at. York David Anthony 7853 N. Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28213 You may serve your lawsuit there, or at my counsellors: Scott Pollard, Esq. Dozier, Brackett, Miller, Pollard and Murphy 701 E. Trade Street Charlotte, NC 28217 Phillip E. Bolton, Esq. Bolton & Owen, P.C. RR 1 Box 151 Advance, North Carolina 27006 I'll be damned if something as stupid as this personal pronoun business is going to restrain ordinary social discourse to the point where people have to fear litigation simply because of the personal pronouns which they occasion to use. Oh, by the way, I own a radio station and a television station, which are EEO's, would you care to take up my "discriminatory attitudes" with the FCC at license renewal time? The file numbers are Wilmington, NC BP-860728AC NEW AM, 1120 kHz, 1.0 kw-DA-D Concord, NC BPTTL-JA0702S5 NEW TV, Channel 6+, 0.038 kw I'd love to see the look on the FCC ALJ's face when they see this. Hope we get ALJ Stirmer!!!!! Bet you can't even establish standing to file a petition to deny. I hope you will hire an attorney. York David Anthony DataSpan, Inc.
dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) (07/18/88)
> Now read this slowly ard repeat it to yourself several times: > Emancipateed women have the same rights as men. Emancipated women > have the right to be treated exactly the same as men, without regard > to their sex, that is, without regard to the fact that their sex may > not be male. Sex is not always relevant, and does not have to be > mentioned in every statement. When one federal judge had a need to > (Mark was referred to as "he" [parenthetically](female) . . . . Why should this default to "men" however. Why in the hell can't I say (with equal legitimacy) that emancipated men have the right to be treated exactly the same as women. Can you imagine the brouhaha which would ensue if I were, upon marriage, to change my last name to the one whom I entered the marriage contract, obstensibly the one possessing female genitalia? I probably have a better case than Mark does. The federal judge wasn't so much following the FRCP as this individual was covering its own legal tail. After all, why draw an unnecessary lawsuit. Prenuptual agreements were enough. This business about life insurance salesmen asking me if I was pregnant (I am male) was slightly annoying, but humourous nevertheless. Mark's lawsuit (I have agreed to be the test case, and am anxiously awaiting my summons), if Mark should win, would set a level of precedent which is totally absurd. Many people would find objectionable being called an "it". I, for one, would find, Usenet or no, the unbelieveable overhead of a typical conversation (if Mark wins, we all have plenty to fear) to be costly and downright unnecessary. Is this what Mark really wants? (example) <Actor 1> Hi, Actor 2, I'd like you to meet Actor 3. <Actor 2> Actor 3, I'm pleased to meet you. What range of personal pronouns shall we mutually agree upon prior to continuing our conversation. Will you sign a release absolving me of all liability should I spontaneously emit a discriminating remark? Most men and women I know would belt me across the room for asking such a question. There is, as a practical matter, no need to have gender related personal pronouns, other than gender identification. However, the matter of gender identification has a POSITIVE MARGINAL UTILITY other than "female diminuition." (I can think of at least one person who is female who uses "men" as a diminuitive term.) Discrimination in hiring, firing, pay, and all that is socially unacceptable, and I have vehemently and adamantly gone on public record in support of EEO and AA laws. (The legal process is called "discovery", Mark. BTW, Mark, like the character on LA Law says, slap me with a lawsuit, I'll have so many discovery motions on your doorstep that it will take a hand cart to move them!!!). The notion of using personal pronouns which are gender specific is not employment or affirmative action adverse. Fortunately, men and women, as individual sexual classes, have characteristics which differentiate them. There is equality, and there is absurdity. Emitting a difference of opinion (should you be demonstrably female, I shall refer to you as "she") is obstensibly not the same thing as wanton discrimination. The ramifications of Mark prevailing in a lawsuit are ominous. I, for one, shall stop emitting lexical behaviour of any kind, for fear that any (gender specific, cat specific, weather specific) term will result in discrimination lawsuits. You've got to prevail, first. Go ahead. Make my day. I'll see you in Columbia, SC federal court. York David Anthony DataSpan, Inc. P.S. I have already posted the "Sue me" challenge to the net with full particulars. I am not a "pseudo." And, I don't need the net's legal defence fund.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (07/18/88)
LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!!!! If we do, we'll get more pointless chatter than we got over comp.women. Most of us aren't lawyers. If somebody really wants to sue, we aren't going to resolve a thing here in this group. People decide to sue *precisely*because*they*think*the*court*is*the*only*place*to*resolve*it*. So, if you're going to comment on this issue, please do so only by mail to M.E.S. LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!!!! LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!!!! LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!!!! LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!!!! LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS LAWSUIT!!!!! -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
glenns@yak.gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) (07/18/88)
Mark is right when Mark says flames belong in alt.flame. I agree that a lawsuit against or affecting USENET does, in fact, belong in news.admin, but discussion about who said what to whom in personal arguments external to news.admin do not. Personal arguments themselves definitely do not. Can we keep it that way? Flames, if any, to ME ONLY, as it should be. Disclaimer: Strictly my personal opinion as an observer. -- Glenn R. Stone (..gatech!glenns@pipe.gatech.edu) BITNET : CCASTGS@GITNVE2 USNAIL: P. O. Box 30372 Atlanta, GA 30332 VOICE : (404) 873-1525 "I know it's impossible.... now how's the best way to go about doing it?"
kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu (Bob Kusumoto) (07/18/88)
In article <12179@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I see. Well, there's a black man who is an FBI agent who has >endured hell being harassed by his fellow agents because of >his color. He hasn't quit his job, as you seem to feel he should. >There are Oriental students at universities all over this country >who are being harassed on the basis of their ethnic origin and >are going through hell, but I don't see you suggesting they drop out of >school. Many women are going through hell because of harassment >by employers and coworkers, particularly if they have nontraditional >jobs, but that doesn't mean they have to stay home and have babies >and not work, or only do traditionally female types of work. Well, these people who you mention seem to have something important to them, namely, their job or their education. Sorta bad parallel to reading net messages if you ask me. I agree, it would be much to ask these people to give up a job or their education to get people off their back, but you seem to not want to give up reading the net, even though it causes you great pain. I don't think giving up netnews would be as great as giving up a job or and education. BTW, I just happen to be one of those harassed orientals going to university. Maybe its me, but I can sure hack 4 years of hell, just so I can get a degree and get on with my life. -- Bob Kusumoto | Follow me! Internet: kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu | I'll play the game you want me, BITNET: kus3@sphinx.uchicago.bitnet | Until I find a way back home. UUCP: {ihnp4!gargoyle,oddjob}!sphinx!kus3 | --- Genesis, "One for the Vine"
peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) (07/18/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > >Your site, MIT, Peter, didn't use to admit females. Check your facts. The men who founded MIT may not have wished to create a coed school, but they forgot to put that in writing. They created one of the first co-educational engineering schools in this country. >It is obvious that you have never encountered an >emancipated woman You insult the women who I have encountered. >The first Black to say, "Don't >call me boy," got similar treatment from bigots like you. They said, >"Why does that ol' colored boy get so teed off when we call him boy?" The first woman who objected to being called 'girl' probably got a similar response. It is now regarded as blatant sexism to so address someone. I did not address you as 'girl'. >I hope the analogy helps you overcome your learning disability. > >--Mark I do not like being insulted in this way, and I am especially offended by someone who uses a recognized handicap as an insult, in a manner which demeans those who are so handicapped. Peter Desnoyers peter@athena.mit.edu
wasg@titan.rice.edu (Eric Salituro) (07/19/88)
I guess I'll really get it for this but... Is it absolutely necessary to respond to everything this MES person says? I guess for some people this is all just big-time fun to fight with MES about whether the net is discriminating against women at MIT or whatever, but since it's in news.admin, shouldn't the only germaine discussion be about whether there is any credence to this suit. It has been pointed out that MES's legal footing is a shaky one at best, so why bother? I may be just some 2-bit (half-nibble?) amateur psychologist, and no, I was not around for our last MES controversy, but it looks to me that MES is a textbook paranoid with the accompanying delusions of grandeur, the whole nine yards. I did say _appears_, so this gives us two possiblities as to what MES's underlying motives are. 1) If MES is just faking this paranoia, we should probably ignore it. MES is then just trying to goad us into responding to (I haven't been reading misc.legal) a frivolous suit. If we ignore the situation, the worst that can happen is that MES really does file a suit, but would a flame war have a positive effect anyway? I'd wait for the papers before panicking. 2) If MES really is mentally ill, then arguing is going to have no effect other than to prolong the situation. A physician is probably the only one qualified to handle someone with a problem like that. Provocation and attention seem to be what MES thrives on and I don't see it being particurlarly wise or humane to bait a sick person. Why show off your ability to flame someone that seems to be doing it just to see us fret about this in public and respond to his every rambling. It's just as much a waste of time and the ever "precious" disk space because it most likely will not change this person's mind. Ignore it and it will go away; if you must respond, do so via private email and while your at it, maybe you could implore MES to seek some more medical help. This is not a .signature line... Eric Salituro @ Rice University Houston TX 77251-1892 (713) 527-8101 x2474 Life is like a metaphor. INTERNET: wasg@rice.edu
wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (William Lieberman) (07/19/88)
The brouhaha surrounding the use of the otherwise male terms 'he', 'his', 'him', is just that: an otherwise term. It is so obvious these terms, in our language, have two separate and independent meanings, it hurts. Even the term "woman" has 'man' in it. Should we change "woman" to "woperson"? But then "woperson" has "son" in it. So should we change "woperson" to "woperdaughter"? Someone told me the term "mailman" in Boston was recently changed to "personperson". I don't believe it, but I bet it's not too far from the truth. I suppose if you do a little lexicographic investigation, you will discover that our pronouns come from a mixture of Old English, Danish, Swedish, German, and French pronouns. There's a tremendously interesting and eye-opening discussion of these matters in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Also, we are so smug about the relatively few 'imperfections' in our language, because, at first glance some of our terms seem gender- discriminatory (which they are not). How many Americans have given thought to some other languages, such as French, Spanish, or (am I correct here, German?) where ALL nouns MUST have a gender. That is, every person, place or thing, or idea, in those languages has been assigned a gender, doubtless according to stereotypes. How do people speaking those languages, and many others, propose to make their languages 'gender-neutral?' Is it possible, that because of our relatively-benign sexual-discrimination in our language, that this has itself fed ideas about sexual equality? Or is it more likely that the nature of our culture itself (less sexual discrmination inherently) has led to our adoption of gender-neutral terms, such as the article "the"? In which language culture were ideas about sexual equality first expressed AND realized. The right of women to vote, the right of women to be full citizens, etc. In English! France didn't even give women the right to vote until 1945! In Switzerland, is it not the case there are still some Cantons where women STILL cannot vote? SWITZERLAND? No English, there, I guess. How about Saudi Arabia? I don't even think women are allowed to drive a car there, by law! Forget voting. (And we sell THEM arms to protect what?) In South Africa, it is true English is spoken, and 24 million blacks have not a single vote. But perhaps there the language is dominated by Afrikaans. I wish also to point out that not a single woman in the United States, England, or Canada (except perhaps in Wyoming) voted to give women the right to vote. That was done entirely by men. There was no violent revolution - no taking of power by force. It was given by deliberation, via the secret ballot box. Men did have the POWER to to grant the vote to women, but they eventually chose to do so, out of a sense of fairness. This is another great achievement of our Western society. - It seems so obvious now, but it wasn't so obvious then (to men). So some men are human; I wish I would hear from time to time at least some grudging respect for that fact. I see also now that Denmark now, after a study, includes women in all phases of combat roles in their military, the first country, to my knowledge, to do so. Bill Lieberman
wengler@hollerith.ee.rochester.edu (Michael Wengler) (07/19/88)
