hiawa...@efn.org wrote: > Really, this whole discussion of people feeling slighted when specific > pronouns are use generically could be used in support of smiley- > tolerance.
Wow, an analogy between AFU's dislike of emoticons and traditional oppression of women (nd no doubt minority groups).
Exactly how far does this analogy stretch, hiawatha? Is that your real name?
Are you going to start a lobby group to try and have anti-smileyuser-discrimination legislation? March on the streets perhaps?
On Mon, 15 Mar 1999 21:25:56 +0800, wa...@hotmail.com (Lara) wrote: >...Not to mention honey for leg ulcers
Honey contains some of the more potent anti-oxidants in its complex stew.
And there use to be a joke that the active ingredient in chicken soup was bubbamycin (a 'bubbamysa' - how ever you spell it - is the yiddish word for "old wives' tale). It turns out chicken soup actually has a decongestant in it!
-- #include <standard.disclaimer> _ Kevin D Quitt USA 91351-4454 96.37% of all statistics are made up Per the FCA, this email address may not be added to any commercial mail list
: :> If you insist on doctors using modern techniques rather than leech and :> bleed you for your bodily ills... : :Not such a bad idea, really: now it seems Hirudo medicinalis is useful for :swollen areas [1], and bleeding (regular blood donation) appears to lower :heart disease risk!
I was aware of the modern use of leeches for post-traumatic swelling, but had not heard of blood donation lowering HD risk before. I was thinking more of the traditional bleeding when one was *already* weak and debilitated from a fever or somesuch, which appears to have been used rather indiscriminately and often resulted in iatrogenic fatalities.
:Not to mention honey for leg ulcers, and who knows :how many "old wives' tales" (now analyse the gender attribution in that :saying) which are now being found to have roles in conventional medicine.
Absolutely - even from the very first days of "scientific" medicine - traditional willowbark tea for a fever/pain - voila! modern pharmacology discovers salicylic compounds and therefore aspirin.
:Of course none of this detracts in any way from Viv's central argument.
Vivienne "Aren't tangents fun?" Smythe . .~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's poor life insurance. --Sheri S. Tepper =-=-Fight gullibility now - visit www.urbanlegends.com -=-=
:>>What I do not understand is the motivation to spend any time defending :>>aspertame, :> :>I don't defend aspartame (know your enemy, eh?), I argue against ignorance, :>misinformation, lies, and propaganda. :> :Then why not spend your time fighting those who pass white sugar, :white flower, and partially hydrogenated fats off has healthy food?
Ooh, perhaps because he's a regular debunker on alt.folklore.urban? Where so far no-one has claimed that such foods are healthy? Perhaps if someone did post such a claim in that forum, he would debunk that too (being the compulsive debunker that he is), so climb down off the high horse.
Skeptics debunk crap on principle. It's fundamentally satisfying. You seem to think that all skeptics should be activists. Activism is very time consuming, requires a tight focus, and is often ineffective. Skepticism may well be all consuming, but it is for most of us a leisure pursuit - only for a very few is it an absolute vocation - and yet the hobbyist skeptic often yields results in terms of rescuing the gullible.
:FAR more people are being harmed by these lies than a few people who :get negative reactions from aspertame. The reason is that you have :some other motivation. Perhaps it is that you cannot stand it when :some people do not think according to the party line of the mainstream :industrial-business complex culture.
Roger, my dear, Kevin is an absolutely ecumenical and evenhanded debunker. If he sees bunk, no matter whether he has a special interest in some aspect of it or not, he just has this irresistible urge to defend the gullible, and he sets about thwacking their tormentors with a clue-by-four purely for the adrenalin rush. No hidden agenda involved.
In fact, many regulars on alt.folklore.urban share this affliction, even when it's bunk about gee-by-golly-who-the-fuck-cares aspartame, or even yawn-yet-another-mainstream-industrial-business-complex-culture-conspi racy. We tend to be generalists, not rigid specialists, so our antennae for bunk twitch in the most alarmingly catholic and eclectic fashion, and we can be provoked by trivial errors and discrepancies even in cases when we agree with the general thrust of the argument.
So, if you don't want him or other AFUisti rebutting bunk in your newsgroup, drop AFU from the headers (trimming crossposts - radical concept that in the mainstream-AOL-WebTV-never-ending-September-culture that Usenet has become). To show a good example, I have trimmed the followups to AFU only, as that is the only newsgroup of the current crosspostfest that I read, and it is also the only group that is interested in what is or is not on-topic for AFU.
If you do continue posting to this thread, why not post only to the group that YOU read?
Vivienne "Poor souls" Smythe . .~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~._.~:*'*:~._.~:'*':~. Ignorance may be bliss, but it's poor life insurance. --Sheri S. Tepper =-=-Fight gullibility now - visit www.urbanlegends.com -=-=
>>>You're making a leap to something which has nothing to do with >>>non-gender-specific pronouns. Yes, unequal obstacles can be >>>overcome. That doesn't mean that they're a good thing. >>This is true. But I have seen far too many people blaming >>things like non-gender-specific pronouns for their lack of >>success >Please give me an example of a person blaming only gender-specific >pronouns for personal failure.
What sort of cite do you want? Are you denying that people often blame outside factors for things that are their own fault? In fact, it seems to be a basic tenent of the folks rallying for tortured constructs like "sie" and "wymin" to say that they never thought they could go to medical school because they always saw male pronouns used with "Dr.".
And don't get me started on blaming MEN for what WOMEN do to "impress" eachother. Anorexia is the fault of MEN? Please. Guys. Raise your hands. Mariyln Monroe or Twiggy. And women ... don't complain about men looking at attractive women unless you've never harbored a fantasy about Mel Gibson, Brad Pitt, Harrison Ford, etc.
>It's not the word, it's the attitude behind the word, and if changing the word >hurts, it makes me suspect that the attitude is being tweaked a bit.
No. The "sie" doesn't hurt. It tickles to the point of laughter. Use the feminine form instead of the masculine if you want to tweak. (That song "Counting Blue Cars" comes to mind as a prime example.)
>Honey contains some of the more potent anti-oxidants in its complex stew.
>And there use to be a joke that the active ingredient in chicken soup was >bubbamycin (a 'bubbamysa' - how ever you spell it - is the yiddish word for "old >wives' tale). It turns out chicken soup actually has a decongestant in it!
My ex-husband's mother was Jewish, and all the grand kids just called her 'bubbie'. One may also use 'bubaleh' to mean 'little grandmother, young child, your beloved, or anyone if you believe the movies.
'Bubbamycin' sounds more like a joke--Bubbie-mycin, as in erythromycin or streptomycin. Now, my knowledge of Yiddish is fairly basic,but I've never heard the word 'bubbamycin'.
Lizz 'I make my own chicken soup anyway--and it's good for what ails you' Holmans
>Lara wrote in message ... >:Not to mention honey for leg ulcers, and who knows >:how many "old wives' tales" (now analyse the gender attribution in >that >:saying) which are now being found to have roles in conventional >medicine.
Years ago, we were taught to treat decubiti with white sugar, Maalox, and a number of other screwy ideas.
We soon discovered that, for bed sores, you can put anything you like on it *except* the patient.
>Absolutely - even from the very first days of "scientific" medicine - >traditional willowbark tea for a fever/pain - voila! modern >pharmacology discovers salicylic compounds and therefore aspirin.
Loads o' plants have some medical use (digitalis from foxgloves, vincristine and vinblastine from the periwinkle family, and aloe vera juice does help my burns stop hurting. More research is needed-- unfortunately the UKoGBaNI *has no FDA*, so most drug testing is done by for-profit agencies like...oh, like...the drug companies themselves.
Lizz 'But we are rather hoping to have a written Constitution before long' Holmans -- Visit http://www.urbanlegends.com
In <ocS4lHAuOk72E...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> Lizz Holmans <di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> writes:
>Kevin D. Quitt <Ke...@Quitt.net> writes >>Honey contains some of the more potent anti-oxidants in its complex stew.
>>And there use to be a joke that the active ingredient in chicken soup was >>bubbamycin (a 'bubbamysa' - how ever you spell it - is the yiddish word for "old >>wives' tale). It turns out chicken soup actually has a decongestant in it!
>My ex-husband's mother was Jewish, and all the grand kids just called >her 'bubbie'. One may also use 'bubaleh' to mean 'little grandmother, >young child, your beloved, or anyone if you believe the movies. >'Bubbamycin' sounds more like a joke--Bubbie-mycin, as in erythromycin >or streptomycin. Now, my knowledge of Yiddish is fairly basic,but I've >never heard the word 'bubbamycin'.
A "bubbe-mayse" is an old wives' tail, roughly ("bubbe" = grandmother; "mayse" = story).
