Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site charm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!burl!hou3c!hocda!houxm!mhuxl!mhuxj!mhuxi!charm!tpkq
From: tpkq@charm.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women
Subject: Re: "woman" as an adjective
Message-ID: <238@charm.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Jan-84 23:19:35 EST
Article-I.D.: charm.238
Posted: Sun Jan 29 23:19:35 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Feb-84 01:34:38 EST
References: <899@druxu.UUCP>
Organization: Physics Research - AT&T Bell Labs MH
Lines: 16

The use of the word "woman" as an adjective (or more accurately, an
appositive), far from being a result of the modern feminist movement
(the earliest example of this usage cited by the Oxford English
Dictionary dates from 1300), is rather a reflection of exactly the kind
of prejudice that the feminist movement is fighting against.

The implication hiding behind a phrase like "woman doctor" is that
doctors are men, and that, in the "extraordinary case" of a doctor who is
also a woman, special note must be made of the fact.

Since the fact that women are just as capable as men at being doctors,
welders, astronauts, etc., has been thoroughly demonstrated, and since
women are increasingly entering professions which have been
traditionally male, it is apparent that, in this case, language is
lagging far behind reality, and that this usage of the word "woman" is
reactionary.