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