Why do I suppose I can say something good under a subject heading which has carried so much trash? I don't know why, but I'll do it anyway. Mark Smith IS being picked on by a large number of bigots with the morals of playground bullies. In addition, some relatively uninvolved people have started picking on him also, presumably without having really understood what it is that Mark is asking for, and how things have gotten to the current state. In case someone is not aware, I recently read a `help find a new name for Mark Smith' dialog in some newsgroup which I can't recall. This is not a personal attack, carried on by a lot of people on the net? It is. Mark would clearly prefer to be referred to by what we were taught in grammar school is the general singular pronoun. As would I. I don't expect anybody to check my jeans or genes before according me that courtesy/right. Neither does he. Even if you are philosophically opposed to this, why pick on an individual who communicates over the net? You feel some sort of `right' to know the sex of who you are communicating with? Too bad. Most of the time you don't know, on the net. Mark has stated he does not wish to commit fraud, and it is certainly well known that he, and others, claim he is female. Perhaps Mark is not completely mentally healthy. What does that suggest about proper response? A mentally retarded person is not completely mentally healthy. Playground bullies gather around him and taunt him as a `retard'. They go after what he perceives as his weakness just to upset him, for reasons of their own which are probably not very respectable in the grand scheme of things, and especially considering the effect they have on the tauntee. Mark has stated his position clearly and eloquently, indicating to me ( who has never met him ) that he is mentally more than the equal of most of the net, and certainly a clearer thinker than his taunters. All it does is get his taunters more into the spirit of it. A lot like on the playground, as I recall. I don't think the net is the proper place to attack individuals for fun. I wonder if there is such a proper place within the philosophical boundaries of the free world. A lot of you are acting like pigs, and you can't help getting piggier and piggier in the face of reasoned reply from Mark. Mark's analogy to the Black person being called boy is largely correct. When Blacks started complaining about that, there were people around them who didn't recognize their right to better treatment. Blacks continued to complain, and make sense, and eventually, there is a much broader recognition of that right. Mark has rather eloquently asked to be referred to as a `man' in the sense that `all men are created equal' etc. Damned reasonable position. I hope Mark's suits are unsuccessful at closing off usenet, or making the so-called net.police any more powerful than they already are. But its not because Mark's case is without moral merit, people are acting like pigs to him, and doing it in a very public manner in a forum which belongs to mark as much as to anyone. I hope those suits are unsuccessful at closing off usenet, because I think there will always be people who act like pigs, and I hate how many things in life are already limited by legal and social response to them. What I would prefer to these successful suits is that people `vote with their fingers' for decency to each other, and that the pigs, the playground bullies of the usenet, be accorded the education about compassion and decency that they need, that the other people on the usenet playground just not tolerate that shit. By not tolerate it, I don't mean turn it back to them, sinking to their level. I mean, use the `r' key a lot when you read personal attacks, and tell the person that you see what they have done as a personal attack on a third person, and no matter what, that is bad behavior that they probably won't continue when they understand themselves and others a little better. I know flaming is more satisfying in the short run, but its probably not as useful. Thank you for your attention, if you've gotten this far. Mikey Michael Wengler wengler@ee.rochester.edu EE Dept., U. of R. wengler@valhalla.rochester.edu Rochester, NY 14627 weng@uordbv (bitnet) (716) 275 9402 ur-valhalla!wengler
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) (07/19/88)
era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > I see. Well, there's a black man who is an FBI agent who has > endured hell being harassed by his fellow agents because of > his color. He hasn't quit his job, as you seem to feel he should. [other examples of heavy-duty harassment and discrimination] I think the point Mark has missed is that *most* people, at this time, don't consider death threats, beatings, and murder to be quite the same thing as referring to someone as "she" rather than "he". I know it's hard to believe, but I myself would rather be referred to as "she" than have my family threatened with dismemberment. Sounds crazy? I know. Using the "wrong" or "undesired" personal pronoun is not a very nice thing to do. It's just that most people with a social conscience would rather work to help oppressed people keep from being beaten bloody than be called nasty names, like "she" and "her". Maybe when people aren't being beaten because they are women and aren't being killed because their skin isn't the "right" color, then people will have time to be upset about pronouns. -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: comp.newprod & comp.unix "Failure is one of the basic Freedoms!" The Doctor (in Robots of Death)
cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) (07/19/88)
>> OK, you've endured hell for just existing on the next and posting whatever >> you want . . . Ha! Mark has "endured hell" for getting on the net and acting like a loon. In fact, MES is the closest thing to a human "attractive nuisance" that I've ever encountered. There's nothing "discriminatory" about treating a jackass like a jackass, regardless of gender . . . jackasses are jackasses because they choose to be, and aren't a protected class. But of course, you can't expect someone who thinks that offhand comments by judges can be interpreted as legal precendents to understand that. Probably thinks the right to the "pursuit of happiness" is in the Constitution, too. > . . . have somebody explain that last statement to you, while I add you to > the list of named defendants. Oooo! Me too! Me too! Add ME to the list of named defendants! -- Lazlo Nibble (cscbrkac@charon.unm.edu)
swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) (07/19/88)
In article <6272@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) writes: >[*] If my reading of MES's complaint is correct, he feels that although >he is a woman, being referred to by the pronoun "she" is a violation of >his right to be called whatever he damn pleases. I don't think this >will last ten minutes in a court of law (otherwise, someone could have >sued the NYT into using `Ms.'), but I am quite happy to comply with >MES's wishes in this respect. Isn't 'he' a neutral pronoun only when you don't know the sex of the person you are refering to? We know that MES is female so we (many of us) call her 'she.' Besides, I've never heard of someone being sued for using incorrect grammar. (We could always use 'it,' I suppose. :-) sorry...) Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU ...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric "Rock and Roll lives and breathes in the hearts of the young."
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (07/19/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >I am a person, >a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark. Do you call everyone >named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to >treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the >basis of my sex? Disclaimer: It is not my intention to deprive Mark Ethan Smith or any other being of the rights possessed by said being, nor to cause distress in any form to any being whatsoever. The _only_ intended meaning of the words in this article is the usual meaning they bear in the dialect spoken in NZ. (1) I am surprised to hear that "she" is a "diminutive pronoun". This is the first time that anyone has told me that. I have seen a lot of CS papers which described the reader as "she", and while I dislike NewSpeak I did not realise that I was supposed to be offended at being referred to by a "diminutive" pronoun. Has there been a US court case yet establishing that "she" has this status? (2) Are authors to be forbidden ever to use "she" as the default in papers they publish, lest Mark Ethan Smith read them? How is this to be done without offending women who _like_ that practice? [This is only one step removed from referring directly to the plaintiff with the pronoun in question, because in a context like "The reader will note that this is a complex issue. She can expect further surprises." the pronoun will refer to whoever happens to be reading the text.] (3) What about references to classes of people, the majority of whom prefer to be referred to by the pronoun in question, when the class includes Mark Ethan Smith? (4) An important ingredient in some legal questions is the "mens rea"-- the guilty mind. If the common practice is to refer to females by a particular pronoun, it can be hard to remember particular exceptions. (It is also impossible for people entering a discussion for the first time to know about exceptional cases unless the exceptions take care to include warnings in their messages.) It could be hard for Smith to prove that any particular misreference was deliberate. (5) What about languages other than English? If Smith wants to be referred to by masculine pronouns, there are languages in which it is impossible to oblige. (I refrain from providing an example for fear of giving offence.) (6) While lies and insults are of course improper, an attempt to muzzle people speaking the truth is a blasphemy against the American religion. If Smith succeeds in getting indirect references to gender criminalised, how long before referring to someone's political affiliation becomes a crime against the State? A lawyer whose opinion I respect once said that the best advice you could give to a client who wanted to sue for libel is "don't". Someone proceeding with a suit such as Smith proposes could end up looking uncommonly foolish. Smith's courage in facing that is worthy of a better cause.
jroberts@attvcr.UUCP (John Roberts) (07/19/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: > >Who is this MES person? Why does (sexual term) get so ****ed off when people > >refer to (sexual term) by feminine pronouns? [ several hundred bytes of rantings, disproportionate to the (alleged) slight given in the original posting, deleted ] I usually keep out of these ridiculous exchanges, but I couldn't resist this one: > ... It is obvious that you have never encountered an > emancipated woman ... If this is a representative example, I hope I never do ;^} . -- John M. Roberts AT&T Canada Vancouver BC (604) 689-8911 {alberta,uw-beaver}!ubc-cs!attvcr!jroberts What! Me Worry? attmail!jmroberts
root@ozdaltx.UUCP (root) (07/19/88)
THIS IS SILLY!
--
Scotty
AIDS INFORMATION EXCHANGE BBS (214) 247-2367/247-5609
"Education is the best weapon"
{ames,mit-eddie,rutgers,osu-cis,lll-winken,texsun,smu}!killer!ozdaltx!sysop suh@cunixc.columbia.edu (Kenneth Suh) (07/19/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >Do you know what the word "feminine" refers to? That's right, >it refers to sex. And so do "feminine pronouns." Hey, let's just refer to Mark as it. :-) Yeah, that's a great idea... After all, it's neutral. Why should it want to be referred to as he? That is sexist also. >Your site, MIT, Peter, didn't use to admit females. There is still >a lot of discrimination at your site, but most people are more >discreet about it than you are, because they don't want to lose federal >funding. Should they lose their funding due to your posting, just >because you wanted to have a little fun, they might not be too pleased >with you. Do you think you could discriminate against women on your >own time, your own computer, and nnot post in such a way as to make >MIT liable? Barnard College doesn't admit men. Isn't that sexist? Also, I am sure that Peter doesn't speak for MIT. >--Mark /ken The opinions expressed above are my own and do not relfect those of my employer, Columbia University. Kenneth Suh PATH: suh@CUNIXC.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Kermit Distribution SY.SUH@CU20B.BITNET Columbia University Center for ..!rutgers!columbia!cunixc!suh Computing Activities 612 West 115th Street New York, NY 10025
rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) (07/19/88)
In article <7181@sigi.Colorado.EDU> swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) writes: >In article <6272@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) writes: >>[*] If my reading of MES's complaint is correct, he feels that although >>he is a woman, being referred to by the pronoun "she" is a violation of >>his right to be called whatever he damn pleases. I don't think this > >Isn't 'he' a neutral pronoun only when you don't know the sex of the person >you are refering to? We know that MES is female so we (many of us) call her >'she.' Besides, I've never heard of someone being sued for using incorrect >grammar. According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (relevant part cited here, see reference for full text): she: a girl, woman, or female animal he: a man, boy, or male animal it: the neuter singular form of the third person pronoun... it is used a) to represent anything regarded as having no sex... woman: 1) the female of the human race... 3) the characteristic qualities of a woman... 4) a man who is effeminate, cowardly, emotional, weak, etc... man: 1) a human being, whether male or female 3) an adult male human being... 6) a person with qualities conventionally regarded as manly, such as strength, courage, etc. I think that under these definitions, Mark could be referred to as a "he" (he-->man:1), or a "she" (she-->woman:1). Or perhaps through the path he-->man:6, or she-->woman:4-->man:1. But using "it" to refer to Mark is probably incorrect. My advice: Mark: Stop worrying about the pronouns "he" or "she": they both can describe you (and probably anybody on this net) given the above definitions. It-Sayers: Stop saying "it". Say either "he" or "she". Mark prefers "he". She-Sayers: You may want to switch to "he" in the interests of furthering more productive use of Usenet. He-Sayers: You do not need to do anything differently. These are my first and last public comments on this subject. -- Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 542-3734 (voice, nights) OR (201) 389-8963 (voice, days) uunet!pcrat!rick (UUCP) rick%pcrat.uucp@uunet.uu.net (INTERNET)
ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (07/19/88)
In article <1039@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) writes: > > Mark, you have to prove that your matter is one which may >be properly brought to trial. It isn't. Furthermore, you have to >prove that you were not contributorily negligent (or otherwise). Mark is alleging an intentional conduct, negligence has nothing to do with it. He has to prove intent, unprivileged conduct, actual damage and legal causation. --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/19/88)
I've been following this discussion for a while, Mark, and I have a few
problems with it. You and I have agreed on some things in the past, such
as comp.women, and we probably still agree that net.bigots do exist. I
am not sure, however, that this brouhaha is a good test for anything.
Here's why:
1. Even if you do have the right to be addressed with the pronouns of
your choice -- an interesting question whose answer I couldn't begin
to guess at -- the postings you object to are not addressing you.
One cannot use "he," "she," "him," "her," "his" or "hers" except
in the third person. Second person pronouns -- used to address -- are
genderless. There is the issue of Mr./Miss/Ms./etc., but almost
no-one around here uses those anyway, including in the postings you
dislike. It seems as though what you really want is control over
how you're referred to, not addressed. Again, an interesting question,
but (for one thing) your judge's quote doesn't discuss referral, only
address I believe.
2. You point out that "emancipated women have the same rights as men"
to pronoun control and other things. I feel the emphasis on
"emancipated" is wrong there. ALL women, "emancipated" or not,
have the same rights as men. Emancipation is an admirable condition,
but subjectively determined. Rights are real. Emancipation may
make asserting those rights more natural, but everyone has them.
Besides which, I don't know of any case where a male has established
a right to be addressed or referred to with a specific set of pronouns.
Do you? If not, then asserting equality of rights isn't enough.
3. Surely Mikey Wengler, who was very supportive of your position,
had a point too about why the taunting is taking place. Waving the
word "lawsuit" around in a forum like this is an open invitation to
mayhem. Do you really feel it helps anything? I think it obscures
the issues unacceptably, and drives off reasonable voices (nobody
wants a legal hassle, well, almost nobody!) who might otherwise
join in.
I would guess that most net.readers who are even aware of your gender
in the first place wouldn't particularly mind using what you call the
inclusive pronouns to refer to (not address) you, if asked nicely.
Asking nicely may not be a doctrinally sound, but in this life I find I
often have to resort to it, to cope with the frailties of my fellow
sufferers. There will always be stiff-necked folk who will disagree,
but I believe it's cooler to leave them alone and go on to the next
thing.
Thanks for listening. TMN
--
Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff
"None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF
will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)fyl@fylz.UUCP (fyl) (07/19/88)
In article <12179@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > In article <4461@sphinx.uchicago.edu> kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu.UUCP (Bob Kusumoto) writes: > >*** Flame on *** > Flames belong in alt.flame. All of this belongs in alt.flame!! > > > OK, you've endured hell for just existing on the next and posting whatever > >you want. You even been through therapy to help yourself. Then why are you > >still here? I don't ever read things like soc.women or misc.legal, but if > >your problems are coming from USENET, why don't you quit using it then. > > I see. Well, there's a black man who is an FBI agent who has > endured hell being harassed by his fellow agents because of > his color. He hasn't quit his job, as you seem to feel he should. > There are Oriental students at universities all over this country > who are being harassed on the basis of their ethnic origin and > are going through hell, but I don't see you suggesting they drop out of > school. Many women are going through hell because of harassment > by employers and coworkers, particularly if they have nontraditional > jobs, but that doesn't mean they have to stay home and have babies > and not work, or only do traditionally female types of work. Please > keep your flames in alt.flame from now on, particularly if they > involve telling women or minorities to get lost if they don't like > being discriminated against or harassed. I managed to ignore this B.S. until it moved to groups that I find to be useful and/or important to my work. Once this appeared, I was in hopes that the net users would ignore it and hopefully Mark would find a new place to rant. It didn't work. Oh well. Now I find that the two machines that I am responsible for are paying to transport a senseless discussion between an combination of crazy people, bigots and concerned people who can't figure out why the hell this discussion exists at all. I, for one, can't. As long as there are more than one human on this planet, there will be different opinions. Many times I have tried to convince "liberated women" (whatever that is) that man and the male pronouns are generic. This means this means that when a bigot refers to a woman as the chairman or whatever, she should accept it as this generic reference. With a little effort on the part of the liberated ones they could put the bigot on the defensive where he would have to invent new words for exclusive references to males. Well, I get blasted by the liberated for such a dumb position. Now, we have a "female person" who wants to be refered to by a male pronoun. I think "it" should go argue with the others of the female sex about this issue and when all of the females agree, they can present a proposal to the rest of us. I personally think it would be nice to have a sex-free way to refer to humans but bitching at people because they are not willing to use something that doesn't exist is not a way to solve a problem. If black FBI agents are discriminated against, this is a real problem with laws to deal with it. On the other hand, if you want to destroy a communications network that you use for free and we pay for because you expect people to treat you in a manner that cannot be defined, the only problem I see is that you have lost touch with reality. -- Phil Hughes -- FYL -- 8315 Lk City Wy NE -- Suite 207 -- Seattle, WA 98115 >>>>> NORIEGA/BUSH '88 <<<<< {uw-beaver!tikal,uunet!pilchuck}!ssc!fylz!fyl
john@jclyde.UUCP (John B. Meaders Jr.) (07/20/88)
Oh no, more drivel from MES. Mark why don't you go committ yourself for eternity in a mental institution. Or better yet, quit reading USENET articles. Come on... you are the most paranoid person I have ever heard of. Go ahead and sue me... you'll lose. BTW Mark, this is my own personal system so complain to root all you want. -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!jclyde!john or john@jclyde.UUCP
") (07/20/88)
Need-I-say-who writes:
) Do you know what the word "feminine" refers to? That's right,
) it refers to sex. And so do "feminine pronouns."
Ah, so when I say that "zanahorria is a feminine noun" I am saying
a carrot has a sex and it is female? Interesting.
________________________________________________________
Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.eduooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) (07/20/88)
Regardless of the merits or lack of same of this proposed suit, think of this: Do we really want a judge, jury and bunch of lawyers who have NEVER TOUCHED a computer in their lives to attempt to make precedent out of the Usenet? They might rule that Mark is a public figure and must prove malice and actual damage to collect. They might rule that sysadmins are editors and as such are responsible for the content of articles and mail coming from their machines (sure death for the net). They might rule that all sites carrying such material and tranferring it to other sites are liable for the content. Or they might all just laugh and throw it out of court. But do we really want to find out? Never underestimate the stupidity of the legal system when regarding technology. Remember, these are the same fools who believe that cellular telephone transmissions are private and listening to them on legally available equipment constitutes a federal offense. You want them to put their slimy fingers into the net? Then again.... Mikki Barry
tron@tc.fluke.COM (Peter Barbee) (07/20/88)
The only real reason I'm posting this is that I'm hoping Mark will elevate me to immortal USENET status by either suing me or declaring me a pseudo. Mark, I know that you have female sex organs because you said you do. Furthermore, you keep telling us. It is as if you are screaming at the top of your lungs "I'm a woman but call me a man! I'm a woman but call me a man" and are then surprised that the people of USENET know you're a woman. At the end of this article I pulled two quotes out of your recent posting. While I did not include the rest of the posting the two quotes did appear in the order shown and I did not include any partial sentences. In the first quote you tell us how you, a woman, fought for the right to not be classed female. Now I only have a bachelor's degree in engineering and didn't take too many logic courses but still I can't help but conclude that only a woman would fight for such a right. In the second quote you accuse "the Usenet bigots" of distributing this information (that you are, in fact, a woman who chooses to use a traditionally masculine name). Really Mark, I don't mind calling your Mark and I don't mind referring to you as he (although I am lying in my mind when I do that, you see, I associate pronouns with the referred person's gender not their name). You see, you're right, your gender doesn't matter to me in almost any discussion we might have here on USENET (although sometimes it is nice to know considering the vastly different socializations girls and boys receive in the USA). I do mind being accosted with this inane verbiage about rights, lawsuits, EOE/AA, and all the persecution you have endured. It seems that you could endure less persecution, and maybe be happier, if you would be more humane. As an experiment why don't you start up a new account with an androgynous (or even male) login/signature and see if the persecution is based on what you write or on who you are. Finally, in the first quote below you write "I am not female, my sex is." You may have gotten some legal eagle to agree but it seems to me (and probably a few others trained in science) that female is a label associated with the type of reproductive organs a being has. To attempt to disassociate the label female from yourself seems to be akin to disassociating the label blue from your eyes. What color are your eyes if they are not blue? What gender are you if you are not female? Peter B included quotes below: $ Mark writes (in article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>); quote #1: $ >The reason my name is Mark, is so that people will have no need to $ >use diminutive, sexual, exclusive terms to refer to me. $ >Otherwise, if I had a traditional name, and was referred to with $ >traditional pronouns, every single reference to me would refer $ >to my sex instead of to me. Think of it this way, Peter. I am a $ >man in the Constitutional sense that all men are created equal. $ >The inclusive sense. I am not female, my sex is. I am not blue, $ >my eyes are. $ > and later quote #2: $ >... It is because of $ >the irreparable harm done me by the Usenet bigots, that you would $ >know my sex before you know my name, and refer to me differently $ >than you have ever referred to anyone else with my name...
bonzo@xochitl.UUCP (Matt Armstrong) (07/20/88)
(Egads what one letter can do for bandwidth! Two notes in news.admin
*NOT* devoted to the lawsuit business?)
This intent of this article is to state that Mark's wanting to be called
'he' instead of 'she' because he believes that 'she' is a diminutive term
is, in my opinion, a clumsy hack.
You are not going for the central issue of the problem that you see, Mark.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Matt Armstrong - Guru-In-Training - Part-Time Hacker - Starving Bassist
`"initial.c", line 302: warning: '9' is not a standard octal digit' - cc
...ucbvax!unmvax!charon!xochitl!bonzo charon.unm.edu!xochitl!bonzo
...uunet!rlgvax!texsun!xochitl!bonzojzitt@dasys1.UUCP (Joe Zitt) (07/20/88)
A brief amusing thought: Imagine this case getting sent to a jury somehow...
MES's lawyer might well try to disqualify anyone who had ever used the dirty
words sh* or h*r...
--
{sun!hoptoad,cmcl2!phri}!dasys1!jzitt
Joe Zitt Big Electric Cat Public Access Unix
also: uunet!wwd!joe (WorldWide Data)
The worldlines of the needle and the digit intersect -- Paul Pedersen, 1988lmann@jjmhome.UUCP (Laurie Mann) (07/20/88)
In article <1039@unccvax.UUCP>, dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) writes: > In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > > If you've been reading the net for any length of time, you've seen > > the same group of people violate my rights repeatedly. Several of > > them have made it plain that they will not stop unless I sue. It > ENOUGH ALREADY !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! !!! > This matter doesn't belong on USENET, it belongs on Ted Koppel's > NIGHTLINE, or Larry King on Talknet, or, for that matter, Talk Back > with Bob Larson. I wonder just how much fun some of the Christian > radio network shows would have with this issue. No, this clearly belongs to Morton Downey, Jr. Seriously, there is a fair amount of flaming on the net, and some bigotry from time to time. I don't think I've seen anyone violating anyone else's rights. PERIOD. DISAGREEING, even name-calling, ISN'T THE SAME THING AS VIOLATING RIGHTS. This country is almost based on the right to disgree!! \* We could be killed and our bodies devoured! *** Should we go home? *** Naw, this is more fun! Hacking net address: {harvard,ulowell}!m2c!jjmhome!lmann ** lmann@jjmhome.UUCP Working net address: harvard!anvil!es!Laurie_Mann (Stratus Computer) uS(n)ail: Laurie Mann, Stratus, M22PUB, 55 Fairbanks Blvd, Marlboro, MA 01752
brown@nicmad.UUCP (Mr. Video) (07/20/88)
In article <23898@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes:
<
<The brouhaha surrounding the use of the otherwise male terms 'he', 'his',
<'him', is just that: an otherwise term.
Some people may get pissed at me for saying this, but when I know that a
person is of the female gender, I will call that person a woman and use
the pronouns her and she. I will not use he, him or man, except when
talking about the male gender. I will only use man when used in the
other context of describing the human race, ie, man in general.
Those six words means something particular in our language and that is the
way that I will use them.
I don't quite understand the getting upset of being describe with the
words used for that purpose. I just can't look at a female and use a
male descriptive pronoun. To me it is like trying to call a cat a dog.
OK, now flame me.
