Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!bullwinkle!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!bright
From: bright@dataioDataio.UUCP (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.singles
Subject: Re: career vs. relationships
Message-ID: <919@dataioDataio.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Feb-86 22:50:33 EST
Article-I.D.: dataioDa.919
Posted: Wed Feb 26 22:50:33 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Mar-86 18:57:33 EST
Reply-To: bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright
Organization: Data I/O Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 13
Xref: watmath net.women:9463 net.singles:10594

In article <1677@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Beth Christy  <..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth> writes:
>It's true that before now I've always considered the assumption that a
>secretary is female to be sexist.  But is it really sexist, or is it
>"merely" prejudicial?

Since (in my experience) all the secretaries I have met happened to be
women, I think it is hardly sexist to think that the next secretary
I come across will PROBABLY be a woman. If, in fact, the percentage
of women secretaries vs men secretaries in past experience is
roughly 100%, it is a reasonable assumption to make that the next
secretary will be a woman.

Sexism appears when one says "secretarial work is women's work".