Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!aero-c!nadel From: uunet!bilver!alex@ncar.UCAR.EDU (Alex Matulich) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: thesaurus Message-ID: <1991May18.214207.14766@bilver.uucp> Date: 18 May 91 21:42:07 GMT References: <1991May17.145135.8560@isc.rit.edu> Sender: news@aero.org Distribution: usa Organization: W. J. Vermillion - Winter Park, FL Lines: 29 Approved: nadel@aerospace.aero.org Status: R Originator: nadel@aerospace.aero.org In article <1991May17.145135.8560@isc.rit.edu> pad6516@ritvax.isc.rit.edu writes: >I was looking in Roget's thesaurus the other day and I decided to >look up 'women' and I cannot believe what I saw. >Women(other words for) 1) baggage > 2) gold digger > 3) weaker vessal > >This is a 'modern' thesaurus, there were other words to but I cannot >remember them. There just as degrading. Personnally I got a laugh out >of how ridiculous these terms were. Degrading or not, the function of a thesaurus is to provide synonyms for words, and regrettably, those synonyms you found are indeed words used to describe women on occasion. I remember hearing those first two within the past 2 years. Each time, the context seemed to justify the use of those particular words. (If one is talking about women who *are* gold-diggers, and such people do exist, then why not use the term?) A thesaurus does not advise proper contexts for synonyms, it just provides the synonyms. God forbid that some legitimate synonyms might be deleted because of someone's Politically Correct agenda! -- _ |__ Alex Matulich /(+__> Unicorn Research Corp, 4621 N Landmark Dr, Orlando, FL 32817 //| \ UUCP: alex@bilver.uucp ...uunet!tarpit!bilver!alex ///__) bitnet: IN%"bilver!alex@uunet.uu.net"