--
harvard-\ att!terminus--\
Mr. Video ucbvax!uwvax.................!nicmad!brown
rutgers-/ att-/ decvax--/learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (07/20/88)
In <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Mark Ethan Smith wrote: > I will also seek to have all sites not subject to EEO/AA laws, > dropped from Usenet unless they sign a nondiscrimination pledge, > so that other sites cannot be liable for discrimination by people > at sites that do not require verification and do not recognize > antidiscrimination laws. > I will also seek to ensure that no site subject to EEO/AA laws > devotes any resources whatsoever to Usenet while it remains a > discriminatory activity. That means not one second of computer time, > not one moment of phone time, and not one minute of paid employee time. > If you feel that violates your rights, you might have spoken up when > my rights were being violated. Turn about is fair play. I've endured > as much as any human could be expected to, and it is time for the payback. There was a time when I too took Mark seriously. None of what she says makes a lot of sense, though from time to time some principle she advocates does have merit, but I digress, that's the unusual and nobody can be wrong all the time. What Mark is playing here is the usual mexican standoff game. This person thrives on confrontation and she's sure got a lot of folks going this time. What better way to get a lot of people upset (maximizing the mileage) than to threaten to send everyone to bed without usenet. It has not escaped Mark, you may be certain, that if usenet is damaged, so is her favorite toy. Why there are supposed to be 250,000 or so people associated with this network. How many can she reach without usenet, or with a much smaller rendition ? If one stops reading the exact content of Mark's postings for a while, and looks at the patterns of the content and responses the answer to the puzzle becomes obvious. Note that even the title of the posting is "Proposed Lawsuit." She never said she's going to do it, just that she's perhaps thinking about it. Then she's going to dictate how usenet will be run, because she's a female and feels discriminated against. Being a member of a _protected class_ only gives limited advantage under the law, not the unlimited power that Mark is trying to have us believe is available to her. She's also going to claim pauper status and represent herself at no expense. Golly. Might take a lifetime for her to do all this stuff single handed. Takes a LOT of hours to prepare a brief, file everything, investigate the particulars of the statuates she claims were violated, and all the associated bureaucratic stuff that usually gets in one's way. Even an efficient attorney's office would take many months to do what she claims she *might* undertake. Imagine the time it will take a person without any professional qualifications to accomplish these goals. Literally years. So sue ME Mark, cause I'm ready for you. Question is, are you really ready for anything other than harassing the entire usenet population. Heh heh, I thought so. I feel another flame and more threats coming. So why doesen't she file a single suit ? Well, to claim pauper status you must file documentation (under penalty of perjury) regarding your income. While I agree that the defined poverty level is too low, if Mark were to claim her real income, someone might find other income which is unreported and she might be caught between two federal agencies. See, when someone is a liar, they really can't trust anyone, not even themselves. Pauper status is out for Mark, and she cannot afford to pay. In this case, I believe justice is well served by not servicing. Bill Vajk learn@igloo
jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) (07/20/88)
In article <1040@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) writes: > Why should this default to "men" however. Why in the hell >can't I say (with equal legitimacy) that emancipated men have the >right to be treated exactly the same as women. Can you imagine the >brouhaha which would ensue if I were, upon marriage, to change my >last name to the one whom I entered the marriage contract, obstensibly >the one possessing female genitalia? I probably have a better case >than Mark does. Assuming your mangled sentence is trying to say `... if I were to take my wife's name', no brouhaha at all. I believe (but don't know) that that United States law is like English law in that your name is whatever you choose to be called. It is, in Europe, by no means unprecedented for a man to take his wife's surname, although it tended only to happen when a man married into a rather more important family---especially if he was marrying the only heiress of the family.
lee@pedsga.UUCP (07/20/88)
In article <7181@sigi.Colorado.EDU> swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) writes: >In article <6272@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> sethg@athena.mit.edu (Seth Gordon) writes: >>[*] If my reading of MES's complaint is correct, he feels that although >>he is a woman, being referred to by the pronoun "she" is a violation of >>his right to be called whatever he damn pleases. I don't think this >>will last ten minutes in a court of law (otherwise, someone could have >>sued the NYT into using `Ms.'), but I am quite happy to comply with >>MES's wishes in this respect. > I would like to see the court case. MES will probably be called "her" and "she" by her lawyers, the court officials and the judge, because it will be plain to them that he is a she. Imagine trying to explain to the judge that just because she is a she, she really wants to be called a he. I just don't know, it all kind of gives me a head ache. I wonder what her friends call her? If she had any children, do they call her daddy. I just don't know. Gotta get some aspirin. x x x x x -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Lee "I Don't Want To Work,I Just Want To Bang On The Drum All Day" McClellan| +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
ted@osiris.UUCP (Ted Ying) (07/20/88)
In article <1378@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu> wengler@ee.rochester.edu (Michael Wengler) writes: > >Mark Smith IS being picked on by a large number of bigots with the morals >of playground bullies. In addition, some relatively uninvolved people have >started picking on him also, presumably without having really understood what >it is that Mark is asking for, and how things have gotten to the current >state. Now I was planning on staying out of this, however, this person chooses to support MES. I think to the contrary, you and MES are the ones being bigots. You are the ones that take offense at the terms 'she', and 'her'. Not only that, but you are the ones implying that these are derogatory or diminuative. My girlfriend who definitely wants to be recognized as a FEMALE equal would take offense if you refered to her as 'he' or 'him'. But, to imply or state that these terms are in and of themselves diminuative or derogatory is a horrible twisting of the English language. The words do not imply or mean any such things. All you need to do is ask and I wouldn't mind calling you 'he' and 'him'. However, as I am sure of several people on the net, I have never heard a courteous request from MES. The first I heard (and I have been reading soc.women for just over a year now) about MES' annoyance with gender related pronouns, was this recent flame. And it was crude and obnoxious with accusations thrown about and threats of lawsuits. Go ahead. Make my day. Sue me. I'll bring in any number of females who will atest that she/her are not diminuative but gender- related. Next time, try asking nicely instead of reacting like a spoiled child and making crude accusations. >Mark's analogy to the Black person being called boy is largely >correct. When Blacks started complaining about that, there were >people around them who didn't recognize their right to better >treatment. Blacks continued to complain, and make sense, and >eventually, there is a much broader recognition of that right. Mark >has rather eloquently asked to be referred to as a `man' in the sense >that `all men are created equal' etc. Damned reasonable position. > NO! The analogy is not correct. 'Boy' is a diminuative word to refer to blacks. 'She/her' are not necessarily so. They are only so if you see them as such. There are many women who want to be treated as FEMALE equals and don't see the pronouns as being diminuative. In fact, some women would be insulted to be refered to as 'him/he' because you are treating them as equal MALES and thus showing that you don't think females are equal. Think back to the 'Dear Sir/Madam' discussion here a few months ago. This amounts to the same idea. The difference is that NO blacks think of boy as anything but diminuative. >What I would prefer to these successful suits is that people `vote >with their fingers' for decency to each other, and that the pigs, the >playground bullies of the usenet, be accorded the education about >compassion and decency that they need, that the other people on the >usenet playground just not tolerate that shit. > What I would like however, is to teach people to respect women as they are, as FEMALE equals. To teach those that don't understand, that she and her are not diminuatives. By using male pronouns, you are trying to treat women like men. That is a misguided goal at best. To treat women as EQUALS is by far a better goal. >Michael Wengler wengler@ee.rochester.edu Velilind's Laws of Experimentation: 1. If reproducibility may be a problem, conduct the test only once. 2. If a straight line fit is required, obtain only two data points. Ted Ying allegra!mimsy!aplcen! uunet!pyrdc!osiris!ted
sigrid@geac.UUCP (Sigrid Grimm) (07/20/88)
In an article (Seth Gordon) writes: >If MES files this lawsuit, I would appreciate it if he[*], ... > >[*] If my reading of MES's complaint is correct, he feels that although >he is a woman, being referred to by the pronoun "she" is a violation of >his right to be called whatever he damn pleases. I don't think this >will last ten minutes in a court of law (otherwise, someone could have >sued the NYT into using `Ms.'), but I am quite happy to comply with >MES's wishes in this respect. Hey... Great Idea, Seth!! What a great way to end this bullshit once and for all... What if we all just comply with Mark's wishes and refer to Mark in the way that Mark requests? What-oh-what will Mark have left to talk about? Take the potential for the word "violate" in all its forms and ad nauseum repetitions right out of Mark's postings!!! I like it ... I like it ... Sigrid
roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) (07/20/88)
In article <23898@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes: >Someone told me the term "mailman" in Boston was recently changed to >"personperson". I don't believe it, but I bet it's not too far from >the truth. I suppose if you do a little lexicographic investigation, No, there is not personperson. "Mailmen" are now "letter carriers", a term no more descriptive or accurate, but much more "gender neutral".
44617850@ugly.cs.ubc.ca (Howard Alan Treesong) (07/20/88)
I have a few questions.
First, who is the USENET administrator for Berkeley, and in particular,
for the violet.berkeley.edu machine? What does s/he think of the
current Mark Ethan Smith firestorm raging in alt.flame, misc.legal,
news.admin, and soc.women?
Second, would it be possible to modify the newsreader software
used on violet.berkeley.edu to change all occurrences of "she",
"her", and "Ms." to "he", "his", and "Mr.", and to install this
modified software on Mr. Smith's account (era1987@violet.berkeley.edu)?
Mr. Smith has stated that he has suffered considerable emotional
distress because several USENET articles have referred to him
using feminine pronouns ("she" and "her"), and that he intends
to sue over this issue.
I would like to know if this solution is: (a) feasible;
(b) acceptable to Mr. Smith; (c) acceptable to the rest of the net.
If not, I would like to know why.
Please use e-mail if possible.
Howard Alan Treesong
44617850@ugly.cs.ubc.ca; ubc-cs!ugly.cs.ubc.ca!44617850glenn@otto.lvsun.com (Glenn Scott) (07/20/88)
In article <3339@charon.unm.edu>, cs3551ad@geinah.unm.edu (David Schnedar) writes: > I use "--Mark" because --Mark does. --Mark seems to be real picky about > how I refer to --Mark, but --Mark hasn't posted --Mark's prefered method > of address lately. > --Mark, please post the syntax and semantics --Mark would prefer us to use > when refering to --Mark. Can I please use "you". Not using it is very > difficult. I think it would be best for everyone on USENET to simply never refer to Mark again. Glenn
ruchira@druco.ATT.COM (Ruchira S. Datta) (07/21/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: > In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: > >Who is this MES person? Why does (sexual term) get so ****ed off when people > >refer to (sexual term) by feminine pronouns? > > I am an emancipated woman, and I am accustomed to and have > established my legal right to equal terms without regard to sex. > > Do you know what the word "feminine" refers to? That's right, > it refers to sex. And so do "feminine pronouns." > Listen, Mark, on the USENET we communicate in English. In English personal pronouns come in three types, as in the nominative case: "he", "she", "it". "He" refers to people who are male. "She" refers to people who are female. "It" refers to objects and animals. There is absolutely nothing sexist in referring to a female as "she". In and of itself it is a completely objective term. In some other languages there is one third person pronoun referring to both male and female. You are welcome to start speaking one of those other languages. If, in English, you don't like people referring to your sex at every turn, you should ask that they refer to you as "it". People refer to animals as "it" because they do not think about the animal's sex. Similarly, if people refer to you as "it" it means they are not thinking about your sex. If however, you ask that people refer to you as "he", it means that you wish that you were a male and want people to treat you like one. While the latter may be a characteristic of an "emancipated woman", the former is certainly not. In asking that you be referred to as male, you are, in fact, subscribing to the notion that male is better. > Pretending you know my sex but don't know my name is an > interesting ploy to violate my rights yet again. I am a person, > a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark. Do you call everyone > named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to > treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the > basis of my sex? If you're not an attorney, or law student, have There have been many postings in regard to you which refer to you as only "MES". However, from the content of these postings it was quite obvious that you were a female. I don't think Peter was engaging in any "ploy" by "pretending to know your sex but not your name". Of course, he was deliberately trying to offend you by referring to you as "her", since you have made it clear you don't want to be called that. Again, I disagree with you that "she" and "her" are diminutive pronouns. "She" and "her" refer to females, and to say that they are diminutive is to say that there is something wrong with being female. > somebody explain that last statement to you, while I add you to the > list of named defendants. > As other posters have said repeatedly, there is no law against using feminine pronouns. Even if your charge that it is sexual discrimination were to stand up in court, the people on the net have no business dealings with you, (e.g. as employers), so they cannot be prosecuted. > The reason my name is Mark, is so that people will have no need to > use diminutive, sexual, exclusive terms to refer to me. > Otherwise, if I had a traditional name, and was referred to with > traditional pronouns, every single reference to me would refer > to my sex instead of to me. Think of it this way, Peter. I am a Once more, using the name Mark implies that you wish you were male. "He" refers to one's sex just as much as "she". As someone else suggested, why not use a name that applies to both sexes? If you've read some of Ursula LeGuin's books, you will notice that in those societies in her books where sexual equality prevails, the same names can refer to either male or female. > man in the Constitutional sense that all men are created equal. The Constitution is definitely sexist. One should change the Constitution to include women, not reject one's sex in order to be included in the Constitution. Yet again, rejecting one's sex implies that there is something wrong with it. The Constitution should say, "All *human beings* are created equal." > The inclusive sense. I am not female, my sex is. I am not blue, > my eyes are. > > Now read this slowly ard repeat it to yourself several times: > Emancipateed women have the same rights as men. Emancipated women > have the right to be treated exactly the same as men, without regard > to their sex, that is, without regard to the fact that their sex may I agree with you. > not be male. Sex is not always relevant, and does not have to be > mentioned in every statement. When one federal judge had a need to > mention my sex, it was written thus: "...plaintiff states a > complaint on the basis of his sex (female)...." It is because of > the irreparable harm done me by the Usenet bigots, that you would > know my sex before you know my name, and refer to me differently > than you have ever referred to anyone else with my name. For the > first year I posted, nobody used diminutive terms to refer to me, > and there no problems. Then the bigots started their harassment > campaign, encouraging people like yourself to treat me as a class > member, baed on sex, rather than as a unique individual, and > to judge my postings on the basis of my sex rather than according > to their merits. Although I did not read the net when you first posted, I would conjecture that people assumed you were male because of your name (as seems to have been your intention), not that sexist bigots all of a sudden appeared on the net out of nowhere. > > Your site, MIT, Peter, didn't use to admit females. There is still > a lot of discrimination at your site, but most people are more > discreet about it than you are, because they don't want to lose federal > funding. Should they lose their funding due to your posting, just I think you should give the people at MIT more credit for their efforts toward less sexual discrimination. I happen to be a student at Caltech, which is also largely federally funded, but there is a gulf of difference (percentagewise) between the number of women at Caltech and the number of women at MIT. > because you wanted to have a little fun, they might not be too pleased > with you. Do you think you could discriminate against women on your > own time, your own computer, and nnot post in such a way as to make > MIT liable? It is obvious that you have never encountered an > emancipated woman, and like Judge Teitelbaum, are accustomed to > women who submit to diminutive terms and other forms of > sexual stereotyping. I don't. If you have any more stupid questions, > don't hesitate to ask. The first Black to say, "Don't I don't think Peter's question could be called "stupid". Probably, he has read postings about you but not your postings. Since your views are highly unusual, it is not stupid to ask for an explanation of them. > call me boy," got similar treatment from bigots like you. They said, > "Why does that ol' colored boy get so teed off when we call him boy?" I don't think this analogy holds. "Boy" has and has always had a specific usage in English: it refers to a male who has not yet reached maturity. When a white man calls a black man "boy", it implies that the black is inferior, since the white is a "man", and manhood is considered a desirable trait. If a white man were to call an 8-year-old black boy "boy", he would not be racist, because he is using the term as it is meant to be used in English. Similarly, if a man calls a woman "girl", it implies that he regards her as inferior since he does not believe she is a responsible adult. If a man calls me a girl, he would not be sexist, because I am 15 years old and therefore am not an adult. So he is using the term as it is meant to be used in English. In the same way, if a man refers to you as "she" or "her", he is merely using these terms as they are meant to be used in English. If you don't like the English language, you should try speaking a different one. > I hope the analogy helps you overcome your learning disability. Peter asked a genuine question; since you had not previously explained your views to him, it is unfair to accuse him of having a learning disability, not to mention demonstrative of a bigoted (your word) attitude towards people who really do have learning disabilities. > > --Mark --Ruchira
phil@amdcad.AMD.COM (Phil Ngai) (07/21/88)
In article <23898@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes:
.Someone told me the term "mailman" in Boston was recently changed to
."personperson". I don't believe it, but I bet it's not too far from
Mailmen are letter carriers. Firemen are fire fighters. etc.
