[442] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
RE: women@mit
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (justin nelson)
Tue May 1 20:11:17 2001
Message-Id: <200105020010.UAA10045@melbourne-city-street.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 20:10:04 -0400
To: "Dalie Jimenez" <dalie@MIT.EDU>, "MIT Talk" <mit-talk@MIT.EDU>
From: justin nelson <jmnelson@MIT.EDU>
Cc: "Susan M Buchman" <susan1@MIT.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <NEBBLPFBCLNPMLDCNGNAKEGACGAA.dalie@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
hey, and dont forget another great one which has credit given to aristotle.
"it is the mark of an educated [wo]man that [s]he can wholly entertain a
thought without accepting it." ^
just to be ^ on the safe side around this place :-)
so damn it, entertain away.
justin
At 08:06 PM 5/1/01 -0400, Dalie Jimenez wrote:
>On the vein of the ATO incident, the Extropians discussion and now the
>women@mit issue of the Tech ... perhaps we should remember that famous quote
>usually attributed to Voltaire:
>
>"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
>say it."
>
>Reading these emails I've been getting the sense that a lot of people are
>uncomfortable hearing things they don't like/disagree with and think that
>the rest of us shouldn't have a right to form our own opinions. Thankfully
>there are those who disagree.
>
>>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.
>
>So their officer list is 16 people and 87% are male. Their email list
>contains 132 members and the pro-choice list has about 50 more. Big deal.
>I didn't bother to do a breakdown of gender because I don't really think it
>matters all that much.
>
>The point is that they are a group with an opinion and they should be heard,
>whatever your personal opinion is.
>
>Perhaps they don't represent the majority of women but they do present a
>sizable chunk that is hushed all the time. The fact that being pro-choice
>is not deemed "politically correct" nowadays has somewhat of a stifling
>effect on the men and women who consider themselves to be pro-life. My
>acquaintances for instance usually assume I'm pro-choice and talk about
>"those pro-life people" in much the same way you have. That has been the
>most blatant form of uncomfortableness I've ever felt at MIT, coming mostly
>from women who find out I'm pro-life. I can't call it discrimination, but
>it feels a great deal like when someone judges you based on something as
>silly as your skin color.
>
>The fact that people assume that just because you're "progressive" or
>"liberal" or a "democrat" (and all those silly little words we use to
>categorize ourselves and make our life easier) means that you must therefore
>be pro-choice is all the more reason for a minority group (right now,
>because it wasn't always this way, and there's no reason to think it will
>be) to be allowed to be heard.
>
>So I for one am glad that the pro-life group got a word or two in the Tech,
>maybe it'll remind "the other side" that we are people too.
>
>>might as well invite the extropians while you're at it... (and it all
>>comes full circle.)
>
>Indeed, perhaps they should've been included as well. Their opinion would
>bring a great deal to the debate.
>
