Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1994-12 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: iago@merle.acns.nwu.edu (Valerie Nozick)
Date: 28 Apr 1994 14:27:31 GMT
Subject: Re: Obnoxious "fox" line
To: rec-music-gaffa@uunet.UU.NET
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston IL
References: <1994Apr25.144912.10874@k12.ucs.umass.edu> <2pns4p$88v@news.csus.edu>
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