<di...@jackalope.demon.co.uk> wrote: >More research is needed-- >unfortunately the UKoGBaNI *has no FDA*, so most drug testing is done by >for-profit agencies like...oh, like...the drug companies themselves.
No, they contract it out to CRAs who set up an administer the trials, but recruit doctors to do the tests themselves, under the supervision of ethics committees. As far as I know, that's what's done in the USA as well.
Scott -- (please de-mung address if replying by email)
On Tue, 16 Mar 99 06:45:13 EST, kim...@aol.com wrote: >>>>You're making a leap to something which has nothing to do with >>>>non-gender-specific pronouns. Yes, unequal obstacles can be >>>>overcome. That doesn't mean that they're a good thing. >>>This is true. But I have seen far too many people blaming >>>things like non-gender-specific pronouns for their lack of >>>success >>Please give me an example of a person blaming only gender-specific >>pronouns for personal failure.
>What sort of cite do you want? Are you denying that people often >blame outside factors for things that are their own fault?
What part of "Please give me an example of a person blaming only gender-specific pronouns for personal failure" was unclear to you? You say that people blame things such as gender-specific pronouns for their personal failure. I say give me an example of that precise excuse. Even one. No waffling now.
>In fact, >it seems to be a basic tenent of the folks rallying for tortured >constructs like "sie" and "wymin" to say that they never thought >they could go to medical school because they always saw male >pronouns used with "Dr.".
Good, just send along a cite for ONLY the gender-specific pronoun use being the SOLE cause of the problem as you claim happens all the time. Or shut up.
[snip hopeless blathering to try to change the subject]
>>It's not the word, it's the attitude behind the word, and if changing the word >>hurts, it makes me suspect that the attitude is being tweaked a bit.
>No. The "sie" doesn't hurt. It tickles to the point of laughter.
Waitaiminnit. You said three posts ago, "I feel ridiculed by constructions like "sie". I view it as a condescending pat on the head." That doesn't sound like you're amused or unhurt. Don't you even know what you're feeling?
Do you just not like the non-gender-specific pronouns, or do you not like anyone discussing sexism in language at all? What is it about gender equality in language that makes you nervous?
>Use the feminine form instead of the masculine if you want to tweak.
Alternating masculine and feminine chapter by chapter or example by example is a reasonable way to use gender-specific pronouns. But the point is, if reserving using a feminine pronoun for "everyperson" is a tweak, then there's still a problem.
>(That song "Counting Blue Cars" comes to mind as a prime example.)
Actually, no it's not. It's not referring to a nonspecific person.
JoAnne "not even a person" Schmitz +-------------------------------------------+ | Search! Learn! Find references! Plotz! | | Visit my new Urban Legends Info Page at | | http://www.qis.net/~jschmitz/afu/ | +-------------------------------------------+
JoAnne Schmitz <jschm...@qis.net> wrote: >Alternating masculine and feminine chapter by chapter or example >by example is a reasonable way to use gender-specific pronouns. >But the point is, if reserving using a feminine pronoun for >"everyperson" is a tweak, then there's still a problem.
Fortunately, Finnish doesn't have gender at all. Not even distinct forms of "he" and "she".
-- ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@sonic.net) *********** * Daly City California: * * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula * ******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
>>>>>You're making a leap to something which has nothing to do with >>>>>non-gender-specific pronouns. Yes, unequal obstacles can be >>>>>overcome. That doesn't mean that they're a good thing. >>>>This is true. But I have seen far too many people blaming >>>>things like non-gender-specific pronouns for their lack of >>>>success >>>Please give me an example of a person blaming only gender-specific >>>pronouns for personal failure. >>What sort of cite do you want? Are you denying that people often >>blame outside factors for things that are their own fault? >What part of"Please give me an example of a person blaming only gender-specifi c >pronouns for personal failure" was unclear to you? You say that people blame >things such as gender-specific pronouns for their personal failure.
And who ever said it was the ONLY factor? Notice I keep using the phrases "thingS like non-gender-specific pronouns" ... "outside factorS". See that little squiggle at the end of the word? That, quite frequently in English, means plural not singular.
>Good,just send along a cite for ONLY the gender-specific pronoun use being the >SOLE cause of the problem as you claim happens all the time. Or shut up.
I suspect you are the only person who thinks that there IS a sole cause. I am merely contending that gender specific pronouns are one of the weaker excuseS. Note that squiggle again.
