From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: This "PC" stuff
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 92 02:17:00 GMT

In article <viking.713662609@vincent1.iastate.edu> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>	And you wasted five lines arguing a semantic point, and one that
>you are incorrect on to boot.  I mentioned that "his" was the generic to
>avoid flames, but you apparently missed that.  It is also the posessive
>pronominal adjective referencing "he," which is still a generic term
>as it is defined as "anyone." [Websters New World Dictionary]  It does
>not _need_ to be "corrected" simply because _you_ choose to assume it
>refers only to the male gender, and I refuse to change my usage of the
>language to suit your delicate sensibilities.  The phrase, "...that all
>men are created equal" does include both men and women, but you would
>have us change the wording because it's not explicit enough?  Let me
>toss this one at you, "He who is without sin cast the first stone."
>If it was a law, does it follow that women could toss stones with
>impunity?  Of course not!  You remind me of lawyers who engage in the
>art of "duelling word processors," to avoid any possible chance of a
>misinterpretation, when a simple scan of the dictionary shows the
>meanings of the words used.

Of course, the problem is that most people, despite what Webster's may
say, don't see masculine pronouns as generic.  Many studies have shown
that if you say something like, "Every engineering student should turn
in his homework.", people have an image of a male student.  Or "Every
voter should cast his ballot."  Once again, people visualize a man,
not men and women.

>	If that verbal-type KKK member works with you, you are free to give
>a counter-speech to him at every opportunity.  Your choice lies in either
>listening to him, countering him, leaving, or kicking him in the gonads.
>All are responses to the situation, though you will pay a penalty for
>exercising the last two options.  That I used to work with a very vocal
>vegetarian did not require my leaving.  When she waxed on about the pain
>and suffering, racing heartbeat and slow death of the cow that comprised
>my lunch that day I merely said, "Keep talking -- it tastes better already."
>The next day, the same treatment.  My answer, "Look, you can eat the rabbit
>food, and I'll eat the rabbit, and we'll get along.  Otherwise, I can see
>where a perfectly good working relationship will end simply because I don't
>agree with your dietary views.  If that's what you want, fine.  I don't care
>to have that happen, but I also don't care to hear your speeches."  The
>situation was resolved then, and we agreed to disagree.  I cannot help but
>think that that her rights to free speech are worth more than my wish to not
>hear countering views, and that's the heart of this discussion.

This situation worked since your coworker, although rather rude to
begin with, behaved civilly in the end.  You agreed to disagree.
That's how one of my officemates, who is very anti-choice, and I, who
am very pro-choice, worked out our differences.  Of course, despite
our political differences, we like each other, so that makes it
simpler.  

Let's say that you're Jewish and known to be Jewish and you work with
a member of the KKK.  S/he is not content with being known to belong
to the KKK and do its work outside of the office.  S/he talks to you
nearly every day about how Jews are inferior, how about Hitler did
have the right idea, about what the US will be like when ZOG is
removed from power and all Jews are in camps.  This person leaves KKK
literature on your desk.  This isn't harassment?  I think it is.

It doesn't bother me if a classmate or coworker belongs to Operation
Rescue, the KKK, Aryan Nation, the ACLU, MADD, etc.  But if I get
repeated remarks that I'm a baby-killer, or a "mud person" or an
"undesirable," etc., that's harassment.  That, imo, has gone way
beyond the realm of free speech.

I see a big difference between having a discussion with someone and
s/he says, "I think anyone who is for abortion is a baby killer."  and
the same person repeatedly calling me a baby-killer.  The person has
the right to her/his opinion, but not expressed to the point I'm
feeling harassed.