Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor
From: shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Mutilation ... of the English language
Message-ID: <500@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 00:29:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.500
Posted: Thu May 16 00:29:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 22:27:16 EDT
References: <2518@cca.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.women:5070 net.flame:9919

[]
> From: norcott@cca.UUCP (Bill Norcott)
>	Why do we bandy about the word 'mutilation' when refering to women
> shaving their legs, etc. ?  

Maybe because that's the way some women feel about it?

>	2. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (MAIM)

Gotcha!

>	I suggest the word grooming ('to make neat or attractive') is more
> appropriate.  

Actually, this seems to me to be substantially worse.  I've seen several
people on this here net imply that fuzziness == poorly groomed.  Tain't so.

I'm against making language more awkward, which is what I don't like about
so many feminist so-called "solutions" to the problem of sexism in language.
At the same time, I'm not really comfortable with trying to freeze language
where it is, either.  We all agree that language is dynamic, and based on
the spoken, not the written word, right?

Anyhow, I *do* agree with you that mutilation isn't really the best choice
of words here, but I'd have to say that the word 'grooming' is at least as
inappropriate.
-- 
Melinda Shore 
University of Chicago Computation Center

uucp:     ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor
Mailnet:  Staff.Melinda@UChicago.Mailnet
Bitnet:	  shor%sphinx@UChicago.Bitnet
ARPA:	  Staff.Melinda%UChicago.Mailnet@Mit-Multics.ARPA