>>No. The "sie" doesn't hurt. It tickles to the point of laughter. >Waitaiminnit. You said three posts ago, "I feel ridiculed by constructions
Yes. Ridiculed. Laughed at. Demeaned. It makes the whole idea look silly. It cheapens the concept to the point of having the opposite effect from what I can only assume was intended.
>>(That song "Counting Blue Cars" comes to mind as a prime example.) >Actually, no it's not. It's not referring to a nonspecific person.
Yes. As feminine instead of masculine. And it makes people notice the use of feminine pronoun for a supposedly non-genedered concept because it is slightly jarring at first.
Using masculine pronouns for diety is supposed to be one of the BIG bug-a-boos isn't it? Using the feminine points it out quite strongly, doesn't it?
-- Kim (REALLY tired of people defining themselves by what is beteen their legs.)
and the people contributing to it haven't read the FAQs for all of the groups they're posting to. I'm yet to see any posts to this thread which are on-charter both for sci.skeptic and rec.food.cooking.
Please, if you follow-up to this thread, post only to the group(s) you read.
Simon. -- No junk email please. | What a story ! <http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk> | I can't wait to embellish it. | -- Elaine from _Ally McBeal_
In article <7cmnf8$kr...@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, Jonathan P. Papai <PA...@er6.eng.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>I am kind of new to this usenet thing.
>colud someoen tell me if this got out to the internet?
You pressed "S"
-- ********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatu...@sonic.net) *********** * Daly City California: * * where San Francisco meets The Peninsula * ******* and the San Andreas Fault meets the Sea *******
kim...@aol.com wrote: >> Where do you live, that they have such conventions? If a person (male >> OR female) has chosen a job that's dangerous or that they hate, it's hardly >> fair to blame some spurious "convention" for their lack of appropriate >> career planning. > Where do YOU live, and does your circle of acquaintences include any > significant number of blue collar workers?
Several, yes. However, the person I was replying to had made this statement:
>> the current convention is for a man to work in the most dangerous >> jobs or a job they hate in order to support a family.
If he had said the current convention was that the man would provide the majority of the family income, or something similar to that, I probably wouldn't have found it as questionable. But I am not familiar with any convention that says men must provide their share of the family income by working in jobs that are dangerous or hateful to them.
> Why is "man is the breadwinner" a spurious convention > when "woman in the home-maker" isn't?
Umm. Why would you think I had said that or thought that?
> >> I know three types of women: some who stay home with the kids, some > >> who work part time and some who work full time. I know one type of > >> male, one who works full time. >> (shrug) Maybe you need a wider circle of male friends. I don't personally >> know any dads who stay home full time ... > But HE needs a wider circle of friends? Seems you don't have any > personal experience with counter-examples either.
Did you read the rest of my paragraph? If so, you would have seen that I do indeed know some counter-examples, since I said I knew several dads who are working part-time.
>> but on the other hand, I can only >> think of a handful of moms who do. > But still, you know some. And I bet you know more who would *like* > be be full time moms.
By "full time" I assume you mean those who stay at home full time? I probably do. And some of the working dads I know would likely also prefer to stay at home full time with their kids. But since we were discussing people who *do* stay at home, not those who *want* to, I don't see how what they would *prefer* to be doing is relevant in either case.
> The choice is held, rightfully, in very high esteem.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Sorry.
>> PARENTS have responsibilities. Men's AND women's roles have changed. >> If you think otherwise, you have your head buried in the sand. > Women have more options. This is good. Men's options have not > changed that much. That is NOT good.
(shrug) I don't think there's any way of measuring something like "options" or how much they have changed, so I guess this particular item will always be subject to debate, since it depends so much on personal opinion.
> >> we still have "conventions," women have choices. >> This sounds like your opinion. Mine is quite different. > Lots of people want to play "I'm more oppressed then you".
That's probably true, but I don't see how it fits in with the comment above, about how men have "conventions" and women have "choices". I disagreed with that statement. It had nothing to do with anyone being more oppressed than anyone else.
> >> The use of masculine pronouns when refering to criminals, bums ("bum" is > >> basically a male only label), drug addicts is so ingrained in our language > >> that you completely ignore these phrases. >> So are you claiming that we should *not* use the male pronoun for such >> references? > That is exactly what he is claiming. What, only men can be shiftless > and lazy? Only men can have negative traits? If you want to play > pronoun police, do it across the board.
