From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: Liberty (was something relevant about CO-2 long ago...)
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 16:13:05 GMT
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <BzKsHp.2sH@unix.amherst.edu> twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
>In article <BzKq8n.3wL@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> dbshapco@napier.uwaterloo.ca (Brad Shapcott) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Dec18.194804.2371@tc.cornell.edu> shore@dinah.tc.cornell.edu (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>
>>>I forgot, in my previous posting, to thank all you Big
>>>Smart Men for explaining to us Poor Addled Women exactly
>>>how to go about achieving gender parity.  Thanks!
>>
>>Why can't men understand or comment on gender parity?  Why does every 
>>attempt to do so have to be characterized as condescending and arrogant?
>
>(a) They can.  (b) They're not.

Right.


>>People who are struggling
>>with new ideas often appear sophomoric, arrogant and intellectually
>>akward and the worst possible thing to do is to discredit them as worthwhile
>>people because of this learning process.

I forgot to thank you, Brad, for the, uh, support :-)


>Frankly, I don't think that this Alan person appears sophomoric,
>arrogant, or intellectually awkward because he's struggling with new
>ideas.

You're right, Tim.


>  He appears arrogant because he says things like, "I don't
      ^^^^^^^
>think this is an important issue for anybody." 


I'm clearly not taking my own suggestions to heart.  Appearance
IS important (hence my suggestion to MARKET the gender-neutral
language, to package it into an appealing style of communicating).
I've CLEARLY pissed off half the people of the free world :-}
For this, I apologize.

But I stand by this:  I believe it is factually correct to assert
that MOST PEOPLE don't give a rat's ass about gender in language.
MOST PEOPLE just don't give it a second thought.  If you disagree
with this, then I invite your evidence.


> He appears sophomoric
>because he implies that problems of gender parity are all plotted by a
>ruthless underworld of Thought Police.

I never said this, nor alluded to it.  You are incorrect here.


>  He appears intellectually
>awkward because he thinks that everything can be achieved if it's
>sufficiently "hip."

And you appear naive to assume that an unattractive, coerced
strategy of straightening out the English language will EVER
succeed.  Besides, AGAIN you misrepresented my position - I was
using "hip" as a suggestion - it really doesn't MATTER how 
gender-neutral language is made pallatable.  I could care less
about the means, but care a great deal about the goal.  You
may choose to read every third word in this, too - that is
your right - but it is the truth.


>He appears to be all of these things simply because he's *not*
>struggling with new ideas; in fact, he's blissfully unaware of their
>existence.
>
>-- 
>____ Tim Pierce  

This is clearly incorrect, and the evidence is this discussion.
Tim, you choose to keep the flame on, instead of offering YOUR
ideas for how gender-neutral language can get more widely adopted,
the shape/lexicon of such a new language, or even whether or not
this is a worthwhile goal. 

Or would you prefer to keep pissing?
-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} auntbea.austin.ibm.com!alan@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea