On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 12:19 PM, patricia morales <
mariadelcarmenpatricia(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear Oliver,
I believe it is constructive to reply you, for improving the quality of
dialogue.
When I use the world `female-friendly space what I is inclusive,
constructive, a dialogue (following the rules of argumentation) that allows
scientific articles, ea.
Take a look at these examples:
If we talk about a child-friendly hotel we refer to a family hotel where
the space is adequate for every member of the family (we don’t talk about a
kindergarten or about a niche). It is talked about a place that meets the
challenge of a deficit or historical gap.
Other interesting examples are:
Women-friendly companies (for ex. Dell, HP, Abbot, ea. taking needs of
working mothers)
Child-friendly justice (initiative by the European Council for giving
better access to justice)
When I talked about historical gaps (I talked from an historical point of
view and not about Wikipedia)...
I have the impression that my words in your reply were unintentionally
modified and lost the original sense of the proposal.
If you read with more time and without adding meanings or changing words my
suggestions, it would be better for improving them. It is about maximise
efforts and get better results.
That's fair enough - as it happens, that language wasn't the language I
was
opposed to. Your statement that "I believe that the leadership of this
process has to be in various female hands, taking solidarity as a major
principle. When we take a look at history, we can see that women primarily
avoid the use of violence and war" was the awkward one, and the one that led
to a critique of what sounded like gender-dominant segregation. We cannot
and should not and won't even consider excluding women from this process,
but suggesting that, by default, women should be *prima facie* assumed to be
more useful in the process than men (and for that matter that men are by
default warlike barbarians) is not going to help matters.