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!pauls
From: pauls@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Sweazey)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Now is the time for all good men...
Message-ID: <5395@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Jun-85 02:23:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.5395
Posted: Mon Jun  3 02:23:34 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 08:32:20 EDT
References: <738@oddjob.UUCP> <367@h-sc1.UUCP> <5363@tekecs.UUCP> <269@spar.UUCP>
Organization: Tektronix, Wilsonville OR
Lines: 34

> >> No, we are NOT men. We are people.. -- Marie
> >
> >The point is that the above "implication" disappears.  "Man" no longer
> >implies "male".  It implies "human".  It would be just as reasonable to
> >eliminate the word "man" from the language and use "woman" to refer to any
> >member of the human race. -- Paul Sweazey
> 
>     Is that so? Let's look at the two proposals more deeply...
>
> 	MALE		FEMALE		GENERIC > 
>  1)	man		woman		person
>  2)	???		woman		man
 
     What is being proposed is more like...
 
 	MALE		FEMALE		GENERIC
 
  1)	man		woman		person
  3)	male		female		man
  4)	male		female		woman

Number 4 doesn't preserve and universalize phrases like, "All men are
created equal", but is otherwise just as acceptable.  Think of #3 as
similar to the way a group of females sometimes refer to themselves
as "guys".
 
 
>     AND HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO GET PEOPLE TO USE IT????

I don't myself believe there is any chance of the proposal being put
into practice.  Males won't want to share "man" and females will feel
it denies their unique identity.  I just believe the idea is elegant.

Paul Sweazey