NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/feminism/7665

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-27 | 3.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!sequent!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!flop.ENGR.ORST.EDU!reed!batcomputer!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!olivea!hal.com!decwrl!csus.edu!netcom.com!payner
From: [e-mail] (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: Verbs and gender connotations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 26 Jan 93 16:17:20 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Lines: 75

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jen Kilmer) writes:
>  [deleted]
>
>>>  Because society deems it worse for a woman to fuck a man who's drunk
>>>  than for a man to be fucked while he is himself drunk.
>>
>>Do you not mean NEW YORK, and so far, only New York?
>
>I can't parse the New York reference. I was, rather ad absurdium,
>pointing out that the impersonal pronoun "one" can be used in place
>of "man" or "woman"...or to indicate "person, who could be a man
>or a woman".

I parsed your use of the words "Because society deems", and was stating
that my observations disagree with this. One poster mentioned an actual
law of this type on the books in NY.

I also think you are overgeneralizing.

>Of course, "one" can also be used for inanimate objects, but in
>the context, I didn't think that's what Michal meant.

It has nothing to do with what I meant either. Communication is no
accident, one must constantly work at it. <sigh>

>Thus, my comment was more on syntax than semantics.

My comment was on content.

>>>I am also, btw, committed to the proposition that most of the cultural
>>>gender-role differences are CULTURAL and not innate. Men & women ain't
>>>all that different, folks. And, most importantly,
>>
>>This sound to me like you have closed your mind, and it would not
>>matter if tomorrow valid evidence were presented that there were innate
>>differences.
>
>Actually, Rich, I know there are differences. It just seems to me
>that when a woman (say, me) has demonstrated that she is capable
>of doing <X>, then stating that a woman "can't" do <X> is nonsense.
>And, when a man has demonstrated that he is capable of doing <Y>,
>then stating that a man "can't" do <Y> is also nonsense.

Since this has never been an issue that I have pressed, I see no point
on commenting. On the other hand, you have rejected the information I
have posted on developmental and brain differences between men and
women. It still seems that you have closed your mind on the issue. All
differences are "CULTURAL and not innate", right?

>>>         how any individual acts is not necessarily dictated
>>>         by their gender.
>>
>>Gender is a language construct, so I disagree. Or perhaps you are reffering
>>to their sex?
>
>One definition of gender is as a language construct, another is sex [at
>least in Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary].

Please post it. But even given that, the word would be ambiguous. Someone
else posted the above, but were unable to defend it.

>That said, why did I use "gender" instead of "sex"?  Hmmm. Good question.

It is clear and unambiguous.

>-jen

CYA...


Rich

[e-mail]