New: Zodiac fleet (free, open-ended, email, human, space)
Greg Lindahl
Costs: free
URL: http://members.lycos.co.uk/zodiacfleet
Frequency: at least once every two weeks
Email: t_...@gmx.net
Type: Star Trek pbem RPG
Last-Update: 2002Nov05
Keywords: free, open-ended, email, human, space
Description:
For over 300 years Starfleet’s mission has been to explore the final
frontier and seek out new life, however in recent years this mandate has
not been fulfilled, wars with the Klingons and the Dominion Alliance have
left the Federation and her allies in a weakened state, with resources
stretched so thin, the final frontier has been left unexplored.
Now that is about to change, Starfleet Command have set up a new fleet
called Zodiac, its mission; to resume the Federation’s dream of peaceful
exploration throughout the galaxy to boldly go where no one has gone
before.
Zodiac Fleet is a star trek game where players take on the role of a
Starfleet Officer. The players then write posts to the other players via
e-mail, which build off from previous posts by players to create
mini-stories, or episodes, in the lives of the characters on each ship.
Currenly we have one ship operational, with most department positions
open. Experienced or new, anyone with an interest in star trek is welcome
to join us and help us shape the site. All you need is a good imagination
and about an hour a week to participate. Our main goal is to have fun, and
to write good stories, living the dream of Star Trek.
[ This is a new entry for the PBM List. You can find the list
itself, and instructions for adding games or comments, at
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/pbm_list/ -- greg ]
Carol Mulholland
I'm saddened to see "no man" replaced by "no one" here.
"No one" weakens the stress of the sentence, and insults
all the intelligent lifeforms that we know the storylines will
place out there.
Mainly, though, the English language is damaged if through
mistaken political correctness we can't use "man" to mean the
whole of humanity.
Carol
DJ
fair bit of time discussing the myth of gender neutral terms. How most
every role in society carries with it a stereotype that is either masculine
or feminine. And how a large number of the other languages in western
civilization use terms like the french "le" or "la" before nouns to actively
assign gender to them.
I agree that the sentence does sound less forceful with "one" instead of
"man" but the concept of Where No Man Has Gone Before does have decidedly
male overtones to it.
Just my two bits,
DJ Bostock
http://www.flouric.com
Carol Mulholland <ca...@flagship-pbm.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VA.00002c3f.005e62d9@oemcomputer...
Carol Mulholland
> That's a rather interesting point. A women's studies class of mine spent a
> fair bit of time discussing the myth of gender neutral terms. How most
> every role in society carries with it a stereotype that is either masculine
> or feminine. And how a large number of the other languages in western
> civilization use terms like the french "le" or "la" before nouns to actively
> assign gender to them.
Ah, this is something that I feel strongly about. So strongly that I'm not
sure that I can express my views politely.
I was eductated in a girls' school and a women's college, but I'm ancient
enough to find the concept of women's studies insulting. I despise an approach
which results in weak writers like Afra Behn being taught on university courses
in preference to glorious ones like Milton.
I'm surprised that the class didn't realise that grammatical gender is
a-sexual. I can see that it's easy to encourage a class to believe in 'the myth
of gender neutral terms', but this seems mistaken to me, sigh. Western
languages are mostly based on Latin, with its 3 grammatical genders, but it was
early grammarians (Greek, I think) who decided that the 3 classes should be
called masculine, feminine and neutral - the 3 classes existed first, before
they were called genders.
> I agree that the sentence does sound less forceful with "one" instead of
> "man" but the concept of Where No Man Has Gone Before does have decidedly
> male overtones to it.
Only for people who have been unduly influenced by cloth-eared feminists with
trade-unionist souls. It would be good to rescue our language from them, but
maybe it's too late.
Besides, Where No Man has Gone Before is a quotation, so shouldn't be mucked
about with except for the purposes of parody.
Ah, parody - maybe that's what the game's about?
Carol
Enno Rehling
mucked
> about with except for the purposes of parody.
The origin of that sentence has a funny history. It isn't from Star Trek
originally, but from "Introduction to Outer Space", a report made under the
Eisenhower administration back in 1958. The original sentence is "to go
where no one has gone before". Star Trek added "boldly" and changed "one" to
"man". But then again, Star Trek had to keep the Klingons, Vulcans and
Romulans in mind (they'd already been to a lot of those places where man had
not been), while they probably had little to no influence in choosing the
wording for the 1958 report.
Then again, this was *after* Roswell...
Enno.
Greg Lindahl
Enno Rehling <en...@despammed.com> wrote:
> Star Trek added "boldly" and changed "one" to
> "man".
