Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: synonyms
Message-ID: <3084@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Date: 30 May 91 03:22:45 GMT
References: <1991May24.220315.10248@aero.org> <1991May25.125043.23449@panix.uucp>
Organization: Florida State University, but I don't speak for them
Lines: 25
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: zola.ics.uci.edu

In article <1991May25.125043.23449@panix.uucp> panix!mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik) writes:
>I would like to know what else is in the list of terms for "woman"
>before I could comment on whether or not "gold digger" belongs
>there, and also what is on the list of terms for "man."  That's why
>I cited the lists in my thesaurus as exhaustively as I did-- so that
>the peculiarities would show up.  If the only entries for "woman"
>are wife, mother and gold digger, then the thesaurus is deficient,
>even if the only entries for "man" are huband, father and fortune
>hunter.  But I wouldn't consider the deficiency to come from gender
>bias.

No.

My thesaurus (Webster's collegiate) doesn't have "gold digger" under
"women," but it lists under the "man" definition, "cuss," "galoot,"
and "buck."  These are claimed as synonyms, or at least that's what I
assume the abbreviation "syn." means.

I doubt that anybody would assert that this is an example of gender
bias.

Once again, that good old selective perception leaps in to save the
day.

-EMP