--
I speak for myself, not the company.
Phil Ngai, {ucbvax,decwrl,allegra}!amdcad!phil or phil@amd.comcsg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (07/21/88)
In article <23898@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes: >Someone told me the term "mailman" in Boston was recently changed to >"personperson". Don't be rediculous. This is an old recurring _Reader's_Digest_ joke. <csg>
wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (William Lieberman) (07/21/88)
In article <792@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: >In article <23898@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes: >>Someone told me the term "mailman" in Boston was recently changed to >>"personperson". I don't believe it, but I bet it's not too far from >>the truth. I suppose if you do a little lexicographic investigation, > >No, there is not personperson. "Mailmen" are now "letter carriers", >a term no more descriptive or accurate, but much more "gender neutral". In our English language, it is fairly easy to neutralize words, giving new constructions which are easy to adopt, such as 'letter carrier', 'fire fighter', 'ombudsperson??', etc. What I would like to know is, does anybody have any information on suggested gender neutralizing in those languages where every noun has a gender? For example, every single noun in the French language (am I not correct, oh Academie Francaise?), when singular, is either and only masculine or feminine (le or la) - NO EXCEPTIONS! So, for example, even if they tried to make up a new construction, such as 'letter carrier', it would come out something like " macho-man letter carrier", assuming it would be the masculine form. Or rough transliteration: " le letter carrier ". (In the province of Quebec, the provincial government (provincial is not used as an aspersion here) wildly makes up ridiculous constructions all the time, to keep the population (the French-speaking portion) from falling into the evil ways of English-language terms - take baseball terms- they're a riot) What thoughts have been given (if any) to removing gender-related terms when both genders are referred to, in languages such as French? (le/la constructions - they look so tedious and boring) Bill Lieberman
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (07/21/88)
In article <23951@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes: >What I would like to know is, does anybody have any information on suggested >gender neutralizing in those languages where every noun has a gender? You are confusing language gender (French la vs. le, German der vs. das) and denotation of sex (English he/she, master/mistress, French monsieur/madame, Spanish Santa vs. San). The two are not related. Indeed, many nouns that carry denotation of sex will have the opposite gender. <csg>
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (07/21/88)
In article <23951@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes: >In our English language, it is fairly easy to neutralize words, giving >new constructions which are easy to adopt, such as 'letter carrier', >'fire fighter', 'ombudsperson??', etc. > >So, for example, even if they tried to make up a new construction, such >as 'letter carrier', it would come out something like " macho-man >letter carrier", assuming it would be the masculine form. Or >rough transliteration: " le letter carrier ". I won't attempt to comment on French, since my French is rather rusty these days. In German, which recognizes three genders (and corresponding articles, "er"=he, "sie"=she, "es"=it), the problem is not all that grave since most nouns describing people can simply be turned into the feminine form by changing the ending and the article. Some examples: | Masculine | Feminine ----------------+--------------------------+-------------------------- teacher | der Lehrer | die Lehrerin letter carrier | der Brieftraeger | die Brieftraegerin chairman | der Vorsitzende | die Vorsitzende All of these situations, and any others which I can think of, are traditional German -- they are not recent inventions in response to women's rights struggles. Even the last one, "chairman", the fact that only the article changes is easily explained from the grammatical context. German uses hardly any constructs like English "something-man", thus the problem of having to change these to "something-person" doesn't arise. Further, German uses different words to refer to members of the class "males" (Mann) and members of the class "humans" (Mensch). The only peculiarity relative to women's rights and the German language is a bit strained and artificial. German uses a general pronoun "man" to refer to either female or male persons in a sentence such as "What is one to do with frivolous lawsuits" -- "Was tut man mit leichtfertigen Anklagen". Some people, wishing to make a point and noticing the similarity of looks (and probably etymology) of "Mann" and "man", have taken to use "frau", the German word for woman, but without the capitalization reserved for nouns, in such situations. -- 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
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/21/88)
In article <1241@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: }In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu () writes: }Is not the complaint of: }}they have mentioned many times that I am emotionally disabled. }Substantiated by: }}Ihave been the victim of much abuse from which I never fully recovered. }and }}I've been in therapy during the entire time I've been posting, and }? I have gotten an e-mail or two requesting clarification. It is my opinion that if you substantiate another's statement, their statement goes from "slander" to "reporting", and there goes the suit! Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
tomwest@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Tom West) (07/21/88)
In article <175@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: > (2) Are authors to be forbidden ever to use "she" as the default > in papers they publish, lest Mark Ethan Smith read them? How is this > to be done without offending women who _like_ that practice? [This is > only one step removed from referring directly to the plaintiff with > the pronoun in question, because in a context like "The reader will > note that this is a complex issue. She can expect further surprises." > the pronoun will refer to whoever happens to be reading the text.] And more stupid examples about having to call everybody "he", etc. and otherwise justifying himself to the rest of the world. Look, somebody on the net wishes to be referred to by the male pronoun irrespective of sex. Is that a big deal? Well, it appears it is too big a deal for a goodly number of posters, almost all of whom are male. (Suprising? not really.) The person involved has not asked that the word "she" be abolished, only that it not be used with respect to that individual. Too much to ask? It appears so. Personal Opinion: Anyone who can't be bothered to use "he" or "him", or more to the point uses "she" or "her" in order to provoke a response is a jerk. Probably not an illegal jerk, but a jerk nonetheless. Decrying that one has the right, or it is grammatically correct is even more stupid. If one is going to be a jerk, why bother with justification? Nobody is going to care anyway. Does anybody else find it amazing what lengths will be followed in order to justify rude and obnoxious behaviour on the part of individuals? Exemptions from opinion: Those who have suffered extra-net activities that might give them cause to react worse than called for. As far as MES's behaviour, I will not comment due to the fact that there are a lot of other factors beyond the net involved in his responses. Legal Opinion: Only layman's guess, which is the lawsuit isn't likely to go anywhere. 'Course I could be wrong. -- Tom West BITNET: tomwest@utorgpu.bitnet, tomwest@gpu.utcs.utoronto Internet: tomwest@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu UUCP: tomwest@utgpu utzoo, yetti, harpo, mnetor \ cbosgd, deepthot, utoronto - !utgpu!tomwest ihnp4, lsuc, sfmin, vnr-vpa /
lauren@cbmvax.UUCP (Lauren Brown CATS) (07/21/88)
In article <1650@osiris.UUCP> ted@osiris.UUCP (Ted Ying) writes: > Now I was planning on staying out of this, however, So was I:-) > What I would like however, is to teach people to respect women > as they are, as FEMALE equals. To teach those that don't > understand, that she and her are not diminuatives. By using > male pronouns, you are trying to treat women like men. That > is a misguided goal at best. To treat women as EQUALS is by > far a better goal. Why does the above, and many more points being made during this debate, remind me of the "Separate but Equal" philosophy of South Africa? And we all know just how successful *that's* been. > > Ted Ying allegra!mimsy!aplcen! > uunet!pyrdc!osiris!ted -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lauren Brown -- CBM >>Amiga Technical Support<< UUCP ...{allegra,caip,ihnp4,seismo}!cbmvax!lauren PHONE 215-431-9100 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
rcj@moss.ATT.COM (07/22/88)
[I've directed followups to soc.women in an attempt to get the non-news- related crap out of news.admin] In article <792@isieng.UUCP> roy@isieng.UUCP (Roy Wells) writes: }In article <23898@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes: }>Someone told me the term "mailman" in Boston was recently changed to }>"personperson". I don't believe it, but I bet it's not too far from }>the truth. I suppose if you do a little lexicographic investigation, Yes, it's true! And the government just last week passed special legislation declaring that as of 1 January 1989 all references to the word "woman" would be stricken from government documents and replaced with the non-sexist term "woperchild". Senator Politi Correct, Chair of the Committee for Frivolous Language Mutilation, explained the reason for the new term: "'woman' is clearly misleading, in that it contains the word 'man'; this is very sexist. We therefore changed the 'man' to 'person', giving us 'woperson'. But this has the male term 'son' in it, so we after much debate we substituted the non-sexist term 'child' for 'son', yielding the non-sexist and actually rather lyrical term 'woperchild'. We're all quite proud of it." Curtis Jackson -- moss!rcj 201-386-6409 (CORNET 232) ...![ att ulysses ucbvax allegra ]!moss!rcj ...![ att ucbvax akgua watmath ]!clyde!rcj P.S.: I do actually support non-sexist writing 100% -- firefighter, flight attendant, and the chair (as opposed to chair[wo]man) and such are really very nice, but I hate to see it taken to ungainly extremes. "Personhole cover" indeed! Hummph!
