Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site houxu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!houxm!houxu!welsch
From: welsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: The Power of Words
Message-ID: <300@houxu.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 27-Jan-84 13:53:57 EST
Article-I.D.: houxu.300
Posted: Fri Jan 27 13:53:57 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 31-Jan-84 02:13:29 EST
Organization: Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 77

(to the eater of first lines)

I read the article in Ms. and the articles by Sophie and Laura on the
network and have some general comments.  I would like to start in the area
of ownership.  Science and the laws of science are not owned or ownable 
by individuals.  Inventions based on principles discovered by scientists
are ownable for a period of time.  The same principle holds for concepts.
Concepts are not ownable, but a particular expression of a concept is, and
if that expression is written, then it is owned via copy-right.  Therefore
I conclude that no one owns the concepts expressed either by the famous
statements or the modifications made to them in the article in Ms.

The first question, I asked myself on reading the quotations and the
modified quotations was whether or not they expressed same concepts. I
decided no, the modified quotation and original expressed different
concepts. The modified quotation referred only to women not to all people.
The originals could be interpreted as referring to all people, but more
likely referred just to men. For example, I see three different concepts
expressed by the following

	"My political ideal is democracy. Let every
	man be respected as an individual and no
	man idolised"

	"My political ideal is democracy. Let every
	woman be respected as an individual and no
	woman idolised"

	"My political ideal is democracy. Let every
	person be respected as an individual and no
	person idolised"


The second question, I asked myself, is if the concepts expressed are
different is there an infringement on ownership.  After all just because
an invention is used for something it was not intended doesn't mean that
the inventor loses ownership of the invention.  My conclusion here was
wording was sufficiently close that ownership (ie. copy-right) would have
been infringed on if the quotations had copy-rights.

The third question, I asked myself is how to correct the problem of
expressing a new (by new I mean slightly different) concept without
infringing on someone else's ownership of the expression of another
concept.  The answer is simple, find a different way of expressing the
concept.  For example, instead of 

	"My political ideal is democracy. Let every
	man be respected as an individual and no
	man idolised"

try

	Democracy is my political ideal.  All people
	are respected for their own qualities and 
	privilege is given to no one.

Another approach is just to ask the owners to amend their statements.

Now for some comment on "feminisation of great" literature.  There is no
way great literature should be fiminized.  Instead of worrying about what
has happened in the past I recommend creating great feminine literature in
the future.  Two reasons.  First, we have a hard enough time keeping the
past straight without rewriting it.  Second, feminizing great literature
will perpetuate the myth feminine was derived from masculine, ie. the only
way to create a great woman is to take a rib from a great man and feminize
it.

From the view point of making the literature more available to a daughter,
I believe that the result will be just the opposite.  However, there is 
a more important effect that makes the exercise the author perhaps
overlooked.  That effect is to acquaint us with just how far we have to go
to have equality.  I think from this view point the exercise is worth
while and can be used as a teaching vehicle, for sons, daughters, mothers
and fathers.  It makes you think.

						Larry Welsch
						houxu!welsch