Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!saquigley
From: saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Animal Sexist Language
Message-ID: <7578@watmath.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 15:53:44 EST
Article-I.D.: watmath.7578
Posted: Fri Apr 20 15:53:44 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Apr-84 01:43:13 EST
References: <313@teldata.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 54



Very interesting.  It leads one to wonder why woman/man is the exception
to the rule.  Could it be that if humankind was called womankind instead
of mankind, this would be too animalistic for the men's taste, after all
we all know women are closer to animals than men are (:-))

It might be interesting to find out whether ganders mind being called
geese, or whether they call themselves geese.  After all we gave them 
those names.  Who knows what they call themselves....
I think that at any rate the ganders would not have any reasons to complain
about being called  geese.  After all it is their fault if they don't
understand our language the way it is, not that they had a say in our
decision to call them geese.....

So, we are not allowed to flame on your choice of animals.  Are we allowed
to flame at your article?  So, we feminists are wrong not to feel included
when people call us men, the problem is all in our heads right? obviously
we should all go see psychiatrists to help us solve our problems.

OK, time to throw the ball in the other court.  Why is it that so many of you
men feel so threatened by the fact that many women have a different perception
of reality than they do?  Why do they insist that there is something wrong
with us if we don't have the same perception of ourselves as they do of us?
When have we told you there is something wrong with your perceptions of
yourselves because we perceive you differently?

To come to back to this problem: when we hear man, we think male.  We do not
think "me" without making an effort.  When you hear "man", you supposedly
think "male or female" (so you claim). 
OK, we have two different interpretations of the same word and we don't feel
we are communicating well.  How are we going to resolve the problem?

Your solution: "We are right and you are wrong", the problem doesn't exist,
lets forget about it QED.

Our solution: "obviously we have different perceptions, let's use another
word which is not ambiguous, this way we will understand each other".

What do you have to loose by adopting our solution?  It solves the problem,
doesn't it?  why don't you care a bit more about our own self-image? is the
"purity" of language so important that it must be defended at the cost of
possibly alienating half of the population and at least not communicating
very well with them.  I really don't understand:

WHAT MAKES YOU PEOPLE TICK???????????????????????

Will one of you please explain on the net why it is that you feel so threatened
by feminist proposals like the one to use human to mean human instead of
using men.  What difference is it going to make to your life if we adopt these
proposals?

Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigley