Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: hmj2@deimos.caltech.EDU (Helen Johnston)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Girls, girls, girls
Message-ID: <1990Oct4.021201.23780@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 4 Oct 90 04:56:05 GMT
References: <9009122207.AA10780@houston.cs.columbia.edu> <12245@chaph.usc.edu> <9010022222.AA16693@liberty.cs.columbia.edu> <12322@chaph.usc.edu>
Reply-To: hmj2@deimos.caltech.EDU
Organization: Caltech, Astronomy Department - Pasadena, CA, USA
Lines: 24
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

[I trimmed the quoted material down a bit.  It would help if you folx
did it first (hint hint) ;-).  Also, I think we will hold off further
response to this particular point until John Wilber responds in his
turn, if he does.   --CLT]

In article <12322@chaph.usc.edu>, wilber@aludra.usc.edu (John Wilber)
[Originally wrote that his use of "girl" was not sexist because he
doesn't mean it that way when he uses it.  Travis commented:]
>>Fascinating: you're defining a one-way form of communication, in which
>>the sender unilaterally determines the message and the manner in which
>>it will be interpreted.

[And John responded:]
>What we are talking about here is not a difficulty in communication, but
>a juvenile refusal to understand.  If my use of that word upsets you
>because you think it means I am thinking something and I tell you this
>is not true but you continue to insist that I mean something other than
>what I claim, then you are calling me a liar (and a sexist) when
>I am neither, even though you know better.  That's what makes it so
>frustrating.

So are we to assume that you would feel perfectly happy calling an
African-American 'nigger', provided that you had the chance to explain
that YOU don't find the reference at all insulting?