Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin)
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: Re: girl vs. woman -- causality; changing attitude via language
Message-ID: <1013@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Oct-84 17:04:55 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.1013
Posted: Tue Oct  2 17:04:55 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Oct-84 20:09:37 EDT
References: <9246@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 17

It isn't at all clear to me that using 'woman' instead of 'girl' is a case
of reversed causality; rather, I think that the causality works in both
directions.

Let me put it more clearly.  I'm personally a believer in the Whorfian
hypothesis, which holds that language can *determine* thought.  (For
more discussion on Whorf, see the discussions last year on Loglan in
net.nlang.)  The very act of using the word 'girl' (or thinking it) by
itself imposes certain constraints -- stereotypes -- on your thought
processes.  Using the word 'woman' would have a different, and presumably
better, effect.

There's a secondary reason to switch:  every time you consciously change
your mode of speaking, you're made aware of the issue of sexual equality;
that in itself is desirable.

		--Steve Bellovin