jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (01/18/85)
() >> Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and >> a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order >> to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or >> the wrong people's wives. >Julia [ that's me, Julia ] >says that this is a perfect example of the societal norm of >assuming that people are men, and identifying women only through >their role as connected with someone else. >Presumably, that means that wherever that was there is at least 2 >(notice the plural: wives) people who will shoot or stab those who >frequent their wives. huh? >Point of >fact it sounds like you are the one that are making the sexual >generalisations... You may think that women are only being viewed as a role >but in assuming that it [ it = the person doing the frequenting ] >wasn't a lesbian woman (or a bi-sexual woman) you >are assuming that Gays ``don't exist''. Gays have been complaining of >this for a while... > [ etc. ] >laura creighton >utzoo!laura The words I have a problem with are "the [wrong] people's wives". I made no assumption about who was frequenting. (I probably assume gays exist more than you do...) Only men can have wives. (Under our current legal system. Perhaps ever. If and when 2 women can legally marry, they may not use the word wife to refer to their spouse.) Since when do people = men? Yet only men can have wives. Thus "people's wives" is a perfect example of assuming that all people are men. Also, rather than saying, for example, "sleeping with a woman whose husband doesn't like it", the woman is described in regard to her role as connected to her husband (who, in contrast, is described as a person). (I must confess, I also find assigning a "person's wife" the same status as a bar less than pleasing. Unless she is a prostitute, which means she is performing a service, (and frequenting refers to the service, not the woman) I really feel the word "frequenting" tends to dehumanize the woman.) It's really quite true that the societal norm is to assume a "person" is a man. If it makes anyone feel better, I notice sometimes that I do it myself. I assume that people don't want to be sexist. I also know that it is difficult not to be. I'm quite sure that the person who wrote the original lines didn't notice that he called men people. I also don't assume that he actively practices sexism. But I do believe that sexism, like racism, operates at a passive, even subconcious level. Thus the need to point it out, and to keep it in mind. Each time I submit an article to the net and see the responses, I am more certain that it is a difficult medium for discussion. People assume anger when they can't see earnestness, hear warmth, see a posture or hear a tone that indicates the manner in which the words are meant. Of course, my willingness to submit articles despite this shortcoming indicates my willingness to accept the responses I receive, I suppose. Julia Harper Lesbians don't "frequent" other people's wives. They may sleep with them, but they don't "frequent" them. Perhaps this is an advantage they have over other members of our species. -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh
cliff@unmvax.UUCP (01/19/85)
> () > >> Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and > >> a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order > >> to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or > >> the wrong people's wives. > > It's really quite true that the societal norm is to assume a "person" > is a man. If it makes anyone feel better, I notice sometimes that I > do it myself. I assume that people don't want to be sexist. I also know > that it is difficult not to be. I'm quite sure that the person who > wrote the original lines didn't notice that he called men people. Are you out of your tree? News flash: Men *are* people. > I > also don't assume that he actively practices sexism. But I do believe > that sexism, like racism, operates at a passive, even subconcious level. > Thus the need to point it out, and to keep it in mind. The original letter was about Albuquerque a few years past. I am in Albuquerque and although those are not the only way to get shot, there are quite a few violent crimes perpetrated by jealous men. In addition in the last few years there have been some rapes of women by men. Notice I am telling you what has happened, rather than saying only men can rape or only women can get raped. If I were to say that people had raped women I would be just as accurate, but not as precise. Since as you pointed out that only men can have wives, the phrase "people's wives" is just as accurate and precise as "men's wives" although the latter is redundant. > Julia Harper > > > Lesbians don't "frequent" other people's wives. They may sleep > with them, but they don't "frequent" them. Perhaps this is an advantage > they have over other members of our species. Frequent, v.t.: to visit often; ... --Cliff
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (01/20/85)
> >> Now certainly there is a lot of petty crime there, and > >> a lot of burglery too, but mugging was unheard of, and in order > >> to get shot or stabbed you had to frequent the wrong bars or > >> the wrong people's wives. > > >says that this is a perfect example of the societal norm of > >assuming that people are men, and identifying women only through > >their role as connected with someone else. > > The words I have a problem with are "the [wrong] people's wives". > I made no assumption about who was frequenting. (I probably assume > gays exist more than you do...) > > Only men can have wives. (Under our current legal system. Perhaps ever. > If and when 2 women can legally marry, they may not use the word wife > to refer to their spouse.) > > Since when do people = men? Yet only men can have wives. Thus > "people's wives" is a perfect example of assuming that all people > are men. No. If I say "people shouldn't drive too fast", am I implying that only those who drive are people? You aren't thinking carefully enough... > It's really quite true that the societal norm is to assume a "person" > is a man. There's a word for this kind of reasoning -- it's "paranoia". Wayne
mroddy@enmasse.UUCP (Mark Roddy) (01/22/85)
> Only men can have wives. (Under our current legal system. Perhaps ever. > If and when 2 women can legally marry, they may not use the word wife > to refer to their spouse.) But then again they might. They might also use the word "turnip". In fact you can use any words you like, if you manage to communcate, your choice of words is o.k. with me. > > Since when do people = men? Yet only men can have wives. Thus > "people's wives" is a perfect example of assuming that all people > are men. > Why? Saying "people's wives" doesn't say "if you are a person then you have a wife", it refers to the female SO of a person. This is commonly understood English. Many people would assume that the person- who-has-a-wife is male, and this is probably true, but the expression does not exclude the possibility that the sex of either person is unspecified. Also- by your logic the expression implies that all people are married, or at least have wives. Once again clearly not the intent of the passage. > Lesbians don't "frequent" other people's wives. They may sleep > with them, but they don't "frequent" them. Perhaps this is an advantage > they have over other members of our species. Maybe they frequently sleep with them? Didn't you just use the same horrible nasty sexist grammar you condemned? I guess what I'm irritated about is the underlying assumption that the form of one's statements override the content. In extreme examples, where ambiguity leads to confusion ,where content is obscured by the lack of form, where meaning is lost, then this is true. Otherwise it's just nit-picking and belongs in flame.spelling. ---- what was the original posting about anyway? Mark