home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!paladin.american.edu!auvm!hersch
- From: HERSCH@auvm.american.edu
- Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
- Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
- Message-ID: <92358.155839HERSCH@auvm.american.edu>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 20:58:39 GMT
- Organization: The American University - University Computing Center
- Lines: 34
-
- In article <Bzon6A.764@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
- mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) says:
- >
- >
-
- (Evidence that Mandar actually went and looked something up when
- challenged to do so deleted. That is, a brief etymology of "woman",
- showing its true relation to "wife" and "man", rather than the
- nonsense he had posted earlier about "wife of man".)
-
- > The etymologists on this group will indeed confirm the fact
- >that "woman" evolved from "wifman" which itself evolved from "man".
-
- "Wifman" didn't evolve from "man", as you yourself showed; it evolved
- from a compound of "wif" and "man".
-
- >(as a means of specifying the gender). Now, according to you, if
- >"man" is sexist, and so is "hostess", then "woman" itself should
- >be sexist.
-
- Now this is pretty stupid, don't you think? Is your claim really
- what it seems to be? Let me restate it for you: People claim that
- to use the word "man" as if it includes women is or can be sexist
- or can have the effect of reinforcing sexist patterns of thought.
- Many hundreds of years ago, the word "woman" evolved from "wif"
- and "man", the latter word at the time carrying no gender information.
- Therefore logical consistency requires that we now consider the
- word "woman" sexist when applied to women. This is what you're
- saying, and it sure sounds dumb to me.
-
- H.
-
- Herschel Browne
- "The" American University
-