Re: Response to Documentation Girls Flaming

Subject: Re: Response to Documentation Girls Flaming
From: Roy Anderson <royanderson -at- IBM -dot- NET>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1998 04:36:21 -0400

<<...imperialistic "lady">>???

When did "lady" and "ladies" become politically incorrect, Comrade Porrello?
(Smile.) My grandmother, mother, sisters, and aunts are ladies and darn proud
of the term. If you called them "imperialistic" or "onerous" to their faces,
they would box your ears. (Smile.)

I, for one, mourn the apparent passing of "women" in favor of today's more
biologically-accurate "female". Somehow, I don't think the movie PRETTY
WOMAN would have been quite as enchanting had it been entitled PRETTY FEMALE.

When I become president, it will be difficult to reconcile opening speeches
to you, my beloved fellow Americans, by saying "Good evening, females and
males." Yikes!

Girls, no; ladies, yes.

Porrello, Leonard wrote:
>
> What gets me is that though many people fly off the handle at "girl or "boy"
> (rightfully, perhaps, unless we are speaking of the pre-pubescent), no one
> seems bothered by the imperialistic "lady" or "gentleman". In a democratic
> society, those seem equally onerous.
>
> Leonard Porrello
> Compaq, Telecom Division
> Pubs, Omaha
> 402.384.7390

From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=




Previous by Author: Re: Website readability--blue text?
Next by Author: Re: Website readability--blue text?
Previous by Thread: Re: Response to Documentation Girls Flaming
Next by Thread: Re: Response to Documentation Girls Flaming


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads