Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/23/84; site ucbcad.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: re: other PEOPLE's wives Message-ID: <68@ucbcad.UUCP> Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 04:49:50 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.68 Posted: Sun Jan 20 04:49:50 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 22-Jan-85 06:23:04 EST References: <498@hou5g.UUCP> Organization: UC Berkeley CAD Group, Berkeley, CA Lines: 30 > >> 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