But he's the one who said it was acceptable to use the male pronoun when referring to doctors. I was simply questioning why his beliefs on the acceptability of male pronouns apparently cover positive images but not negative.
> Quick ... get an image of a > male and a female homeless person in your mind. One is "lazy" the > other a "victim of circumstance" ... at least in popular opinion.
Maybe that's how it is in popular opinion, I don't know. I do know that's not how it is in my own personal opinion. Am I so different from the majority?
>> If so, then how can you claim that it *is* appropriate to use >> the male pronoun when referring to doctors, when the percentage of female >> doctors is much higher than the percentage of female criminals? > He *isn't*. He's saying that it should go both ways.
That's not how I interpreted his remarks. It had been pointed out to him that it's inappropriate to use the male pronoun to refer to a profession such as doctors. He apparently feels that it *is* appropriate to use "he" and "him" to mean "doctors", and yet he turns around and complains that the male pronoun is being used for some negative generic cases. It seems to me that rather than saying it should go both ways, he was saying that it's OK to use the male pronoun for positive but not negative.
>> I might say the same thing about the continual barrage of "news" items >> about fathers who are considered noteworthy and exceptional because they >> do such things as packing school lunches for their children or taking >> time out of their day to attend teacher conferences. This type of inclusion, >> also, works both ways. > You really don't see how stereotyping cuts both ways, do you?
Um, yes, actually, I do. That was my point. He's saying we shouldn't make a big deal about the number of women who do things like serve in the military and die in combat, so I was saying that it's equally senseless (or equally appropriate; you could look at it either way) to make a big deal about the number of men who do traditional nurturing and caretaking tasks.
> We should laud women who defy the norm, but ignore men who do?
As above, I don't see why you think I was saying that. I was saying, if we should ignore women who defy the norm, we should similarly ignore the men who do.
nancy "I thought I was being clear enough, but apparently not" g.
Chris W. wrote: > As much as I hate joining in this thread, as it appears mostly to be a > political battle of the sexes rather than being of UL status, I'd just > like to throw my two cents in before I dish the thread completely.
(snip)
> It's also my opinion that this thread has gone dangerously close to > being a personal battle with personal feelings entering into it.
I agree, which is why this is my last post in this thread.
> Perhaps some of the references should better be argued with actual > *cites* (like such and such percentage men are raising their kids as > single parents) rather than with what a person perceives as is happening > in *their* world.
Before I got completely overwhelmed by the volume of data out there and gave up, I had been attempting to track down some of those actual figures and percentages.
Here's the closest I got to a source of useful statistics, if anyone else is interested and might want to use this as their jumping-off point (whether for further posts to this thread, or perhaps to settle other disputes, or simply to gain an awareness of what the actual facts are):
nancy "former full-time stay-at-home mom, currently a single mom who's unemployed (although not by choice) and about to be married to a guy who's a single dad with full custody, so that would make me a statistical anomaly on a whole *lot* of counts, in case anyone's keeping track here" g.
On Wed, 17 Mar 99 07:10:52 EST, kim...@aol.com missed several points:
>>I guess it's just your insistence that people sto p >>picking on that one small silly stupid thing, gender-specific pronouns, that >>made me think you were talking about that as an example of a sole reason given >>by someone as to why that someone has failed.
>Although *I* think gender-specific pronouns are a small, silly, stupid thing >to get worked up about, the number of tortured attempts to dance around them >indicates to me that they some people feel differently.
Give us the examples where only small piddly sexist things are used to excuse failure. Specific examples, not "they all do it." I tire of asking you this.
>>But that's what you were claiming of these credulous ninnies, that they blame >>some stupid small cause like gender-specific pronouns for all their problems, >>all their failures. I'm the one asking for an example of what you claimed >>happens all the time. If you find it necessary to tie in other small silly >>pointless causes with the pronouns, go to it. But bring back the goods.
>OK. How much time to you see wasted HERE arguing for "sie" etc. >You don't think all the huffing about "can't use they because it's plural" >is a bit much? How about all that talk about women feeling *excluded* >because of gender-specific pronouns within the last few days in THIS >thread.People HERE are claiming that, woe is me, women are "excluded" >because of masculine pronouns.
None of this is a cite, just you braying about something you don't agree with.
>>You were saying that too often, people don't blame their real weaknesses, they >>blame silly little things like pronouns.
>Silly things like little girls wearig pink or playing with dolls.