lbr@holos0.UUCP (Len Reed) (07/22/88)
From article <23951@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA>, by wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (William Lieberman): > > In our English language, it is fairly easy to neutralize words, giving > new constructions which are easy to adopt, such as 'letter carrier', > 'fire fighter', 'ombudsperson??', etc. > > What I would like to know is, does anybody have any information on > suggested gender neutralizing in those languages where every noun > has a gender? For example, every single noun in the French language > (am I not correct, oh Academie Francaise?), when singular, is > either and only masculine or feminine (le or la) - NO EXCEPTIONS! Le mot <<enfant>> c'est masculin ou feminin. Cet enfant (this [male] child) and cette enfant [female] are both correct. Many terms have male and female forms (le president and la presidente) and some don't (le professeur, last I heard, was masculine even of a woman). It might be easier in French, since you could simply provide an inflected form for everything (cette enfante, with an e). This gets around the English problem of "mailman" and "chairman." As long as the discintions are viewed merely grammitical and no judgemental there's no problem. French, like old- fashioned English, uses the masculine forms when the sex is indeterminate. BTW, if you're look for male chauvinism in French, how about the fact that a group of n (any number, perhaps quite large) feminine nouns and one masuline noun is masculine plural? I don't agree that it's easy in English. Flight attendant is okay, but chairperson sounds dumb to me. Ombudsperson is an abomination. "Does everyone have their...." sound unschooled, and can't always be recast fully into the plural. Terms like actress seem dated (why not actor for everyone) but aren't likely to disappear. Some woman might advocate this while others are insulted at be called actors. What a mess. It seems to me that natural language evolves pretty much on it's own, and that attempts to fix things by fiat generally fail. -- - Len Reed
usenet@jclyde.UUCP (Usenet control) (07/22/88)
In article <807@igloo.UUCP> learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) writes: >So why doesen't she file a single suit ? Well, to claim pauper status >you must file documentation (under penalty of perjury) regarding your >income. While I agree that the defined poverty level is too low, if >Mark were to claim her real income, someone might find other income >which is unreported and she might be caught between two federal agencies. I would love to be the judge if her case ever made it to litigation. Why? Because I would throw her a** in jail for contempt. Before she hit the cell though, I would give her a royal a** chewing. Letting her know that superfluous lawsuits like hers are why our justice system is so strained. Oh well... just a pleasant daydream, since I wouldn't dare become a lawyer (I like being an engineer much better :-)). Go ahead Mark, add me to your superfluous lawsuit; like I said before, you'll lose, and who knows you may meet up with a judge who will throw you in jail for wasting the court's time. :-) :-) -- John B. Meaders, Jr. 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!jclyde!john or john@jclyde.UUCP
sworking@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA (Scott Workinger) (07/22/88)
In article <619@otto.lvsun.com> glenn@otto.lvsun.com writes: > I think it would be best for everyone on USENET to simply never refer >to Mark again. > >Glenn At the risk of seeming insensitive, I agree. This is not the place to work out the real issues involving that person. This is not a therapy group. Scott
jpexg@mit-hermes.ai.mit.edu.AI.MIT.EDU (John Purbrick) (07/22/88)
<821@cunixc.columbia.edu> >Your site, MIT, Peter, didn't use to admit females. There is still >a lot of discrimination at your site, but most people are more >discreet about it than you are, because they don't want to lose federal >funding..... You obvously know your trivia. Most people would say that MIT has admitted women since its founding (1861) but in fact this isn't true; women weren't accepted until the class of 1873, suggesting that the first woman arrived in 1869, but I think she was a transfer student who graduated in < 4 years. Discrimination, unfortunately, is just about everywhere. I doubt whether any college is in danger of losing funding because of it. (Even Grove City College!)
ok@quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe) (07/22/88)
In article <147@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >The only peculiarity relative to women's rights and the German language >is a bit strained and artificial. German uses a general pronoun >"man" to refer to either female or male persons in a sentence such as >"What is one to do with frivolous lawsuits" -- "Was tut man mit leichtfertigen >Anklagen". Some people, wishing to make a point and noticing the similarity >of looks (and probably etymology) of "Mann" and "man", have taken to use >"frau", the German word for woman, but without the capitalization reserved >for nouns, in such situations. "Strained and artificial" fairly hits it off: if there is an etymological connexion between "Mann" and "man" it must be _very_ old. Exactly the same distinction is found in Old English: man pronoun "one" mann human being There are other words for "male"(ceorl, guma, wer &c). For what it's worth, the word wif woman, wife has *Neuter* gender in Old English, and the modern "woman" comes from wif+mann = "female human being". Such "man" attacks on language are about as sound as the following joke: Q: What kind of a bull is a steer? A: Incapa-bull. Shall we change "incapable" to "incapacow"?
guillory@vdsvax.steinmetz.ge.com (guillory stanford s) (07/22/88)
In article <4311@cbmvax.UUCP> lauren@cbmvax.UUCP (Lauren Brown CATS) writes: >Why does the above, and many more points being made during this debate, >remind me of the "Separate but Equal" philosophy of South Africa? And ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >we all know just how successful *that's* been. >Lauren Brown -- CBM >>Amiga Technical Support<< Maybe I am a bit shaky on my South African history, but in all the reading I have done on the area, I have never encountered any evidence that Aparthied was, is or was ever intended to be a "separate but equal" policy. In fact it has always been intended as a separate and very unequal policy. The Afrikaaners aren't subtle about their racism the way Caucasian Americans were in the fifties with Brown vs. BOE. Also, how are you comparing the idea of women being equal with a separate but equal policy. Women don't have to go to predominantly female schools, they don't have to use separate water fountains , they don't have to ride in the back of the bus. They aren't pressured to live in poor ghettos away from upper class men. (Thank heavens!). I don't see the connection. But I will ask a question of the women posting so that I may clear up any problems I have in this area. Should I begin thinking of women as men, or should I consider them as beings with slightly different physical characteristics who are capable of doing anything that I am capable of, and in many cases more? I have always assumed the latter position, but I am open to discussion. Stanford S. Guillory guillory%vdsvax.tcpip@ge-crd.arpa
dave@csd1.milw.wisc.edu (David A Rasmussen) (07/22/88)
From article <4311@cbmvax.UUCP>, by lauren@cbmvax.UUCP (Lauren Brown CATS): > >> What I would like however, is to teach people to respect women >> as they are, as FEMALE equals. To teach those that don't I think you should word this as "female EQUALS". Dave Rasmussen c/o Computing Services Division @ U of WI - Milwaukee Internet: dave@csd4.milw.wisc.edu Uucp: uwvax!uwmcsd1!uwmcsd4!dave {o,o} Csnet: dave%uwmcsd4@uwm Bellnet: +1 (414) 229-5133 \u/ ICBM: 43 4 58 N/ 87 55 52 W Usnail: Box 413 EMS E380, Milw WI 53201
barry@n0atp.UUCP (Barry S. Berg) (07/22/88)
In article <551@etive.ed.ac.uk> jcb@lfcs.ed.ac.uk (Julian Bradfield) writes: :In article <1040@unccvax.UUCP> dya@unccvax.UUCP (York David Anthony) writes: : :> Why should this default to "men" however. [ ...] :>can't I say (with equal legitimacy) that emancipated men have the :>right to be treated exactly the same as women. :>[....] I were, upon marriage, to change my :>last name to the one whom I entered the marriage contract, obstensibly : :Assuming your mangled sentence is trying to say `... if I were to take :my wife's name', no brouhaha at all. I believe (but don't know) that :that United States law is like English law in that your name is :whatever you choose to be called. It is, in Europe, by no means :unprecedented for a man to take his wife's surname, although it tended :only to happen when a man married into a rather more important :family---especially if he was marrying the only heiress of the family. As a matter of fact In Minnesota the marriage certificate asks at the bottom what you wish to change your name to. I was going to fill in "Dr. Irving K. Fienblat, MD, DVM, DDS, JD, CPA" but my wife wouldn't let me, and the clerk thought I was nuts. :-) Actually, she said that it is the cheapest and fastest way to legally change your name. Otherwise, you have to get a lawyer and go to court and prove why the state should allow you to do so. We also had a very good chuckle about in the future filling in the blank of Maiden Name, which would be hard since I was never a maiden. BTW the above would be legal, and all the "titles and degrees" would be part of the name so it would be pronounced "dir irving kay fienblat mid divum d-dis jud seepa" say that three times fast :-) -- Barry S. Berg DOMAIN: barry@n0atp.N0ATP.MN.ORG N0ATP Packet Radio Gateway UUCP: {...}amdahl!bungia!n0atp!barry "Speech is civilization itself--it is silence which isolates." --Thomas Mann "Moderation in all things, most especially moderation." --Author as yet unknown.
hbetel@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Heather) (07/22/88)
As many people have already stated, gender is grammatical term, referring to a property of nouns, where sex refers to living things. It is true that all nouns in French have a gender, it is not true that the gender of the noun is the same as the sex of the person or animal the noun denotes. This may be difficult to understand since the only words with gender distinction in English, also indicate sex. If it is confusing, take the example of singular and plural in English. The word "group" is a singular noun indicating many objects. In French, the word for person, "personne" is a feminin noun, obviously not all persons are women. So the answer to the question is that non-sexist terms can be constructed in French in the exact same way they would be constructed in english: fire fighter instead of fireman. Even if the word "fighter" is feminin this would not be equivalent to saying "fire fighter-who-is-a-woman," or even "firewoman." By the way, I have never noticed that the gender of nouns is stereotyped. In most languages, gender depends on the ending of the word. In Finnish, (and probably Estonian and Hungarian too), there is never a sex distinction, (even between he and she).
nau@frabjous (Dana Nau) (07/23/88)
In article <23951@teknowledge-vaxc.ARPA> wlieberm@teknowledge-vaxc.UUCP (William Lieberman) writes:
<
<What I would like to know is, does anybody have any information on
<suggested gender neutralizing in those languages where every noun
<has a gender? For example, every single noun in the French language
<(am I not correct, oh Academie Francaise?), when singular, is
<either and only masculine or feminine (le or la) - NO EXCEPTIONS!
< ...
<What thoughts have been given (if any) to removing gender-related terms
<when both genders are referred to, in languages such as French? (le/la
<constructions - they look so tedious and boring)
In German, there's a grammatical rule that all diminutives (words ending in
-chen or -lein) have neuter gender. Thus, "Frau" (woman) is feminine, but
"Fraeulein" (unmarried woman) and "Maedchen" (girl) are neuter!
Dana S. Nau ARPA & CSNet: nau@mimsy.umd.edu
Computer Sci. Dept., U. of Maryland UUCP: ...!{allegra,uunet}!mimsy!nau
College Park, MD 20742 Telephone: (301) 454-7932jml@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Michael Lodman) (07/23/88)
In article <6071@pyr.gatech.EDU> glenns%pipe@gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >Mark is right when Mark says flames belong in alt.flame. Actually, the alt.* newsgroups are technically not a part of USENET. Many sites do not carry the alt.* sub-net. I don't think flames as in name calling belong anywhere on the net, but strong corrections to obviously idiotic articles should probably be mailed. I have broken this guideline myself. -- Michael Lodman (619) 485-3335 Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM {sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!mike When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana.
friedl@vsi.UUCP (Stephen J. Friedl) (07/23/88)
[Mr.?] Mark E. Smith writes: > they have mentioned many times that I am emotionally disabled. > ... > I've been in therapy during the entire time I've been posting, and [and somebody claming that line 2 proves line 1] Folks, being in therapy does not necessarily mean one is emotionally disabled any more than going to a doctor necessarily means one is medically disabled. Those wishing to improve themselves should not be insulted; are those in marriage counselling disabled too? Steve -- Steve Friedl V-Systems, Inc. +1 714 545 6442 3B2-kind-of-guy friedl@vsi.com {backbones}!vsi.com!friedl attmail!vsi!friedl --------- Nancy Reagan on flood-control: "Just say Noah"-----------
mandel@well.UUCP (Tom Mandel) (07/23/88)
In article <12179@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <4461@sphinx.uchicago.edu> kus3@sphinx.uchicago.edu.UUCP (Bob Kusumoto) writes: >>*** Flame on *** > >Flames belong in alt.flame. > Good advice. Perhaps you might take it on yourself to heed the same. --Tom Mandel mandel@well mandel@kl.sri.com
ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) (07/23/88)
For reasons that I hope will become obvious:
This article is Copyright, 1988. All rights reserved.
It may not be reproduced in any form, except in its entirety,
including this copyright notice, without the written authority
of its author, who can be contacted at the address given below.
