Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!aero-c!nadel
From: dhw@iti.org (David H. West)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: "Woman" or "Girl"?
Message-ID: <1991May15.170628.2594@iti.org>
Date: 15 May 91 17:06:28 GMT
References: <1991May13.223727.8721@aero.org> <49630@ricerca.UUCP>
Sender: news@aero.org
Organization: The Forgotten Legions of ... um ... er ...
Lines: 30
Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org
Status: R
Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org



In article <49630@ricerca.UUCP> jan@oas.olivetti.com writes:
>Also, "boy"
>and "girl" have been used as slave or servant terms, mostly referring to
>adults in jobs which *should* be kids' jobs, or else mechanized.

This criterion would also classify "man" as demeaning.  Extract from
Webster:

1. man \'man, in compounds .man or m*n\ \'men, in compounds .men or m*n\ n 
   [...]
   2a: a liege man : VASSAL 
   2b: an adult male servant

IMO, to attempt to change others' usage of a word because one disapproves
of (what one believes to be) its connotations:
1) is ineffective because the targeted meaning is easily transferred
   by change of usage to another word (remember "isn't that SPECIAL");
2) exhibits the same kind of naivete' as those Victorians who felt it
   necessary to refer to the "limbs" of a chair in order to avoid the 
   indelicate connotations of the word "legs";
3) overlooks the possibility that the would-be censor simply belongs to
   a different linguistic sub-community than the other parties;
4) is too often accompanied by unwarranted assumptions of ethical 
   asymmetry between the would-be censor and the unwillingly censored.
   ("I have a right to prescribe your choice of words.  Your attempted
   dissent is merely a camouflage for guilt.")

-David West   dhw@iti.org