Girls wearing pink, I agree, so what.
Girls playing with dolls, and boys playing with trucks? You don't think there's anything about that that encourages certain roles?
>"Patriarchy" ranting, when it's things women do to/for themselves. >Seen it all used as an excuse. Just open some of the so-called-feminist >literature and just SEE how much blame laying there is. None of it is >OUR fault though, is it?
If you're so familiar with it, then give us a quote, again, that claims that only the "little things" are the cause of some particular person's failure.
The only little things causing failure here are the little cites that you can't find, causing your failure in proving your oft-fled-from original claim.
>>So you feel tickled to the point of laughter by ridicule of you?
>Tickled was the best word I could come up with at that moment. >Ridiculed is perhaps closer, but still not quite what I want to say. >Not my laughter, but the laughter of the general population regarding >the problem. Over-intellectualizing demeans the concept and making it >a joke.
You're still mixing two concepts -- people laughing at you, and you laughing at people. You are laughing at the stupid concept, hence you are demeaned? I think you should just give up trying to reconcile these two concepts before your brain explodes.
>>I think I see you losing ground again. When did language get to be >>so powerful for you that "sie" demeans you?
>About the same time "male" gender-specific pronouns became powerful >enough to "demean" you. >If it is OK fo you to feel demeaned and excluded by gender-specific >why is it suddenly not OK for me to feel I'm being condescended to >with cutsey little constructions like "sie"? It sounds like you're >talking baby talk to an infant or a cat.
What if it were a nice sounding word? Demeaning the concept by saying it sounds funny is pretty weak.
>My reaction is less valid >then yours? You are allowed to be annoyed and I am not?
No. What I'm trying to get across to you is that you're saying you are allowed to be annoyed and I am not. Now do you get it?
JoAnne "think before posting again, Kimbis" Schmitz +-------------------------------------------+ | Search! Learn! Find references! Plotz! | | Visit my new Urban Legends Info Page at | | http://www.qis.net/~jschmitz/afu/ | +-------------------------------------------+
On Wed, 17 Mar 99 10:16:51 EST, kim...@aol.com wrote:
[fulltime moms]
>But still, you know some. And I bet you know more who would *like* >be be full time moms.The choice is held, rightfully, in very high >esteem. Now, how does general society view a full time, stay at >home dad? They are the target of unfair scorn, ridicule or excessive >sympathy.
They should "get over it," shouldn't they, as society's point of view is not a good excuse. Isn't that your opinion?
By the way, I know two fulltime dads. That's pretty good odds considering that most people I know I know from work, and obviously they're not going to meet me at work because they aren't working where I work.
>>> The use of masculine pronouns when refering to criminals, bums ("bum" is >>> basically a male only label), drug addicts is so ingrained in our language >>> that you completely ignore these phrases. >>So are you claiming that we should *not* use the male pronoun for such >>references?
>That is exactly what he is claiming. What, only men can be shiftless >and lazy? Only men can have negative traits? If you want to play >pronoun police, do it across the board. Quick ... get an image of a >male and a female homeless person in your mind. One is "lazy" the >other a "victim of circumstance" ... at least in popular opinion.
Again, if you bow to public opinion, you're stupid and by counting all that as important you're playing the "who's more oppressed" game. According to you.
JoAnne "still waiting for those examples" Schmitz +-------------------------------------------+ | Search! Learn! Find references! Plotz! | | Visit my new Urban Legends Info Page at | | http://www.qis.net/~jschmitz/afu/ | +-------------------------------------------+
In <ofQH2.780$Eo5.1...@newsr2.twcny.rr.com> David Lentz <dlent...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> writes:
>The Rochester "Democrat and Chronicle" published an excellent >essay, of which I do not have an electronic copy, which touched >upon perceptions in speech. I quote the author, Timothy J. >Johnson: > If, however a word is legitmately used and validly applied, >albeit inexpediently employed, and that word leads to outrage >because of an uninformed audience, then the problem lies with the >listener, not the speak.
I guess the question there is whether referring to women as "he" is legitimate use and valid application.
I am curious, however, if this was in response to the "niggardly" flap.
Well that answers who is trolling. when I was warned I was crossposting, I stopped replying to this thread - this post is to AFU only, and it has been a while since i posted at all, but Dana, the masseuse who "is learning nutrition" is STILL arguing with me - even if she has to go back to earlier posts which she has objected to before!! I wonder how long she will keep it up.