I have just tried to compose a posting which attempted to show that the
"correctness" of the form of address is irrelevant to the subject under
discussion, that the controversy revolves around whether a person has a
*right* to be addressed in the manner of their choice, irrespective of the
"correctness" or "normal usage" of that form of address.
In attempting to so argue, I have convinced myself that this is, in fact,
not the case, and is the central point at issue.
*If* the requested form of address is a socially acceptable one, and in normal
usage, then I believe "harassment" could exist if a person's wishes were
continually ignored.
This doesn't imply that the "supposed victim" would then necessarily have
any legal redress, particularly under the present Usenet circumstances, and
certainly not under any equal opportunity or anti-discrimination statutes.
On Usenet, potential victims do not even have to leave the net to avoid
these "slurs".
An appropriate kill file entry, or other form of selective reading would
ensure that they would never have to have their sensibilities outraged. The
remarks would then fall into the same category as if they were being
communicated out of ear-shot, and then only slander/libel would be an issue.
Potential victims of self-defined harassments on Usenet need only see
harassing postings if they *want* to see them.
No extraordinary action need be taken to avoid what they define as
harassment. Indeed, in this instance, the supposed victim has already
*publicly acknowledged* that he selectively reads his e-mail to avoid what
he doesn't want to read. Why does he not selectively read news postings?
To do otherwise is perverse.
Now, assume the supposed victim is female, and she insisting on being
addressed as he/him. This form of address is *not* a socially acceptable
one nor is it common usage (one can ignore whether it is *gramatical*
correct or not, that is irrelevant, and is merely an intellectual game).
The supposed victim is thus being perverse by insisting on being so
addressed.
In fact, Mark has no complaint of harassment if I address her in the fashion
that she, as one who admits to being female, is normally addressed in our
society, and which is accepted by (everyone but Mark?) as being in
no way derogatory. Indeed, if Mark goes beyond the norms of our society to
try to *force* me to call her "him", then it is *she* who is exposing
herself to legal action - whether she has "moral" grounds for her wishes or
not.
Further, if she continues to insist that I call her "he", then she is open
to a complaint of harassment from *me*, because she is attempting to force
me into a position of ridicule within society - "look at that stupid person
calling that woman "he"".
No-one has the right to force another to act in a way not accepted as normal
by society. This right would seem to be much stronger than any that Mark
feels she has to insist how I address her.
I could *choose* to be polite and/or sympathetic to Mark and call him "him"
as he would like. I believe it is my choice, not his right.
Mark *has* been abused on the net many times. Not by being referred to by
she/her, but by those small minded people who, when they recognize
vulnerability in another, need to cover their own inadequacies by attacking
in a mean spirited and purile fashion. These are the bully boys of the net.
Unfortunately though, Mark has brought this upon himself, not through his
vulnerability, but by repeatedly initiating and responding kind with kind.
He falls into the same category as his aggressors. He is a bully boy
pretending to be a victim.
Whether this behaviour is within Mark's control, we have no way of judging
except by the otherwise lucid, rational quality of his postings. These would
indicate to me that Mark is in fact, deliberately engineering the content of
the responses he generates on the net - again perverse and even masochistic
behaviour consistent with the overall picture.
I'm sorry for you Mark, you are not a happy person. I'm equally sorry for
all the users of Usenet, for there can be no doubt that you are "harassing"
all of us, whether in a legally meaningful sense or not. There are,
however, people out there, some have already surfaced, who would find it
amusing to deal with you on your own terms, and have infinitely more time,
resources, and precedent, than you. I caution you to withdraw.
I would strongly suggest that in the meantime, everyone stop harassing Mark,
and that we don't allow ourselves to be harassed *by* Mark.
As it is difficult to do this on Mark's terms, even while behaving in a way
normally accepted by society as a whole, and by Usenet in particular, the
solution appears to be:
DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF MARK'S POSTINGS OR TO ANY POSTINGS WHICH REFER TO
MARK. YOU MAY HARASS MARK OR ANOTHER USER OF USENET BY SO DOING. I SEE NO
OTHER WAY OF BEHAVING IN A MANNER WHICH MARK WILL NOT TAKE AS HARASSMENT.
PLEASE. FOR THE ABOVE REASON, DO *NOT* RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER
WHICH MAKES REFERENCE TO MARK ETHAN SMITH, IS WRITTEN BY MARK ETHAN SMITH,
OR DISCUSSES THIS SUBJECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY.
And to the half a dozen or so who have been identified by Mark, but whom we
had already identified ourselves anyway as being unable to control their
less civilized urges, for once, be sensible, be mature, *keep your mouths
SHUT*, and *your fingers STILL*.
If we have the discipline to do this, the problem *may* solve itself.
Please note the copyright notice at the beginning of this article.
--
Ray Dunn. | UUCP: ..!{philabs, mnetor}!micomvax!ray
Philips Electronics Ltd. | TEL : (514) 744-8200 Ext: 2347
600 Dr Frederik Philips Blvd | FAX : (514) 744-6455
St Laurent. Quebec. H4M 2S9 | TLX : 05-824090abostick@gethen.UUCP (Alan Bostick) (07/23/88)
In article <1299@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >I have gotten an e-mail or two requesting clarification. It is my opinion >that if you substantiate another's statement, their statement goes from >"slander" to "reporting", and there goes the suit! Really? I was under the impression that there were certain circumstances where, EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION IS TRUE the dissemination of it constitutes libel or slander. (e.g. "were you aware that Computerwhiz X is a conviced felon?) There is some criterion involving malice. God knows, I've seen plenty of malice directed against poor MES. Alan Bostick ucbvax!unisoft!gethen!abostick
tneff@dasys1.UUCP (Tom Neff) (07/23/88)
[Ray, including a copyright notice to try and squelch quoted followups won't work. Check the "fair use" clause.] In article <1203@micomvax.UUCP> ray@micomvax.UUCP (Ray Dunn) writes: >I have just tried to compose a posting which attempted to show that the >"correctness" of the form of address is irrelevant to the subject under ^^^^^^^ >discussion, that the controversy revolves around whether a person has a >*right* to be addressed in the manner of their choice, irrespective of the >"correctness" or "normal usage" of that form of address. >Now, assume the supposed victim is female, and she insisting on being >addressed as he/him. This form of address is *not* a socially acceptable ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ >one nor is it common usage (one can ignore whether it is *gramatical* >correct or not, that is irrelevant, and is merely an intellectual game). >The supposed victim is thus being perverse by insisting on being so >addressed. ^^^^^^^^^ As I pointed out in an article several days ago, the issue here is not one of ADDRESS, but of REFERENCE. You cannot address someone in a gender-specific way at all! except by the use of honorifics, which aren't under discussion. [ Later ] >DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF MARK'S POSTINGS OR TO ANY POSTINGS WHICH REFER TO >MARK. YOU MAY HARASS MARK OR ANOTHER USER OF USENET BY SO DOING. I SEE NO >OTHER WAY OF BEHAVING IN A MANNER WHICH MARK WILL NOT TAKE AS HARASSMENT. > >PLEASE. FOR THE ABOVE REASON, DO *NOT* RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE OR ANY OTHER >WHICH MAKES REFERENCE TO MARK ETHAN SMITH, IS WRITTEN BY MARK ETHAN SMITH, >OR DISCUSSES THIS SUBJECT DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. You first. Me, I'm here to discuss stuff. Cheez, he can't even serve you up there in PQ can he? >If we have the discipline to do this, the problem *may* solve itself. Even granting there was a "problem" in the first place, which I'm not sure I do, things like this are self-solving by nature. Mark's pronoun preferences are an interesting subject, but the lawsuit talk is just talk and most of us know it -- the flamings of someone who gets *really* *really* angry and doesn't happen to have vast reserves of net.wisdom to draw on. Its nuisance value to the net is that it generates panicky Mayday postings from folks who think the big bad wolf is about to blow Usenet down. -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!cmcl2!phri!dasys1!tneff "None of your toys CIS: 76556,2536 MCI: TNEFF will function..." GEnie: TOMNEFF BIX: t.neff (no kidding)
bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (07/23/88)
In article <12180@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> era1987@violet.berkeley.edu writes: >In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu writes: >>Who is this MES person? Why does (sexual term) get so ****ed off when people >>refer to (sexual term) by feminine pronouns? > >I am an emancipated woman, and I am accustomed to and have >established my legal right to equal terms without regard to sex. >Pretending you know my sex but don't know my name is an >interesting ploy to violate my rights yet again. I am a person, >a human being, a citizen, and my name is Mark. Do you call everyone >named Mark by diminutive pronouns, or are you doing it only to >treat me differently from other people similarly situated, on the >basis of my sex? Your name could be Tom, Dick, or Harry. If you're female, the female pronoun is use to refer to you, and if you're male, the male pronoun is used to refer to you. It's really quite simple. I'm pretty sure they cover this subject matter in grade school. Regardless of whatever legal action you've felt you've needed to take in the past, the plain and simple truth is, if you were born as a female onto this planet, that's what you are. Nothing will ever change that. Ever. You can do whatever you want, say whatever you want to say, but if they take any cell off your body, it will always and forever have two X chromosomes, which by definition makes you FEMALE! That means that I and everyone else on this planet have every right in the world to refer to you as SHE, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. It's a point of FACT. Calling yourself Mark changes NOTHING. >The reason my name is Mark, is so that people will have no need to >use diminutive, sexual, exclusive terms to refer to me. >Otherwise, if I had a traditional name, and was referred to with >traditional pronouns, every single reference to me would refer >to my sex instead of to me. Think of it this way, Peter. I am a >man in the Constitutional sense that all men are created equal. >The inclusive sense. I am not female, my sex is. I am not blue, >my eyes are. You don't consider HIM and HIS sexual, exclusive terms? It matters not what name you choose to be called. "Traditional pronouns" refer to sex. That's the way they work. Unless, of course you wish us to use IT, which is sexless. Maybe that's what you want, and you can join the ranks of all of the neutered cats and dogs of the world. Of couse, neutering changes nothing; they're still XX or XY, which is why I still refer to my cats as "he" and "him". I used to refer to my unborn baby as "it", but we said "he" or "she" on occasion. As of yesterday when an ultrasound was done, we will be referring to "him". :-) My advice to you is to grow up. Play by the rules of the game, instead of trying to make up your own rules and forcing everyone else to play your game. Threatening to sue someone who doesn't agree with you and play the game by your rules is both selfish and childish. Except most children just take their marbles and go home. Grow up. -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug
bytebug@dhw68k.cts.com (Roger L. Long) (07/23/88)
In article <2306@ur-tut.UUCP> Tony Giaccone writes: >Now maybe I've seen too much television law, and maybe I just have a screwed >up notion of how things work in our legal system, but shouldn't we be >treating this proposed lawsuit a little more seriously? Maybe all you folks >out there, who are more familiar with the law, or more familiar with Mark's >postings, have a better idea what's going on here. However, I'd feel a lot >better about this whole thing if someone with some real legal expertise gave >us his/her opinion on the status of such a suit. > >After all it seems likley that even if this suit has no justification* at all, >that just filing it could cause us all some trouble. After all legal >harassment seems to be all the rage these days. What about it folks, anyone >out there care to render an informed opinion. Is there any way that you can PROVE that the person typing these words onto this computer is who the computer says it is? But beyond that, what could possibly be wrong with calling someone of the FEMALE sex with feminine pronouns, regardless of what they choose to call themselves? I don't see where I'm discriminating, since I call ALL the females I know "SHE". In fact, I refer to females I don't know as "SHE" as well. Ain't life tough! -- Roger L. Long dhw68k!bytebug
jfh@rpp386.UUCP (John F. Haugh II) (07/24/88)
In article <367@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM> jml@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM (Michael Lodman) writes: >In article <6071@pyr.gatech.EDU> glenns%pipe@gatech.edu (Glenn R. Stone) writes: >>Mark is right when Mark says flames belong in alt.flame. > >Actually, the alt.* newsgroups are technically not a part of USENET. >Many sites do not carry the alt.* sub-net. Alt is not a sub-net. Alt is a full blown network just like USENET. USENET consists of those machines which exchange news.announce, and any other collection of groups from comp, misc, news, rec, sci, soc and talk. The ALT net consists of machines which exchange some collection of alt groups. There are other networks, such as unix-pc, bionet, pubnet, biz and others which I'm too stupid to know about. - 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
swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) (07/24/88)
In article <32059@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: >You are confusing language gender (French la vs. le, German der vs. das) and >denotation of sex (English he/she, master/mistress, French monsieur/madame, >Spanish Santa vs. San). The two are not related. Indeed, many nouns that carry >denotation of sex will have the opposite gender. First, German has three, der - masculine, die - feminine, and das - neuter. I still wonder, when speaking in German, should I call my male cat he or she? (Die Katze) (As you may be able to tell, I don't speak much German anymore, and no one ever told me this anyway...) Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU ...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric "Rock and Roll lives and breathes in the hearts of the young."
learn@igloo.UUCP (william vajk) (07/24/88)
In article <4910@watdcsu.waterloo.edu>, hbetel@watdcsu.waterloo.edu (Heather) writes: > In Finnish, (and probably Estonian and Hungarian too), there is never > a sex distinction, (even between he and she). In Hungarian there is no gender or sex distinction in pronoun equivalents. Objects (nouns) are also genderless and use of the form of _the_ is determined by the leading letter of the noun following. Bill Vajk learn@igloo
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (07/24/88)
Might I suggest that more informative discussion on the role of gender in
grammer might be gotten in sci.lang than news.admin...
