Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Woman sexist?
Message-ID: <257@spar.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-May-85 06:28:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.257
Posted: Tue May 21 06:28:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 02:27:58 EDT
References: <414@ho95b.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 46

>Uh, oh.  Then we'd better get rid of the word "woman".  It comes almost
>directly from "wife (of) man", as if that's all that counts.
>More seriously, I usually gauge these things by the image they confer
>in my mind.  "RepairMAN" seems sexist because I subconsiously think
>of a man.  Even though "woman" is derived as above, due to the evolution
>of the language, it doesn't mean that anymore.  That's not the case
>with "repairman". -- RANeinast

    Seems you badly misinterpreted my last article, which focussed on words
    THAT ARE INTENDED AS GENERIC TERMS regardless of sex, such as the
    generic use of `-man' and `he'. `Woman' is simply not in this category,
    being a strictly female designator -- it is supposed to be `sexist' (as
    opposed to generic), and it seems to suit its purpose quite well.

    However, now that you bring it up, I recall some feminists, particularly
    in the 60's, who rejected `woman' for precisely the reason you mention
    though I believe very few people feel this way today.  (BTW, `woperit'
    and similar curiosities first appeared at this time as well..).

    As you point out, `woman' derives from AngloSaxon `wifman(n)', an
    ancient compound whose parts are equivalent to the modern words
    `wife'+`man'.  But this compound did not mean `wife of man'; instead, it
    was closer to `female human being' (check OED if it matters..)

    Furthermore, `woman' SEEMS to have left the world of obvious compounds
    like `repairman' and has now become a full-fledged  word of its own.
    Several reasons come to mind, largely due to the affects of time and
    gradual phonetic change:

    1.  `Woman' no longer obviously breaks into prefix+root, unlike far
	more recent compounds such as repair+man.  `Wo-' scarcely FEELS
	like a prefix, because it never appears elsewhere as a formative
	element.  Compare with `repair-'.

    2.  In spite of the visual analogy with `man', `woman' is in a class
        of its own with respect to pronunciation:

        woman = "woom'n"	vs 	fireman	= "fire"+"man"
	women = "wimm'n"	vs	firemen	= "fire"+"men"

        This quality is particularly important to young children, who are
        influenced by sounds rather than spelling.

    Old timers have heard this all before...

-michael