> > > > AND you STILL haven't given us the information on Setvia which would be > > > > on a package of sugar. FINALLY, someone has sent me some information > > > > privately. according to one importer, THEIR Stevia is pure and is an > > > > nondigestable sugar (makes sense, but will cause digestive and/or dental > > > > problems in some people) they go on to brag that, UNLIKE THEIR > > > > COMPETITORS, THEIR Stevia does not contain Maltrose or Dextrose. If you > > > > are diabetic you do NOT go near either of those sugars.
> > > The stevia I purchase is the pure herb, There are no instructions on > > > its use on the package. I purchase it the same place (Frontier Natural > > > Products Co-op) where I purchase my black pepper (with no instructions), > > > my cinnamon (with no instructions), my sea salt (with no instructions). > > > I have had no recognizable (to me) digestive or dental problems with > > > it's use. Actually I have no digestive or dental problems. I am not > > > diabetic. And my heart flip-flops have never reoccured since the last > > > in hospital episode with aspertame being given in a dessert.
> > Why don't you just grow the stuff instead of spending fortunes on processed > > herb which may or may not be/do what it says it is/does?
> Can't speak for JonquilJan, but I would have no idea where to get the seed, and > am not at all sure that a shrub from Paraguay would do well in the American > Midwest -- about the same reasons I don't grow my own pepper, cinnamon, or > nutmeg. Do have sage, lemon balm, oregano all growing, and parsley and cilantro > seedlings coming along...
>But he's the one who said it was acceptable to use the male pronoun >when referring to doctors. I was simply questioning why his beliefs >on the acceptability of male pronouns apparently cover positive images >but not negative.
No I didn't. No big deal, sometimes it easy to mix up who said what, but I never said this.
<snip>
>That's not how I interpreted his remarks. It had been pointed out to >him that it's inappropriate to use the male pronoun to refer to a >profession such as doctors. He apparently feels that it *is* >appropriate to use "he" and "him" to mean "doctors", and yet he turns >around and complains that the male pronoun is being used for some >negative generic cases.
Cut it out, yer making me mad. I never said anything of the sort, you are confused. The entire point of my post is that if you eliminate the masculine pronouns that are applied in a positive manner, when refering to doctors, you must also eliminate the negative aspects, as when discusses sex offenders.
>It seems to me that rather than saying it >should go both ways, he was saying that it's OK to use the male pronoun >for positive but not negative.
No, I didn't.
>Um, yes, actually, I do. That was my point. He's saying we shouldn't >make a big deal about the number of women who do things like serve in >the military and die in combat, so I was saying that it's equally >senseless (or equally appropriate; you could look at it either way) to >make a big deal about the number of men who do traditional nurturing >and caretaking tasks.
Once again you are missing my point. What I am saying is that men and women should be treated equally in *ALL* cases not simply including women in a group that accomplishes something positive (the Apollo missions) even though their contribution is less than the males, but not including them when talking about deadbeat dads, when many women are deadbeats as well. If you are going to say "The brave men and women who died in Vietnam" when the percentage of women who died was 0.01% of the total you must say "the men and women who suffer from breast cancer" because the percentage of males who have the disease is 1.0%.
If you are going to root out all the gender-based pronouns, fine, I support you, but don't do a half-assed job, eliminate the stereotypes across the board not only when it is considered detrimental to females.
> In <ofQH2.780$Eo5.1...@newsr2.twcny.rr.com> David Lentz <dlent...@rochester.rr.com//NOSPAM//> writes:
> >The Rochester "Democrat and Chronicle" published an excellent > >essay, of which I do not have an electronic copy, which touched > >upon perceptions in speech. I quote the author, Timothy J. > >Johnson:
> > If, however a word is legitmately used and validly applied, > >albeit inexpediently employed, and that word leads to outrage > >because of an uninformed audience, then the problem lies with the > >listener, not the speak.
> I guess the question there is whether referring to women as "he" is > legitimate use and valid application.
> I am curious, however, if this was in response to the "niggardly" flap.
And the Lady wins a prize!
I confess that the article did directly address the question of niggardly. and for that matter did not address the non-gendered 'he'.
I did provide a quote, back the thread somewhere, from "The Elements of Style" citing the use of non-gendered he as a legitimate convention.
To add to Johnson's essay:
In the situations previously mentioned, we have a vocabulary crisis, whereby our society is losing its ability to shade, nuance and particularize its thoughts.
|
