Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxq.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!ihuxq!ken
From: ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Animal Sexist Language
Message-ID: <872@ihuxq.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Apr-84 13:50:53 EST
Article-I.D.: ihuxq.872
Posted: Fri Apr 20 13:50:53 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 21-Apr-84 02:11:04 EST
References: <313@teldata.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 28

--
>> My point is:
>> The use of 'man' as a word, prefix, or suffix does not always suggest a
>> male human being and the intended meaning is to be taken from context.
>> Unfortunately some people (primarily feminists) have a sexist attitude
>> and automatically assume any use of 'man' excludes female humans. This
>> is a misunderstanding on their part showing their ignorance of the
>> English language.

No, it's a misunderstanding on your part showing your ignorance of
linguistics.  Language is the tool with which we think.  Sexist
language and sexist thoughts are intimately intertwined.  Interesting
how the most arrogant of these "defenders of the faith" are all men.
Thought exercise for men who believe the quoted snippet:  Every time
you see the generic "man", substitute "Black" (or your favorite group)
and tell yourself "but of course it refers to all people."  Example:
"No man is an island..." --> "No Black (but of course all persons
are included) is an island..."  Then tell me you don't feel left out.

As a writer, I often cringe at the proposed solutions, but you have
to be pretty dense to believe there is no problem.
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******    20 Apr 84 [1 Floreal An CXCII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7261     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken   *** ***