Sender: -2.6 (spamval) -- NONE
In-Reply-To: <F3980B48-015E-44CB-AB84-517A2E750B18 &AElig umich.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0511230138070.16188 &AElig boston.eecs.umich.edu>
References: <F3980B48-015E-44CB-AB84-517A2E750B18 &AElig umich.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 02:33:44 -0500 (EST)
To: improvetheworld &AElig umich.edu
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves &AElig umich.edu>
Subject: Re: feminism action - 'old sexism in new guise'
Status: RO

Thanks Rob.  I just donated to EmilysList.org. (You can in fact donate any 
amount; I gave $15.)
It kind of bothers me though to give money to political parties who 
primarily use it to emotionally manipulate people with false TV ads.
So I also just gave to vote-smart.  http://www.vote-smart.org

I added both of these to a list of charities on the improvetheworld 
whiteboard.  http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves/improvetheworld

Finally, here's a possibly simpler thing you can do to help the feminist 
cause:  use nonsexist language.

Says Richard Dawkins: "The feminists taught us about 
consciousness-raising. I used to laugh at 'him or her', and at 
'chairperson', and I still try to avoid them on aesthetic grounds. But I 
recognise the power and importance of consciousness-raising. I now flinch 
at 'one man one vote'. My consciousness has been raised. Probably yours 
has too, and it matters."

I doubt any of you under age 50 or so use male pronouns generically; or at 
least you consciously avoid doing so.  With one exception, the 2nd person 
plural pronoun, 'you guys'.  In my opinion, the attitudes shaping the 
etymology of the gender-neutral use of 'guys' are insidious:  the term 
became inclusive because males have been considered the default and 
desirable group to be part of and so using a term for males and then 
adapting the definition to include females has a very patronizing feel to 
it.  But more to the point, how can you simultaneously condemn a 
gender-neutral usage of 'he' but condone a gender-neutral usage of 'guys'.

I set out to purge 'you guys' from my dialect a couple years ago and after 
about a year I felt I succeeded.  You just force yourself to use 
alternatives like "you all" or "you two/three/" or just "you".  Eventually 
it feels natural to do so.  It's an interesting exercise to effect a 
self-transformation like that.

As of a year and a half ago I decided I had succeeded and to 
test/incentivize myself, sent this out to some of you, as you may recall:

> >>>>    ---------------------------------------------------
> >>>>   |                                                   |
> >>>>   |   This coupon worth ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS from      |
> >>>>   |   me to the bearer if redeemed after              |
> >>>>   |   catching me use the word "guy(s)" to refer      |
> >>>>   |   to a female or females.                         |
> >>>>   |     Signed:  Danny Reeves                         |
> >>>>   |                                                   |
> >>>>    ---------------------------------------------------

Finally, I advocate gender-neutral labels whenever possible (like calling 
both males and females actors and waiters).  Interestingly, the feminist 
movement in Germany pushes for the opposite: to add feminizing endings to 
more labels, like perhaps 'computer programmeress'.  I disagree with the 
Germans.  It oughtn't matter the gender of people in those roles and our 
language should reflect that it doesn't matter.  As long as the adopted 
gender-neutral terms aren't intrinsically masculine (I don't use words 
like "chairman" for this reason) then I think it's a positive change.

Danny

--- \/   FROM Robert Felty AT 05.11.21 08:09 (Monday)   \/ ---

> I don't know why this has not been mentioned yet, and why it didn't occur to 
> me earlier either, but one of the best ways to support a cause is to do so 
> financially.  In the case of feminism, this would be supporting efforts to 
> get women elected to public office.  I read an article about this in the 
> Detroit News this morning -
> http://www.detnews.com/2005/politics/0511/21/A01-388657.htm
>
> There is a group called Emily's List  (http://www.emilyslist.org), which has 
> been very influential in helping women get elected to public office.  They 
> primarily endorse female, pro-choice, democratic candidates. They ask that 
> members give $100 a year, plus $100 to at least two candidates they endorse. 
> For many people this is not a great amount, but for grad students like many 
> of the people on this list, it is a significant sum.  I am proposing two 
> ideas
>
> 1. Those who can afford it, become a member of Emily's List
>
> 2. For those of us who can not afford $300, but would like to help, someone 
> on this list should come up with some way to pool our money, ideally with 
> some sort of anonymous option.  I don't know if paypal could do something 
> like this or not, but it would be nice.
>
> Rob
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"

Calvin:  "Mom, why are you crying?"
    Mom:  "I'm cutting up onions."
Calvin:  "It must be hard to cook when you
           anthropomorphize your vegetables."