Xref: utzoo soc.singles:1395 alt.flame:951
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!cpsc6a!codas!killer!era
From: era@killer.UUCP (Mark E. Smith)
Newsgroups: soc.singles,alt.flame
Subject: Re: "Being born X has ruined my life"
Message-ID: <2462@killer.UUCP>
Date: 14 Dec 87 08:30:41 GMT
References: <1590@cup.portal.com> <2086@dasys1.UUCP> <1698@cup.portal.com> <14124@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <8792@sgi.SGI.COM> <1290@uoregon.UUCP>
Reply-To: era@killer.UUCP (Mark Ethan Smith)
Followup-To: alt.flame
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Unix(tm) Connection BBS, Dallas, Tx
Lines: 90
Summary: Refer unto others as they refer unto you.  (Equal terms)

In article <1290@uoregon.UUCP> dboyes@drizzle.UUCP (David Boyes) writes:
>In article <8792@sgi.SGI.COM> rmr@chefchu.SGI.COM (Robert Reimann) writes:
>>>
>>irrational world, if it serves a purpose.  Most of Mark's postings
>>are rhetorical in nature, designed specifically to provoke emotional
>>reaction.
>
>Huh? Is it just me, or did I just hear the 'it was only an experiment'
>reiterated? Pointless rhetoric is just rhetoric, and it doesn't prove
>a damn thing, except to annoy the people that you've trying to
>convince.

Part of David Boyes' problem appears to be that she/he can't read.
Robert just said that there was a point to my postings, to provoke
an emotional reaction.

>just generates more divisiveness and anger.

And I suppose that in refusing to use inclusive terms, David thinks
that she/he is decreasing divisiveness?  Would she/he care to explain
how the use of terms like she/he decreases divisiveness?
Or perhaps she/he would care to explain why she/he thinks that my
preference for inclusive terms increases divisiveness?  Does she/he
think that referring to people in the same, inclusive, equal terms
divides them against each other, and that referring to them in
separate and different terms will bring them more together, make
them less conscious of their differences and more conscious of their
common humanity?

>Claiming that all system administrators are somehow involved in a
>conspiracy to subjugate the females in the computer industry and we're
>all hiding it in some sort of "in" cabalistic society is not an
>'uncommon view', it's just plain ridiculous. 

When David learns to edit her/his .newsrc file and can read old
articles, she/he will learn that I never said any such thing.  She/he
not only has problems in comprehension and logical reasoning, but
apparently has a poor memory.  Would she/he care to state what
proportion of unix SA's with root privileges are women, and give
a nondiscriminatory reason for the imbalance?

>>Part of overcoming a problem
>>on a societal level is increasing the awareness of its existence.
>>
>>While Mark certainly represents the uncommon view, that does not
>>negate its worth as commentary.

>You're only powerless to seek justice if you are trapped somewhere in
>Upper Volta without access to civilization. Living is a process of
>making choices -- you always have the option to act or to stand by and
>allow something to happen. You can sit around and whine about the
>situation, or you can actively go out and try to convince enough other
>people that the status quo is a bad idea and it should be fixed.

But to do that you might have to describe the status quo, and
then you'll be accused of whining, and you also might have to
arouse an emotional reaction in order to get people to fix things,
and then you'll be accused of "pointless" postings.

Tell us, David, do you believe in the Golden Rule?  Do you refer
to others as he/she or she/he because that's the way you prefer
to be referred to, or do you do it to denigrate or ridicule?  If
the latter, why not do it in alt.flame, instead of soc.singles?
Just because Lou Marco is a spoiled brat who threw away all the
privileges her mother slaved to give her, and posts flames to nonflame
groups, does that mean you have to act like a spoiled brat also?

Is David's statement about powerlessness meant as an example of her/his
logical and rational postings?  Recently an airline employee who
felt he was unjustly fired, sought justice by boarding a plane with
a gun and shooting the pilot, killing all on board.  Would you care
to explain to their families how the victims weren't powerless to seek
justice, because they were in America and had control of their own
fates?  Or is it just possible that such a thing as abuse of power
exists and there are sometimes hapless victims?

Recently a woman on the net told me of having quit a job rather
than follow orders to fire two competent women the boss didn't like.
Chances are that they were fired anyway--not everyone will take
the moral high path.  And not everyone can find another job when
they need one, or stripsearch everyone on an airplane, or predict
when a supervisor will fire somebody unjustly or a maniac will
walk into MacDonald's with an Uzi and kill everybody there.  We
do not always control our fates.  There is such a thing as injustice.
And sometimes writing about it can reach people's minds and hearts
and cause things to improve.  It is better to try, than to remain
silent.  I intend to continue to try, despite your attempts to
silence me through ridicule and personal attacks.

--Mark