Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Net Language Use (what, again?)
Message-ID: <1003@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 6-Sep-83 22:24:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1003
Posted: Tue Sep  6 22:24:23 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 7-Sep-83 13:01:04 EDT
References: <27@ism780.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 21

clarification:

I am more interested in the great expense of converting existing language
forms, than the purity of language. I also believe that the idea that
the language needs changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief,
and I am vehemently opposed to legislation on the basis of such beliefs.
Note: a student of my father was prevented from having a paper published
by the Hospital for Sick Children until the word 'fathering' was changed to 
'parenting'. Before you language reformers get up and cheer, consider this --
it is the opinion of my father that the sense of the article was lost since
it concerned BIOLOGICAL fathering. And the article was changed without
the permission of the author (who is on vacation, and hasn't heard about
it yet). People who want to change the language wholesale had
better consider these problems. And, in the end, I believe that they
are only contributing to the 'smoke screen' belief that sexism is
inherant in the language. If sexism is not in the language, then language
reforms of this nature are a waste of time and money which could be
spent studying and perhaps even attacking the real problems.

laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura