Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: derivation of terms
Message-ID: <449@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-May-85 14:07:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.449
Posted: Tue May 28 14:07:03 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 06:32:13 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 11



>>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.

Smith and Miller, in _Words and Women_ maintain that "wif" was a word that
meant something like "caretaker", and cite the early usage of the word
for _both_ men and women.  It may have evolved to refer only to women
(i.e., your "wife (of) man") but it originally was a sexless term, according
to their research.  Does that mean "woman" really is defined as "caretaker
of men"?