From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: flame naming (ataylor's inconsistency)
Date: 11 Sep 92 22:26:20 GMT
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences

In article <MUFFY.92Sep11111915@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <1992Sep11.160859.13836@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep10222247@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep9.174716.5158@ils.nwu.edu> lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch) writes:
>>>>I've gotten lost as to which messages were faked and whatnot,
>>>
>>>I think you got lost before that.  I wasn't talking about forged
>>>messages (unless ataylor claims that *all* the messages on here from
>>>that account were forged, which I do not think is the case).  I was
>>>talking about calling Gordon by his last name, Fitch, and me by my first
>>>name.
>
>>Uh.  Isn't that what I said?  I got lost as to which messages were faked and
>>which were not?  Yes, that is what I said.  And now you are responding to that
>>in an argumentative tone.  Why?
>
>Actually, I don't think that my tone was at all argumentative.  I was
>under the impression that you had misunderstood me, since you were
>talking about forgeries and saying that posts which I signed were from
>me.  On rereading it, it seems that the forgeries were irrelevant and
>that your point was that you would select randomly either Gordon's first
>name or his last name, since his sig contains both.  However, you might
>note that my sig similarly contains both and yet you say you would
>always say "Muffy" for me, but 50/50 say "Fitch" for Gordon.  In any

NO!!! I said your E-MAIL address was muffy and his was g?f.  I did not mention
sigs until below.  There are many people on the net who, when I need a text-
like label, I think of by e-mail address rather than real name.

>case, my question was whether this was a common thing to do (as it seems
>to common to call women by their first names and men by their last in
>general).

Just how common is this today?...  Anybody got any recent statistical data?
[Anybody besides me and Muffy still listening?]  I haven't personally seen a
case of non-parallel names for years (if ever), and I don't think any of the
cases presented so far are recent.  [Are they?]

>
>>Sure sounded like it to me...if memory serves me you implied (if not said) that
>>this was a case of sexism.
>
>I certainly did not say that it was a case of sexism.  I asked if it was
>related to a similar phenomenon which had been discussed on this
>newsgroup.

Yes, and in at least one case this was labeled sexist.  The "similar
phenomenon which had been discussed on this newsgroup" [YOUR WORDS] has, in
fact, been labeled as sexist in general, and in at least one instance, a
specific case has been brought up that several people considered sexist and, as
far as I can recall, *NOBODY* argued that it was not.  [Specifically, the bank
that had nameplates using first names for women and Mr. X for men.]  Face it,
the whole reason for this naming business to be on this group is its relevance
to sexism.  If that's not why you brought it up, then take it to alt.flame.

>
>>>Muffy Barkocy | muffy@mica.berkeley.edu | wi.4636@wizvax.methuen.ma.us
>
>>Of course, as soon as I sent off the message I realized that not only would I
>>be likely to call you Muffy 'cuz that's your e-mail address and him Gordon or
>>Fitch as his is g?c;  I also would be extremely unlikely to address you as
>>Barkocy because I wouldn't know how to pronounce it.
                                         ^^^^^^^^^
>
>>I swear if you call me racist for that (which wouldn't surprise me at this
>>point) I'm going to find out how to put a person in a kill file (as opposed to
>>a thread).
>
>You seem to have completely pre-judged me, so I'm not sure it makes
>sense to comment on what you say.  However, given that I am a white
>female of completely European ancestry, it seems quite unlikely to me
>that your problem is racism.  Since this is a written medium, the
>pronunciation issues seems irrelevant as well, so all I can see is that
>maybe it's a spelling problem, although since my name is right there on
>every article, that seems to be easy to overcome.

I made a prediction about YOU based on YOUR previous behavior.  If this is your
idea of pre-judging, fine, I'm prejudiced against Muffy.  No, I can spell it
all right.  Barkocy.  I said I couldn't PRONOUNCE it, so would be unlikely to
use it.  It's a question as to whether the c should be PRONOUNCED like a K, a
CH, or an S.  [Of course, that's assuming I can even sound out the first half
of your name correctly.]  Anyway, what matters is that some (most?) people are
less likely to use names/words in print that they cannot PRONOUNCE.

I probably should have had a smiley after the kill-file comment.  If I put you
in the kill-file it will be because you're posts are so long.  :-)

>
>By the way, I'd be glad to show you how to put a person in a kill file
>if you tell me what sort of news reader you are using.

It's rn, but don't worry.  Unix gods are thick on the ground here.

>>My one and only point is that there are a myriad of reasons why ataylor might
>>call Fitch Fitch and you Muffy.  Asking why he does so is one thing. 
>
>I did just ask.  You are the one who is assuming that I was implying
>that it was sexist.
>
>>Stating that you would prefer to be addressed as <fill in the blank> is an
>>even better answer.
>
>It's not at all a question of how I would prefer to be addressed, it's a
>question of why, given *no* expression of preference, the choices were
>different.  I think this is an interesting question.  I don't insist
>that you think so as well, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't post it.
>

Again, if you're posting it on alt.feminism, a veteran netter like you MUST
consider it relevant.  Therefore, an assumption that you were implying sexism
is not unwarranted, especially when there is (was?) a thread regarding that.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.feminism