home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu
- From: alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu (Amy Young Leith)
- Newsgroups: soc.women
- Subject: Re: Men & Women, "Males & Females"
- Message-ID: <1992Dec21.192234.16624@news.cs.indiana.edu>
- Date: 22 Dec 92 00:22:25 GMT
- References: <1992Dec20.110910.24188@hemlock.cray.com> <1992Dec20.132756.13004@news.cs.indiana.edu> <3184@devnull.mpd.tandem.com>
- Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
- Lines: 24
-
- In article <3184@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> dwelch@mpd.tandem.com (Dan Welch) writes:
-
- >What you are talking about isn't the point. Using the term "males" instead
- >of "men" indicates that you aren't thinking of them as being first human,
- >then male, but rather first male, then human. In other words, their maleness
- >is more important than their humanity -- an attitude that is hardly
- >beneficial to improving relations between the sexes.
-
- No, this is not how I mean it. The "human" part is assumed if the
- conversation previously has clearly been about humans. At least it
- would be to me. Yes, if I had been talking about the mating habits of
- male wilderbeasts, then yes, it would make sense to point out in an
- abrupt change of conversation thread that you were indeed speaking of
- humans.
-
- Perhaps I'm not thinking about this in the "pc" way everyone else is.
-
- amy
- --
- alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
- All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- **Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself. Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
- (This means NOT my employer!!)
-