Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!h-sc1!desjardins
From: desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: they vs it vs he vs she
Message-ID: <327@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-May-85 17:45:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.327
Posted: Mon May  6 17:45:43 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 9-May-85 02:24:53 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 19

> 
> I beg to (vigorously) disagree. There are much less awkward, and more descriptive
> expressions, such as "fire fighter", "letter carrier" or "police officer",
> which are the *real* expressions for "fireman", "postman" or "policeman".
> Such shorthand was acceptable when these ocupations were all male.
> Now that this is no longer the case, they will pretty much stop
> existing. "Fireperson" or other groaners *are* sloppy and ambiguous.
> I mean, should blacks start flaming about an expression like "the darkness
> of tyranny", and "demand" that the expression be made "color-blind"?
> 
> Marcel Simon

I beg to disagree.  "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer"
were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is
sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous."  Besides, what about "chairman"?
There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent.
Such as "human".  (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed!  :-) )

	marie desjardins