Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!sophie
From: sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: RE2:gender terms
Message-ID: <357@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 17:29:37 EST
Article-I.D.: mnetor.357
Posted: Tue Mar 26 17:29:37 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 26-Mar-85 19:10:49 EST
References: <1081@ihuxe.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 55

> Black? White? etc. One cannot use an offensive word and not intend to bother
> someone. An inoffensive word(girl) is another matter though.
> 
> I pulled out my old trusty Websters to find out the generally accepted
> meanings of the words in question:
> 
> GIRL: (1)-A single or married women of any age.
>  I see nothing offensive here. I will continue to use the term when
>  referring to someone meeting the definition.
> 
> N*gger: (1)-Negro, usually taken to be offensive.
>  I rest my case. The use of this term is socially unacceptable.

Yes, but why don't you try pulling out your trustworthy 60 year old Webster
and look up "boy"?  You probably would have found something along the lines
of "a young man.  Can also be used when refering to negroes" or whatever.
Nowadays, this usage is probably not even mentioned because of its sheer
offensiveness.   If you think that dictionaries are gospel, check
out the definition of "masturbation" in 20 year old dictionaries.

Unlike some other books, dictionnaries do not pop out of the heavens containing
THE absolute truth about the language they are defining.  They are written by
people who have biases, and those biases are reflected in the definitions.  Most
dictionaries are written by men and as such, are quite sexist.  Languages are
not static either, they evolve with society.  Dictionaries are merely
representations of the state of languages and the underlying societies
supporting them.  As such, they are always behind the evolution of those
societies rather than ahead, just because it simply takes an enormous amount
of effort to record all those changes - if it didn't, or if languages were not
evolving, why would we be making such a fuss about the computerisation of the
OED?  -  Need I go on?

I am always surprised when people bring such points up.  Are they really
gullible enough that they believe anything simply because it is written in
a serious-looking book?  

Just to continue along those lines:  I was recently reading a book on the
history of a few prominent male feminists (there had to be some, or else
we would never have gotten the vote....) and the book was describing the
relationship that J.S. Mills had with his lifetime companion and lover
Mrs Taylor, who was apparently a very intelligent women.  They seemed to
have had a very harmonious relationship (judging from his writings) which
probably influenced his position on feminism a great deal.  Yet, when one
reads about their relationship in the Encyclopedia Britannica, it is described
as "he fell under her thumb, and his opinions were subsequently tainted by
her influence"  (this is not the exacct quote as 1/ I don't have the ency-
clopedia with me 2/ it was written in french - nevetherless, I think I am
presenting the spirit of it quite accurately).   If this is not a biased
piece of crap, then I don't know what is.  Yet, it is in an encyclopedia,
and as such, people will believe it.

I , too, rest my case...
-- 
Sophie Quigley
{allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie