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