[440] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: women@mit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (SMITH)
Tue May 1 18:38:41 2001
Message-Id: <200105012238.SAA10227@scrubbing-bubbles.mit.edu>
To: Susan M Buchman <susan1@MIT.EDU>, mit-talk@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 01 May 2001 16:20:45 EDT."
<200105012020.QAA19974@m2-032-12.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 18:38:09 -0400
From: SMITH <cdsmith@MIT.EDU>
Thank you for the flamebait, Susan and Zhe.
Susan:
The woman you don't think is qualified to speak on women's
issues@MIT has been a member of the MIT Community since 1992. She's
been president of MIT Pro-Life for the last three years. She's also
been intimately involved in supporting pregnancy crisis centers,
and she routinely throws baby showers for pregnant women.
But she's not qualified enough for you, Susan. She's an anti-woman puppet
of male interlopers. Apparently, not all women are equal on Planet Buchman.
Zhe:
I wasn't aware that being a frosh disqualified someone from speaking
about their experiences as a woman. Because, of course, 2nd-term
freshpeople can't possibly know what they are talking about. Apparently,
not all black women are equal on Planet Scott.
-chris
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To: mit-talk@MIT.EDU
Subject: women@mit
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 16:20:45 -0400
From: Susan M Buchman <susan1@MIT.EDU>
>> Other obligatory MIT content: Ladies on this list how did you feel
>> about the women@mit feature that the illustrious TECH did on Friday?
i think the tech did a fine job in general, but i was a little
perplexed about who they asked to speak about *women's* issues. most
disturbing was having mit pro-life attend their round table. i guess i
fail to see how a group whose goal is to control women's lives and
whose officer list is **87%** male - that's right, baby, 87% - is
qualified to speak about women's issues just because they can dredge
up a woman to represent them.
might as well invite the extropians while you're at it... (and it all
comes full circle.)
