Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site linus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!linus!sidney
From: sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: Dividing Line
Message-ID: <265@linus.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 12-Mar-85 08:22:44 EST
Article-I.D.: linus.265
Posted: Tue Mar 12 08:22:44 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 15-Mar-85 03:30:35 EST
References: <731@decwrl.UUCP> <745@amdcad.UUCP> <627@mhuxt.UUCP> <917@vax1.fluke.UUCP> <541@hou5g.UUCP> <499@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Reply-To: sidney@linus.UUCP (Sidney Markowitz)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 26
Summary: 

In article <499@ssc-vax.UUCP> erik@ssc-vax.UUCP (Erik Strom) writes:
>
>   Once again, I have to put my two bits into this discussion. Is 
>   'gal' really that objectionable? The dictionary I consulted does
>   define it as slang for girl, but I don't recall ever being chided 
>   or ridiculed or whatever, for using it. 

You have to keep in mind that the origins of feminist objections to the use
of "girl" or "gal" were not based on males in their 20's referring to
females of the same age as girls. The really objectionable uses are like
these: An uncle of mine talking about coping with the single life told me
how he pays a "colored girl" in the laundromat a few bucks to wash and fold
his laundry.  A doctor talked about giving some clerical work to "his girl".
In both these cases the women were in their 40's or 50's, probably
overworked and underpaid, and in any case were being treated in a demeaning
fashion by those men. Once you make an issue of this obviously demeaning use
of the words "girl" and "gal" in referrring to women, *then* you get to the
problem of where to draw the line, and then you get women being sensitive to
being referred to as girls.


-- 
					Sidney Markowitz

ARPA:	sidney@mit-mc
UUCP:	...{decvax,utzoo,philabs,security,allegra,genrad}!linus!sidney