Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!harpo!eagle!mhuxl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: woman's opinion on "girl"/"woman"
Message-ID: <738@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 13-Dec-83 15:30:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ulysses.738
Posted: Tue Dec 13 15:30:26 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 01:16:56 EST
References: <1497@tekig1.UUCP>, <307@iheds.UUCP> <6771@arizona.UUCP>, <614@ut-sally.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 24

Now that this debate has heated up (again -- it happens every few
months), it's time for me to throw in my comments about the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis (again).

Briefly, this hypothesis holds that language *determines* thought.
That is, the words and grammar in your language dictate, to a large
extent, what it's possible for you to think about.  (Orwell used this
as the philosophical basis for Newspeak in 1984, though I don't think
he referred to it by name.)  If you accept this theory -- and I do, to
a large extent -- then it follows that using the word "girl", with all
of its connotations of youth and immaturity, cannot fail to affect the
way you think about women.  To be sure, in this particular case the
effect is somewhat mitigated because "girl" is the counterpart (and
carries the connotations of) "guy" as well as "boy"; however, phrases
like "I'll have my girl handle it" are quite different, and quite
harmful.

There's an additional point to consider:  making the effort to change
one's own vocabulary is in itself an action.  If you force yourself to
stop and think each time you're about to say "girl", you'll think about
the question of the status of women and your own attitudes every time.


		--Steve Bellovin