Xref: utzoo sci.bio:3780 alt.romance:5279 soc.men:23615 soc.women:29688 soc.singles:72362
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!uunet!microsoft!rodvan
From: rodvan@microsoft.UUCP (Rod VAN MECHELEN)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,alt.romance,soc.men,soc.women,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Are Humans Naturally Monogamous?
Message-ID: <58695@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 1 Nov 90 01:51:18 GMT
References: <1990Oct24.175532.9407@pmafire.UUCP> <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 30

In article <1990Oct25.140829.19268@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>, coshima@s.psych.uiuc.edu (Craig Oshima) writes:
> >>>begun to wonder what man's true nature really is. I have nothing against
> 
> >God, I hate feminist quibbling about de-sexing the English language.
> 
> Get used to it.  Besides, it's not so much de-sexing as it is removing
> the overwhelming "male" influence.  What's so difficult about saying
> "human nature" or something?  I admit I read right over the original
> sentence without alarms yelling "sexist!", and I doubt the original
> post even intended to be sexist.  But women are people too, and there's
> no reason to flame someone for pointing it out.
> 
> Just my humble opinion,
> 
> Craig

There is this silly idea that men "dominate" in our culture.  Not only
is this a feminist fiction, but a sexist slam against the female majority.
The influence of women in our culture has been felt to a far greater 
extent than just about anyone is willing to admit.

Insofar as gender in language is concerned, when I want to "de-sex" it,
I usually refer to both genders: women and men.  Otherwise, I speak from
my own gender (as I have heard female commentators speaking from theirs).
If someone gets upset over a woman or man speaking from their own gender,
then let them whine.  Rational people have better things to do.

O-
\/
Rod