norcott@cca.UUCP (Bill Norcott) (05/13/85)
Why do we bandy about the word 'mutilation' when refering to women
shaving their legs, etc. ? My handy Webster's dictionary gives the following
definitions for the word:
MUTILATE
1. to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part
of (CRIPPLE)
2. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (MAIM)
I suggest the word grooming ('to make neat or attractive') is more
appropriate. I have no opinion concerning women's personal grooming habits,
but I am opposed to MAIMING the English language to make a political (??)
statement...
Best wishes to all,
Bill Norcottshor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) (05/16/85)
[] > From: norcott@cca.UUCP (Bill Norcott) > Why do we bandy about the word 'mutilation' when refering to women > shaving their legs, etc. ? Maybe because that's the way some women feel about it? > 2. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (MAIM) Gotcha! > I suggest the word grooming ('to make neat or attractive') is more > appropriate. Actually, this seems to me to be substantially worse. I've seen several people on this here net imply that fuzziness == poorly groomed. Tain't so. I'm against making language more awkward, which is what I don't like about so many feminist so-called "solutions" to the problem of sexism in language. At the same time, I'm not really comfortable with trying to freeze language where it is, either. We all agree that language is dynamic, and based on the spoken, not the written word, right? Anyhow, I *do* agree with you that mutilation isn't really the best choice of words here, but I'd have to say that the word 'grooming' is at least as inappropriate. -- Melinda Shore University of Chicago Computation Center uucp: ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!shor Mailnet: Staff.Melinda@UChicago.Mailnet Bitnet: shor%sphinx@UChicago.Bitnet ARPA: Staff.Melinda%UChicago.Mailnet@Mit-Multics.ARPA
daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (05/18/85)
Re: Mutilation ... of the English language______________________________________ > Why do we bandy about the word 'mutilation' when refering [sic] to women shav- > int their legs, etc.? It's the "etc." that figures here: women wearing high heels. Consider- ing the effect that this has on most women's feet, I'd say the word 'mutilation' applies much better than the word 'grooming.' <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not :::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/18/85)
With respect to the debate on whether female leg-shaving is grooming or mutilation--I think it is more analogous to cosmetic surgury. Just as a face-lift helps and old person look middle aged, leg-shaving helps a mature woman look more like a very young woman (i.e. teenager). Teenagers tend to have much sparser body hair than adults. This may also be analogous the the male custom of face-shaving (is this evidence that men are oppressed by women? :-) ). By the way, is cosmetic surgury considered to be mutilation? Frank Silbermann In article <sphinx.500> shor@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Melinda Shore) writes: > >> From: norcott@cca.UUCP (Bill Norcott) >> Why do we bandy about the word 'mutilation' when refering to women >> shaving their legs, etc. ? > >Maybe because that's the way some women feel about it? > >> 2. to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect (MAIM) > >Gotcha! > >> I suggest the word grooming ('to make neat or attractive') is more >> appropriate. > >Actually, this seems to me to be substantially worse. I've seen several >people on this here net imply that fuzziness == poorly groomed. Tain't so. > >Anyhow, I *do* agree with you that mutilation isn't really the best choice >of words here, but I'd have to say that the word 'grooming' is at least as >inappropriate.