(take a look - you would be suprised!)
Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy.
Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations!
Q.E.D.
jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (07/25/88)
This "Mark" (era) woman sounds like the kind of person that would get a
law passed to allow women to go topless in public -- and then sue any
man that looked.
Sean
--
*** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet
*** The IPCF Roto-Rooter man. {backbone|rutgers|uunet}!ukma!sean
*** U of K, Lexington Kentucky, USA Internet site? "talk sean@g.ms.uky.edu"
*** ``This parrot is dead.''chris@softway.oz (Chris Maltby) (07/25/88)
Please stop this at once! Get on with your work you lazy people! If I hear another peep out of you it'll be the end. -- Chris Maltby - Softway Pty Ltd (chris@softway.oz) PHONE: +61-2-698-2322 UUCP: uunet!softway.oz!chris FAX: +61-2-699-9174 INTERNET: chris@softway.oz.au
swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU (Frank Swarbrick) (07/25/88)
In article <1360@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes: >Might I suggest that more informative discussion on the role of gender in >grammer might be gotten in sci.lang than news.admin... You might. And it's quite a good suggestion. I, for one, didn't realize that that group existed, or I would have at least crossposted my messages their and set followups to go there. But with all these newsgroups... Frank Swarbrick (and, yes, the net.cat) swarbric@tramp.Colorado.EDU ...!{ncar|nbires}!boulder!tramp!swarbric "You got Allah in the East; You got Jesus in the West; Christ, what's a man to do?"
cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/26/88)
In article <9722@eddie.MIT.EDU>, ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry) writes: > Regardless of the merits or lack of same of this proposed suit, think of > this: Do we really want a judge, jury and bunch of lawyers who have NEVER > TOUCHED a computer in their lives to attempt to make precedent out of the > Usenet? > > Mikki Barry A valid point, Mikki, but extortionists have a bad habit of increasing their demands, and not being satisfied with the initial bribe. I worry that giving into the rantings and ravings of MES will result in more nonsense in the future. "I demand that the use of gender-specific pronouns to refer to anything at all go away for all USENET communication. It engenders an atmosphere of contempt for women." Are we sure that MES isn't an agent-provocateur for that small percentage of Americans who want women in a subservient role? Clayton E. Cramer
shelley@aimed.UUCP (Shelley Spence) (07/26/88)
Mark:
When a baby is born, the first question that is asked is: What is it,
a boy or a girl? From that moment on, we are labeled, like it or not. Men
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and women have their differences, but they have more similairities. Neither
one is superior/inferior. Men and women are basically equal. By calling
youself a man, you are only admitting that being a man is somehow superior.
Being a women is *not* demeaning, it is something to be proud of.
The proper use of the third person pronoun is he/she, or some representation
thereof, it is not just 'he'. Calling yourself a man and not wanting to be
referred to as a woman is a disgrace. Are you ashamed of being referred to
as a woman? Why is it demeaning? Why is it a violation of your rights? You
have the same right, as a woman, to equal opportunities and privledges as any
other human being (at least in the Canadian bill of rights :-) ). These rights
may not always be met, but calling yourself a man does nothing to help
your cause.
Feminists have a reputation for being fanatical. This is unjust. You, however,
are making matters worse. By making people laugh at you, you have done
more damage to those who are seriously part of the women's movement - male
or female - than any person who wants to chain women, barefoot and pregnant,
into the kitchen.
To all others that have been following this tripe:
For the sake of all women, please don't take Mark's views
as a true representation of feminism.
Shelley L. J. Spence (Ms! :-) )
PS: Hey *dre@myrias* did you see this? :-)plipp@tugiig (Lipp Peter) (07/26/88)
In article <5028@ozdaltx.UUCP>, root@ozdaltx.UUCP (root) writes: > > THIS IS SILLY! > > Actually - you are right, Scotty! When I subscribed news.admin I really thought of getting some useful information. But about 99.9 % is Re: Proposed lawsuit. Should I ..... Ok: my contribution: I agree everybody has the right to wishing to be called someway or the other, and I have no problems calling Mark Mark and he and whatever he likes, even if I regard this as ridiculous. But: all this crazy discussion (happily I could not follow it from the very beginning) seems to me like kids in the yard (or chicken) hacking on somebody who wants to be different instead of accepting and cooperating. Finally: THIS IS SILLY And: LETS STOP THIS OR I UNSUBSCRIBE (anybody scared????) Peter (plipp@tugiig.uucp) Xcuse my english - i am from Austria and speak Gerwoman.
ekwok@cadev4.intel.com (Edward C. Kwok) (07/27/88)
In article <1110@gethen.UUCP> abostick@gethen.UUCP (Alan Bostick) writes: > >Really? I was under the impression that there were certain >circumstances where, EVEN IF THE ALLEGATION IS TRUE the dissemination of >it constitutes libel or slander. (e.g. "were you aware that >Computerwhiz X is a conviced felon?) There is some criterion involving >malice. > No. Truth is a total defence for slander and libel. You are thinking about invasion of privacy torts. But your example won't cut it. The public has a important interest to know about felony conviction. --------------------------------------------------------------- Very few people I know heard of Smith v. Van Gorgham, do you? ---------------------------------------------------------------
mag1@whutt.UUCP (GIDEN) (07/27/88)
You cannot slander/libel someone by speaking the truth! If you call a person who is biologically a female she, you are making a truthful statement. Mark has every right (moral NOT LEGAL) to ask that people call Mark he. But, under the first amendment, you can call Mark anything you please as long as what you call Mark is not slanderous/ libelous as the case may be. (For those of you who are wondering, slander is spoken and libel is printed falsehoods that hurt someone per the LEGAL definition of hurt). This doesn't mean that Mark has to like what you say to be protected speech. But if it is TRUE, there is no recourse! If I go around telling everyone that you are a convicted child molester and you are, you have no legal recourse as I made a true statement of fact. If I said it and you weren't you would have a cause of action against me as I slandered you. Thus, calling Mark she, IF this is true, is legal. Even if it weren't, it would not meet the test of slander or libel under the law. As to discrimination, let me say that I think ALL discrimination is wrong. Period. Also, that what is illegal and what is really done is often two different things. I know this second hand as my wife is (and has been from birth) profoundly hearing impaired. There are ainti-discrimination laws but... Any how, if people don't respect Mark's wishes as to gender identification, they may be guilty of being rude, but NOT of violating a law. They are exercising their rights under the first amendment. EEO/AA applies to employment, housing, schooling and being served in public accomodations such as resturants. If a person does not have a relationship with you, i.e., employer/employee, server/customer, realtor/renter then they are not discriminating UNDER THE LAW. Being rude maybe, but rudeness is NOT ACTIONABLE IN A COURT OF LAW IN THIS COUNTRY! If it were, look out counter clerks, government workers, drivers et al! As we used to say as kids, Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me. Mark, you are not going to change anyone's opinion nor how they treat you by threatening to sue or by going ahead with a filing. As my wife would tell you, there are a lot more serious issues that face handicapped people than being referred to as he or she. Isn't it time to talk about REAL violations of REAL rights? Mike Giden AT&T Bell Labs Whippany, NJ An equal opportunity employer and proud of it. These opinions are mine alone.
work@dragos.UUCP (Dragos Ruiu) (07/27/88)
I was ready to chalk this up to net.drivel and ignore this dicussion.
I'm glad I didn't. It's quite entertaining. I'm actually quite amazed
at how reasonable and coherent the replies are, given the inflamatory
and agressive wording of the original 'threat'.
(I think we should introduce MES to JJ :-)
--
Dragos Ruiu ruiu@dragos.UUCP Uh-oh, I see IBM ads with UNIX in big
...alberta!dragos!ruiu bold letters. Could we be DOOMED?
Disclaimer: SaskPower R&D is in not responsible for my opinions or machine. mvmiller@skat.usc.edu (Michel V. Miller) (07/30/88)
In article <6278@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> peter@athena.mit.edu (Peter J Desnoyers) writes: >Who is this MES person? Why does she get so ****ed off when people >refer to her by feminine pronouns? > > Peter Desnoyers > peter@athena.mit.edu
cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU (07/30/88)
In article <4311@cbmvax.UUCP> lauren@cbmvax.UUCP (Lauren Brown CATS) writes: >In article <1650@osiris.UUCP> ted@osiris.UUCP (Ted Ying) writes: >> Now I was planning on staying out of this, however, > So was I:-) Me too. >> What I would like however, is to teach people to respect women >> as they are, as FEMALE equals. >Why does the above, and many more points being made during this debate, >remind me of the "Separate but Equal" philosophy of South Africa? And >we all know just how successful *that's* been. How in the world can you compare Apartheid in South Africa to the debate here about Mark's pronouns? Do you really consider Apartheid to be such a trivial matter? Or do you dare state that Mark's pronoun problems are as major a tragedy as the denial of civil rights in South Africa? On the behalf of the people suffering in South Africa, I demand a retraction of this statement. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>RedShift>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<cc1@cs.ucla.edu<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disclaimer: These opinions are mine and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Computer Club, the UCLA Computer Science Department, the UC Regents, or anyone else.
jwm@stdc.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt) (08/02/88)
In article <14836@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> cc1@CS.UCLA.EDU (RedShift) writes: }How in the world can you compare Apartheid in South Africa to the debate }here about Mark's pronouns? Do you really consider Apartheid to be such }a trivial matter? Or do you dare state that Mark's pronoun problems are }as major a tragedy as the denial of civil rights in South Africa? } }On the behalf of the people suffering in South Africa, I demand a retraction }of this statement. Unlikely such will be obtained. The "My problems are the worse things there are is not uncommon. The "We" and "I" count more then the "They" and "You". Inaccurate, perhaps. But that's the way it appears. (in answer: I don't compare them. Apartheid is not a trivial matter. Mark's pronoun problem is h(er/is) (as you wish) and are a minor problem, (EXTREMELY minor) to me. (less a problem, more a source of entertainment. Apartheid is not entertaining. In the least.) Disclaimer: Individuals have opinions, organizations have policy. Therefore, these opinions are mine and not any organizations! Q.E.D. jwm@aplvax.jhuapl.edu 128.244.65.5 (James W. Meritt)
jtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (08/03/88)
In article <12165@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, era1987@violet.berkeley.edu (Mark Ethan Smith) writes: > > If you've been reading the net for any length of time, you've seen > the same group of people violate my rights repeatedly.... If you have not archived the "hundreds and hundreds" of violations of your rights electronically and in hard copy I would be doubtful that you will be able to successfully win any law suit. There will be severe question as to which or what rights of yours have been violated. Rights aren't something you violate... the are things you deny. A minor distinction, but one that is important when you consider that those who post inflamatory remarks at you aren't "denying" you anything. They are harrassing you yes. But that's different from being denied your consitutional rights. I frankly don't understand what rights you claim you have been denied and I don't really want to hear a lengthy diatribe either. I'm just too busy. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on the net in the future however. -- John T. Nelson UUCP: sun!sundc!potomac!jtn Advanced Decision Systems Internet: jtn@potomac.ads.com 1500 Wilson Blvd #512; Arlington, VA 22209-2401 (703) 243-1611 "Hi... My name is Hobbes. I'm the product of a malicious 5-year old's twisted and destructive imagination. Would YOU like to be my friend?"