Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site masscomp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!masscomp!miche
From: miche@masscomp.UUCP (Harvey)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Women are not people?!?!?!?
Message-ID: <615@masscomp.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 14-Feb-85 09:24:26 EST
Article-I.D.: masscomp.615
Posted: Thu Feb 14 09:24:26 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:21:04 EST
References: <487@digi-g.UUCP>
Reply-To: miche@masscomp.UUCP (Miche Baker-Harvey)
Distribution: net
Organization: Masscomp - Westford, MA
Lines: 33
Summary: 



> I was reading through a story in net.jokes today, and choked on the
> following sentence:

> 	His people spent a good 8 hours a day working in
> 	the fields, and then went home to their wives.  
	
> This is not merely a linguistic matter - it is insidious, unconscious
> sexism.  I don't know the gender of the writer, but I must assume
> that it was male.  I don't believe a female would have this attitude
> in her subconscience.
>
>				Anne Chennete
>				ihnp4!umn-cs!digi-g!anne


The sad truth is that if you tell people something about themselves,
they will often come to believe it.  This is one of the most insidious
things about such sexist language.  When faced with the assumptions
behind this language, and little other evidence, vast numbers of women
come to believe that they do not have the rights of people, and that
this is 'right'.  It was the Chinese mothers and grandmothers who bound
their daughters' feet.  How many women do you know, in 1985, who were
told by their (very loving) mothers, that it was imperative that they
be attractive to men so that they could 'capture' one to care for them?

I don't know the gender of the original poster, but I don't think
(unfortunately) that it can be assumed to be male.

	Miche Baker-Harvey
	Massachusetts Computer Corp.
	(619) 692-6200 x478