Only in Star Trek (the original series). Star Trek New Generation
changed "man" to "one", and kept the split infinitive.
greg
David desJardins
> I'm surprised that the class didn't realise that grammatical gender is
> a-sexual. I can see that it's easy to encourage a class to believe in
> 'the myth of gender neutral terms', but this seems mistaken to me,
> sigh. Western languages are mostly based on Latin, with its 3
> grammatical genders, but it was early grammarians (Greek, I think) who
> decided that the 3 classes should be called masculine, feminine and
> neutral - the 3 classes existed first, before they were called
> genders.
Let me get this straight. Your assertion is that the Greek and Roman
civilizations were free of sexism, so that anything that was introduced
thousands of years ago must necessarily be gender neutral?
I'd question your grasp of history, if that's what you think.
David desJardins
Carol Mulholland
> The original sentence is "to go where no one has gone before". Star Trek
> added "boldly" and changed "one" to "man".
A considerable improvement. Pity they didn't put "boldly" first, but hey
we're used to it now.
Carol
Carol Mulholland
> Only in Star Trek (the original series). Star Trek New Generation
> changed "man" to "one", and kept the split infinitive.
It'd be a shame to drop such a famous split infinitive, but gosh I'm
surprised the Klingons didn't object to "one" - Carol
Carol Mulholland
> Let me get this straight. Your assertion is that the Greek and Roman
> civilizations were free of sexism, so that anything that was introduced
> thousands of years ago must necessarily be gender neutral?
>
> I'd question your grasp of history, if that's what you think.
Nice to hear from you, David. Maybe I wasn't clear, sorry. I'm saying
that the groups into which Greek/Latin nouns fall weren't created because
their speakers believed everything was male/female/neuter. There just
happened to be 3 groups. When later Gk philosophers tried to understand
their own language (thus inventing the concept of grammar), they decided
to call the groups masculine/feminine/neutral: maybe they should have
chosen alpha, beta, gamma, but hey, they were only philosophers...
Sorry, my fault, this is way off-topic. I just think we'd be better off
keeping words like "Man" and "Mankind". Think of what we're losing - "Of
one's first disobedience..."; "The proper study of onekind is one....";
"A one's a one for a' that..."
Carol
David desJardins
> Nice to hear from you, David. Maybe I wasn't clear, sorry. I'm saying
> that the groups into which Greek/Latin nouns fall weren't created because
> their speakers believed everything was male/female/neuter. There just
> happened to be 3 groups. When later Gk philosophers tried to understand
> their own language (thus inventing the concept of grammar), they decided
> to call the groups masculine/feminine/neutral: maybe they should have
> chosen alpha, beta, gamma, but hey, they were only philosophers...
This seems a huge exaggeration. Certainly I will agree that there are
many nouns which simply have to be assigned one gender or another, and
those genders are essentially arbitrary, and don't necessarily carry
"male" or "female" connotations. On the other hand, there are also a
whole lot of words---male pronouns, the words for male people, male
animals, male occupations---that are all masculine, and another large
set of words---female pronouns, words for female people, female animals,
female occupations---that are all feminine. It's not just an incredible
coincidence that the "male" words have the masculine gender and the
"female" words have the feminine gender. It seems unreasonable to
believe that before some time, people spoke fluent Greek and never
happened to notice that there was one set of pronouns that was used for
male people and also for a whole bunch of other words, and another set
of pronouns that was used for female people and also for a whole bunch
of other words, or that there was no connection in their mind at all
between the genders of words and the corresponding genders of people.
> Sorry, my fault, this is way off-topic. I just think we'd be better
> off keeping words like "Man" and "Mankind". Think of what we're losing
> - "Of one's first disobedience..."; "The proper study of onekind is
> one...."; "A one's a one for a' that..."
I don't think "onekind" is a serious alternative: "humanity" or
"humankind" are the terms one might seriously consider.
But personally, I think "mankind" is ok, although I can see how people
can feel otherwise. But the reason that "mankind" is different from
"man" is that "mankind" doesn't have the problem of dual usage: it's not
commonly used to refer to "all male humans" while excluding women, so
there isn't the ambiguity as to whether the speaker means to include
women or not, or whether (as is sometimes the case and is what leads to
concerns about sexism) the speaker means to include women in practice
but not in theory.
The core problem with "man" in phrases like "where no man has gone
before" is that it really is textually ambiguous as to whether the
speaker is including women with men, or not. You can assert that you
always do know, but (1) I think you're wrong; (2) I think what you
"know" may not be what some other listener "knows"; and (3) the
ambiguity is a problem even if it can be successfully disambiguated in
every particular case, because the ambiguity can create an implication
in people's minds even if it's different from the accepted "real"
meaning.
David desJardins
MadCentral
Borg would object to "one" since it suggests individuality. <snigger>
Steve T.
