Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site enmasse.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!enmasse!mroddy
From: mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: re: other PEOPLE's wives
Message-ID: <309@enmasse.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 21-Jan-85 19:34:21 EST
Article-I.D.: enmasse.309
Posted: Mon Jan 21 19:34:21 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Jan-85 21:05:39 EST
References: <498@hou5g.UUCP>
Organization: Enmasse Computer Corp., Acton, Mass.
Lines: 41

> Only men can have wives.  (Under our current legal system.  Perhaps ever.
> If and when 2 women can legally marry, they may not use the word wife
> to refer to their spouse.)

But then again they might. They might also use the word "turnip".
In fact you can use any words you like, if you manage to communcate,
your choice of words is o.k. with me.

> 
> Since when do people = men?  Yet only men can have wives.  Thus 
> "people's wives" is a perfect example of assuming that all people 
> are men.
> 

Why? Saying "people's wives" doesn't say "if you are a person then you
have a wife", it refers to the female SO of a person. This is
commonly understood English. Many people would assume that the person-
who-has-a-wife is male, and this is probably true, but the expression
does not exclude the possibility that the sex of either person is
unspecified.

Also- by your logic the expression implies that all people are married,
or at least have wives. Once again clearly not the intent of the passage.
 
> Lesbians don't "frequent" other people's wives.  They may sleep
> with them, but they don't "frequent" them.  Perhaps this is an advantage
> they have over other members of our species.

Maybe they frequently sleep with them? Didn't you just use the same horrible
nasty sexist grammar you condemned?

I guess what I'm irritated about is the underlying assumption that the form
of one's statements override the content. In extreme examples, where ambiguity
leads to confusion ,where content is obscured by the lack of form, where
meaning is lost, then this is true. Otherwise it's just nit-picking and
belongs in flame.spelling.

				
			---- what was the original posting about anyway?

				Mark