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