Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/26/83; site iheds.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!mhuxi!cbosgd!ihnp4!iheds!kmw
From: kmw@iheds.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Net Language Use (flame)
Message-ID: <253@iheds.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Aug-83 14:29:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: iheds.253
Posted: Tue Aug  9 14:29:51 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 10-Aug-83 02:26:31 EDT
References: <421@machaids.UUCP>
Organization: BTL Naperville, Il.
Lines: 16

I was also irritated by the request for help from "wise men" of the net,
and sent mail to the author pointing it out.  I'm sure he didn't really
mean to exclude women, but he did.  I am posting this article just to let
those who really don't think it matters know that it does, at least to
some of us.  "Men" doesn't mean "men and women".  It means either
"men," or, at best, "men, and, oh yeah, women, too".  I don't like
being excluded, or an afterthought.  There are plenty of terms refering
to people that do not specify sex; if you don't mean "men," use another
term.
 
In discussions with other women, I have found my reaction to be quite
common.  Even if they say nothing, women are irritated and distracted
when they are adressed as part of a group and are referred to as "men".
It definitely detracts from whatever the speaker was saying.
 
	-Kathy Wilber (...iheds!kmw or ...mvuxt!kw)