Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site arizona.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!ihnp4!arizona!doug
From: doug@arizona.UUCP (Doug Pase)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: woman's opinion on girls/womaN
Message-ID: <6771@arizona.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Dec-83 14:27:37 EST
Article-I.D.: arizona.6771
Posted: Mon Dec 12 14:27:37 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Dec-83 01:12:54 EST
References: <1497@tekig1.UUCP>, <307@iheds.UUCP>
Organization: CS Dept, U of Arizona, Tucson
Lines: 17

{
   I am a man (subjective classification -- certainly I am male ?:-) ) and
I took an informal survey among my contemporaries here at the University
of Arizona as to which females would object to being called girls or gals.
A few preferred not to be called girls or gals, but wouldn't be seriously
offended if the circumstances were friendly.  However, almost all claimed
that they would take offense to being called anything if the term were 
intended to offend.  It was the projected intention (as perceived by the 
female) of the speaker that was more important than the actual term used.

   Admittedly this was a very subjective experiment, no controlls whatsoever
were placed on the sub-population selection, questions asked, etc.  I do 
think that it serves to illustrate a good point.  A well known religious
leader recently said:  "He who takes offense where no offense was intended
is a fool."  Think about it.
                                                         Pase
}