From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Re: girl/woman = guy/man? (WAS: Sexist Incidents)
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:07:05 GMT
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

In article <MUFFY.92Sep8202047@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>In article <7462@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep3110347@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>In article <7445@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>>In article <MUFFY.92Sep2161818@remarque.berkeley.edu> muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy) writes:
>>>>>The word "girl" has a denotation of "child", 
>>>>Connotation, surely.  (If it really were denotation, it we wouldn't
>>>>find it being used for non-children.)
>>>Well, here's my dictionary's definition:
>>Is this supposed to show I was wrong about connotation vs denotation?
>>(Or did you think I didn't know that "girl" could mean "a female
>>child" and hence denote a child?)
>
>Neither one, exactly.  I was showing that it did indeed have that
>denotation, which is why I chose to say that, rather than connotation.

It's obvious that "girl" can mean a female child.  The relevant
question is what "girl" implies when used for a non-child.  And
that's connotation.  I suspect that we actually agree about this
and that we now having a pointless dispute.  Anyway...

>I think I see where the confusion is, though.  If a word is applied in a
>way which would seem to be against the definition, such as using a word
>which normally would refer to a child for an adult, then it is possible
>that, rather than attempting to use a different definition for the word,
>the person using it is trying to say that the definition *does* apply,
>and is therefore redefining the *person* as a child, rather than an
>adult.

"The definition"?  Few are the words that work that way.

In any case, I can't take your suggestion seriously.  I don't think
anyone is redefing women as children.  They might be regarding them 
as _like children_ in various ways, but that's not the same thing.

>>>I'm not saying you (or anyone else) should.  I'm simply explaining a
>>>thought process.  The question was not "should I change what I'm doing"
>>>but "why are people offended."
>>They are offended because they don't think much of children?
>>Maybe their views of children ought to change.
>
>No, they are offended because it *is* an insult, in our society, to call
>an adult a child.

Why is it (to some people) an insult?  Do you want to suggest it has
nothing to do with their views about children?

Besides, I thought we agreed that it mattered how people would
interpret/understand what is said.  Consequently, if people don't
intend to say somehting insulting or demeaning, they shouldn't
use "girl" in a context where it will be interpreted as insulting
or demeaning.  But then, in a context where "girl" won't be so
interpreted, what's the problem?

Still, I regard this as a short-term, practical consideration.  
In the longer term, one of the things that ought to change is our
view of children (if you're at all right about what that view is).

>  In addition, accepting that label might well cause
>people to think that it is acceptable to *treat* them as children.  

Ok.

> Yes,
>I think our *society* needs to change, including changing in such a way
>as to think more highly of children (and to not keep them so powerless).

So again it turns out that we agree.

>However, it is definitely considered an insult *now*, and it is not a
>problem with the person's view.  If you *intend* to insult me, whether I
>take it as an insult or not does not change your intention or my
>understanding of that intention (and possibly resentment of it).

But this part is muddled.

If someone thinks it's insulting to be called a child, this definitely
has something to do with their view of children.  On the other hand,
if they think an insult was *intended*, this can be independent of
their view of children.  An anology may make this clear.  I don't
think it's insulting to be called a "hacker" (this reflects my view
of hackers), but I know that some people intend an insult when they
use the term (which reflects their view).

Now, if I intend to insult you, I agree that whether you take it as
an insult or not does not change my intention.  On the other hand,
whether you take it as an insult or not does change your understanding.
(In one case you take understand it as an insult and in the other
you don't.)

However, the case that interests me is when an insult is *not*
intended.

The use of "girl" for a non-child does not always indicate an
intention to insult, and some people, recognizing this, do not
always interpret it as an insult.  In such cases, what's
wrong with using "girl"?

-- jd