Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekecs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!orca!tekecs!jeffw
From: jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: they vs it vs he vs she
Message-ID: <5310@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9-May-85 11:54:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5310
Posted: Thu May  9 11:54:46 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 11-May-85 01:49:26 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP> <327@h-sc1.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 21

> > 
> > 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.
> > 
> > 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." 
> 
> 	marie desjardins

"Firefighter" happens to be the official term used in the profession (I have
a brother- and father-in-law who are volunteer versions of same). If someone
thinks it's sloppy, that's their ( <- notice ) problem.

					Jeff Winslow