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.