Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ora!ora!daemon
From: 6500nag@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Naggi Asmar)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls
Message-ID: <6274@hub.ucsb.edu>
Date: 12 Sep 90 21:09:21 GMT
References: <1990Aug27.193416.19394@tc.fluke.COM> <24693@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <6290@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> <11927@chaph.usc.edu>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: O'Reilly and Associates Inc., Cambridge MA
Lines: 34
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <11927@chaph.usc.edu> wilber%aludra.usc.edu@usc.EDU (John Wilber) writes:

>In article <6290@emory.mathcs.emory.edu> colm@mathcs.emory.EDU writes:

>>what sickens me is to hear women who should know better using the term
>>"girl" incorrectly, belittling themselves in the process.  but then
>>language is a very powerful thing.

>Why are you so touchy about this?  For what reason do you attribute
>some kind of "belittling" meaning to this word?  I am sure that the
>vast majority of the users (and listeners for that matter) of the word

[blah. blah. blah deleted]

>that.  Attributing a negative connotation to a word where none exists
>(like with "girl") is irrational.

Using the word _girl_ when the person is an adult female (correctly
referred to as a woman) implies that the woman is not thought of as 
being an adult.  It reinforces the traditional sexist view that women
are naturally immature (see _I Love Lucy_) and ought to be treated
like girls.  Similarily, Black men were commonly referred to as _boys_ 
not so long ago.

>>the not-so-subtle use of language in discrimination rears its ugly
>>heas again.

Amen.

>I think it's so subtle as to be invisible.

As invisible as the writing on the wall?

naggi