TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Political Correctness Must Die From:Matt Ion <mion -at- DIRECT -dot- CA> Date:Fri, 2 Jun 1995 12:38:23 EDT
>This posting responds to the analogy about sexy women.
Gad, will you people get OFF it already? This merely reinforces my point:
><sigh> Jennie, you were right... people completely ignoring the point and some
>>95% of the actual text of the message and spewing about one little analogy.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE MESSAGE WAS ABOUT.
>>>> Consider that the sexiest women are not those that look and dress
>>>> (or don't dress) a certain way, but those who have high self-esteem
>>>> and see THEMSELVES as sexy. <<<<
>Certainly the person who posted this knows that many of us are not
>appraisers of what makes a woman sexy.
Indeed. Howver, I'm under the impression that the person I was responding to
most likely IS in such a position, and likely benefitted from the analogy.
>"sexy woman" is a powerful phrase that conjures up distracting images more
>than it supports the idea of the posting.
Maybe for YOU it conjures up distracting images. Please don't presume to
speak for me or the rest of the group.
Of course, this could lead into a whole other discourse on the favorite
politically-correct phrase "Such and such sends the message that...", but I
won't get into that.
>Out of respect to the writer of the posting, I'm sure the analogy was
>intended to be flattering to confident women, rather than judgmental of
>women in general.
It wasn't "intended" to be either. This assumes that there was ANY intent to
say anything about women-in-general at all. There wasn't.
This is my whole problem with the subject in my previous paragraph - the
assumption that every little thing someone says or does has some sort of deep,
hidden meaning that is probably INTENDED to be offensive to someone,
subconsciously or otherwise, that must be flushed out.
Sorry to disappoint, but there was NO meaning to that anology other than the
obvious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed / ROCK-IT SCIENCE Mobile Audio and Security
do not necessarily /| ...the 1040 MIDI & Music BBS Technical Services
reflect those of any [ SOUNDMAN Internet mion -at- direct -dot- ca Fido 1:153/7106
marginally sane human \| WWW http://www.musicwest.com/1040bbs/
being anywhere. \ FAX: (604)253-8312 DATA: (604)732-4446
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
