Re: Obnoxious "fox" line

[iago@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Valerie Nozick)]

In article <2pns4p$88v@news.csus.edu>,
Paul Dimitre <czar@mercury.csus.edu> wrote:
>Albert Steg (Winsor School) (asteg@k12.ucs.umass.edu) wrote:
>
>: {Text Deleted}
>: At any rate, I'd like to second the comment that the "Yes, she is a 
>: fox" line in the FAQ is objectionable.  Sexist, probably; juvenile
>: certainly.  It's the kind of thing that will alienate a lot of people.
>: And does it really tell us anything useful?  Why keep it?
>: {Text Deleted}
>
>most lovehounds that the woman is beautiful, so adding that in the FAQ 
>should be acceptable. Perhaps "Yes she is beautiful" would cause less of 
>an outcry?

Finally, a reasonable idea.  I find the term 'fox' extremely objectionable. 
That does not mean I don't find her beautiful.  But the term fox is used as a
denigrating, demeaning term.  It's the type of term that accompanies catcalls
or is used by young boys going through puberty.  She is a woman, and does not
deserve being described in a term used by drooling, sex-starved imbeciles. 
I appreciate her looks, but she is a human being, not an animal.

The above suggestion makes a lot of sense.  You wouldn't lose anything by
calling her beautiful, and it would make a lot of people happy.

==> valerie