>>
>> Shawn said:
>>
>> Having
>> >access to the internet is a priveledge that I hope you're all aware
>> >of.
>
>>Kylie said:
>
>> Do people recall the Wood debates. Particularly the point that was made by
>> someone (I can't recall who) that Wood appears patronising because he uses
>> 'you should do this' language instead of inclusive 'we should do this'. I
>> think the above statement is very patronising to 'us' women as it excludes
>> Shawn and by association other men.
>>
>> Shawn, I hope you can learn by this, but if you think I'm being picky
>> please say as I and I'm sure the rest of list would be interested to know
>> why.
>
>>Respectfully,
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>In response to Kylie:
>
>First of all, I do not believe that my statement is patronizing nor
>exclusive of men. Obviously, because I am making the statement, I am
>aware of my priveledged access to the internet and am hoping that the
>rest of the list (men and women) realize their priveledge. I am also offended
>by Kylie's generalizing as "us" women and Shawn and "by association other
>men." For one thing, I am a woman. But, regardless of that fact, I think
>there is something seriously wrong with generalizing based on gender
>difference. As someone else said recently, Wood and Michael are as
>different as any other two people on the list.
>
>Secondly, another list member responded minutes after my post with a very
>similar statement. I don't remember who wrote the post but they basically
>said the exact same thing. I am positive that it was a woman responding--
>perhaps Bertina.
>
>Lastly, what I do find patronizing is Kylie`s statement: "Shawn, I hope
>you can learn by this."
>
>Kylie, I hope you can learn by this. How does that feel?
>
>Shawn
Shawn, I apologise for thinking you a male. But that really doesn't excuse
the fact that you said "I hope you're all aware of". The point is that
your language is exclusive not inclusive. As most womyn use inclusive
language and some men use exclusive language I thought you were male. I
advocate inclusive language. I still say your post is patronising to (now
all) of us on the list. As to my post being patronising perhaps it was but
it was meant to be sarcastic, and as it appears from your reply that you
have not understood what I meant then it is perhaps justified?
Respectfully,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Interesting: Your people glorified organised violence for 40 centuries,
but you imprison those who employ it privately."
Mr Spock. Star Trek 'Dagger of the Mind'
