Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!amd!nsc!srm
From: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Now is the time for all good men...
Message-ID: <2768@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 27-May-85 15:34:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: nsc.2768
Posted: Mon May 27 15:34:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 29-May-85 03:25:20 EDT
References: <742@oddjob.UUCP>
Reply-To: srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian)
Organization: National Semiconductor, Sunnyvale
Lines: 21
Xref: utcs net.women:5306 net.flame:9826

In article <742@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes:

>I was serious.  I really think that the generic term for a person should
>be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his".

>...It rather puts the burden on 
>individuals to live up to cerain standards of job performance, self-reliance,
>and social dominance necessary to survive in an unchanged man's world.  

If (1) an "unchanged man's world" is the objective, and (2) women's unequal
success in that world can be largely attributed to failure to live up to
"certain standards" that their male counterparts set, then your idea makes
some sense.

But what if the "man's world" could stand a few changes?

And what about the fact that women who currently meet job performance
standards are still paid less than their male counterparts?
-- 
Richard Mateosian
{cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm    nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA