Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.PCS 1/10/84; site ahutb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!ahuta!ahutb!seb
From: seb@ahutb.UUCP (s.e.badian)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: RE2:gender terms
Message-ID: <587@ahutb.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Mar-85 10:13:18 EST
Article-I.D.: ahutb.587
Posted: Tue Mar 26 10:13:18 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 27-Mar-85 03:54:05 EST
References: <1081@ihuxe.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 29

REFERENCES:  <1081@ihuxe.UUCP>


>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.

I think I'm going to throw up. Just because Websters says it's so
doesn't make it right!! If you repeatedly referred to me as
a girl, I'd knock your lights out! The definition is sexist in the
extreme. By this definition any woman can be considered a girl.
This includes Margaret Thatcher, Gloria Steinham, and my grandmother.
Girls are perceived as too young and immature to take care of them-
selves, just like boys. Girls are not adults. They have no power
or influence.  To call a woman a girl once is excusable. But once
you've been corrected, to do it again is impolite and obnoxious.
And to say that all women who don't like to be referred to as a
girl are silly and overly sensitive is so sexist that's it makes
me ill. 

Some man just can't seem to see why the woman/girl issue is important.
There are women who can't see it either. I only wish there was some
way to show them how I and many others feel.

Sharon Badian
ihnp4!hocsp!ahutb!seb