Re: Response to Documentation Girls Flaming

Subject: Re: Response to Documentation Girls Flaming
From: Laurel Gilbert <Laurel -at- NICHE-ASSOCIATES -dot- COM>
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1998 10:41:09 -0600

Laurel Gilbert, writer/editor
Niche Associates
9672 South 700 East, Suite 100
Sandy, UT 84070
(801) 572-7436
laurel -at- niche-associates -dot- com
http://www.niche-associates.com/

>>> Melissa Conniff <mconniff -at- CSC -dot- COM> 08/11 10:26 AM >>>
Gang,

I've asked an honest question and the majority of responses have been
to flame me
for using the term "girls". Get a life folks! It was not meant in a
degrading
manner. They are called "Documentation Girls" here. I fact, they call
themselves
Word Processors. shrug. I'm sorry if I have accidently hurt someone
with this
reference. I've certainly learned from this one--like you can't say a
harmless
remark anymore. Guess I won't do that again, huh?!


Just a note, Melissa--

As people who use language to construct reality, we all should be aware
that calling women "girls" is not a "harmless remark," any more than
calling African American "niggers" is. It constructs them as someone not
to be taken seriously, someone so below you in demeanor that you can
condesend to them and then shrug it off as a joke....or a "harmless
remark." If they are over 18 and working, they are not "girls," they
are "women." Or more appropriately, people.

If they call themselves "word processors..." then call them that.

And pay attention, next time, to how you use language to make reality.

Laurel, lurking.

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




Previous by Author: Re: API documentation
Next by Author: Re: Time Sheets
Previous by Thread: 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