Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site hou5g.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!ariel!hou4b!hou5f!hou5g!jdh
From: jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: re: other PEOPLE's wives
Message-ID: <498@hou5g.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 13:22:29 EST
Article-I.D.: hou5g.498
Posted: Fri Jan 18 13:22:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 01:44:56 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Holmdel, NJ
Lines: 79

()
>>		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.  

>Julia 
[ that's me, Julia ]
>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.

>Presumably, that means that wherever that was there is at least 2
>(notice the plural: wives) people who will shoot or stab those who
>frequent their wives. 

huh?

>Point of
>fact it sounds like you are the one that are making the sexual
>generalisations... You may think that women are only being viewed as a role
>but in assuming that it 
[ it = the person doing the frequenting ]
>wasn't a lesbian woman (or a bi-sexual woman) you
>are assuming that Gays ``don't exist''. Gays have been complaining of
>this for a while...
> [ etc. ]
>laura creighton
>utzoo!laura

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.

Also, rather than saying, for example, "sleeping with a woman whose 
husband doesn't like it", the woman is described in regard to her
role as connected to her husband (who, in contrast, is described as 
a person).  (I must confess, I also find assigning a "person's wife"
the same status as a bar less than pleasing.  Unless she is a 
prostitute, which means she is performing a service, (and frequenting
refers to the service, not the woman) I really feel the word 
"frequenting" tends to dehumanize the woman.)

It's really quite true that the societal norm is to assume a "person"
is a man.  If it makes anyone feel better, I notice sometimes that I 
do it myself.  I assume that people don't want to be sexist.  I also know
that it is difficult not to be.   I'm quite sure that the person who
wrote the original lines didn't notice that he called men people.  I
also don't assume that he actively practices sexism.  But I do believe
that sexism, like racism, operates at a passive, even subconcious level.
Thus the need to point it out, and to keep it in mind.

Each time I submit an article to the net and see the responses, I am
more certain that it is a difficult medium for discussion.  People 
assume anger when they can't see earnestness, hear warmth, see a
posture or hear a tone that indicates the manner in which the words
are meant.

Of course, my willingness to submit articles despite this shortcoming
indicates my willingness to accept the responses I receive, I suppose.


Julia Harper


Lesbians don't "frequent" other people's wives.  They may sleep
with them, but they don't "frequent" them.  Perhaps this is an advantage
they have over other members of our species.
-- 
Julia Harper
[ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh