Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: panix!mara@cmcl2.nyu.EDU (Mara Chibnik)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: synonyms
Message-ID: <1991May30.205755.6765@panix.uucp>
Date: 31 May 91 20:06:46 GMT
References: <1991May24.220315.10248@aero.org> <1991May25.125043.23449@panix.uucp> <3084@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
Organization: (getting there)
Lines: 75
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu

I'm finding this thread extremely tedious, but I take umbrage at
the implicit charge of selective perception.

I previously wrote:
  >>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.

Note that this was after I offered complete lists of the entries under
"good person" in my thesaurus.

Quoting only this paragraph, in article <3084@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>
pepke@ds1.scri.fsu.EDU (Eric Pepke) writes:

 >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.

What on earth is he talking about?  It is rather difficult to make
comparative studies across the differences in our respective
reference books.

I maintain, however, that to determine whether a list of words under
"man" in a thesaurus is, in fact, gender biased, I must also see the
list of words under "woman."  Are the lists balanced?   Does one
list contain many more negatively connoted words than the other?
If either list contains "inclusive" or "gender neutral" terms, does
the other list also include them?

For the record, "galoot" doesn't show in the index of my thesaurus.  Of
the examples Eric offers, "cuss" shows up as noun and as verb, but in
the section on blasphemy, not as a synonym for "man."   The entries
under "buck" are more interesting:
    buck n.
      trestle
      caper
      male animal
      Negro
      Indian
      cleanser
      money
      fop
I looked at the sections.  "Negro" is under "black" and "Indian"
under "red."  Most of the "synonyms" in the section including
"Negro" are derogatory, and so marked.  Those in the category that
includes "Indian" (and that also includes red stones, flora and
fauna (!)) are not so marked.

My point to Eric is exactly the same as my point to the original
poster, who complained about finding "gold digger" in her thesaurus
under "woman."  I can't make a comparison when I'm given only half
(less than half) the data.

I don't understand Eric's complaint.


--
cmcl2!panix!mara          Mara Chibnik        mara@dorsai.com

          Life is too important to be taken seriously.