Carol Mulholland
> This seems a huge exaggeration. Certainly I will agree that there are
> many nouns which simply have to be assigned one gender or another, and
> those genders are essentially arbitrary, and don't necessarily carry
> "male" or "female" connotations. On the other hand, there are also a
> whole lot of words---male pronouns, the words for male people, male
> animals, male occupations---that are all masculine, and another large
> set of words---female pronouns, words for female people, female animals,
> female occupations---that are all feminine. It's not just an incredible
> coincidence that the "male" words have the masculine gender and the
> "female" words have the feminine gender. It seems unreasonable to
> believe that before some time, people spoke fluent Greek and never
> happened to notice that there was one set of pronouns that was used for
> male people and also for a whole bunch of other words, and another set
> of pronouns that was used for female people and also for a whole bunch
> of other words, or that there was no connection in their mind at all
> between the genders of words and the corresponding genders of people.
I'll try to keep my exaggerations small in future ;) Sure it seems
logical to have separate grammatical genders for male/female
people/animals, but that's no reason why eg "table" should have a female
gender. And why a neuter gender? or why not use the neuter gender for
everything that isn't obviously male or female? I've heard that there's
an African language with 13 grammatical genders. It's certainly easier
to learn Latin if you believe that grammatical gender is a-sexual.
> I don't think "onekind" is a serious alternative: "humanity" or
> "humankind" are the terms one might seriously consider.
I've never forgotten a TV series with a US presenter, where "humanity"
was pronounced "yoomanity" throughout, which didn't do much for
international understanding.
Seriously, "Humanity" and "humankind" simply don't sound as forceful as
"Man" and "Mankind". Our language risks suffering a loss.
> But personally, I think "mankind" is ok, although I can see how people
> can feel otherwise. But the reason that "mankind" is different from
> "man" is that "mankind" doesn't have the problem of dual usage: it's not
> commonly used to refer to "all male humans" while excluding women, so
> there isn't the ambiguity as to whether the speaker means to include
> women or not, or whether (as is sometimes the case and is what leads to
> concerns about sexism) the speaker means to include women in practice
> but not in theory.
Ah, now I like ambiguity - it gives room for all sorts of manoeuvering.
We're not talking mathematics here, or legalese, but everyday speech where
approximation can work better than exactitude. Ambiguity is a Good Thing.
> The core problem with "man" in phrases like "where no man has gone
> before" is that it really is textually ambiguous as to whether the
> speaker is including women with men, or not. You can assert that you
> always do know, but (1) I think you're wrong; (2) I think what you
> "know" may not be what some other listener "knows"; and (3) the
> ambiguity is a problem even if it can be successfully disambiguated in
> every particular case, because the ambiguity can create an implication
> in people's minds even if it's different from the accepted "real"
> meaning.
I think that it's essential to be inclusive. If "Man" can be read as a
word for all human beings, that's good. So let's stick with it instead of
fussing about whether it specifically means us or not.
Carol
Rick C
> You know, even using "one" instead of "man" doesn't work because surely
the
> Borg would object to "one" since it suggests individuality. <snigger>
You guys are just *so* *mean* to the poor Trekkies!
:)
David desJardins
> Seriously, "Humanity" and "humankind" simply don't sound as forceful as
> "Man" and "Mankind". Our language risks suffering a loss.
The question is which is more important: the fact that the language
encourages and enables sex discrimination, or the fact that the language
is "forceful". Different people can have different opinions about the
priority of those two things.
David desJardins
Carol Mulholland
> The question is which is more important: the fact that the language
> encourages and enables sex discrimination, or the fact that the language
> is "forceful". Different people can have different opinions about the
> priority of those two things.
I don't agree that it's a fact that English encourages and enables sex
discrimination. Accepting that people are of different sexes doesn't
automatically result in discrimination. Heavens, English doesn't even
retain grammatical gender.
What did cause sex discrimination wasn't the English language, but
the absence of effective contraception.
Carol
Old Dead Eye
"MadCentral" <madce...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021109224117...@mb-mu.aol.com...
I wouldn't object to giving Seven of Nine 'one'.
--
Old Dead Eye
"You pervert, just look at gay porn like the rest of us." Blue Raja
Paul Walker
> The question is which is more important: the fact that the language
> encourages and enables sex discrimination, or the fact that the language
> is "forceful". Different people can have different opinions about the
You're starting from an assumption that not everyone will agree with,
though. Calling the species "mankind" isn't implying that it's restricted to
males. Do you think that bulls get upset at their species being known as
cows, for example? What would you campaign for them to be renamed to? :-)
--
Paul
I'd rather chew my leg off than maintain Java code, which sucks, 'cause I
have a lot of Java code to maintain and the leg surgery is starting to get
expensive. -- Joseph Knapka
David desJardins
>> The question is which is more important: the fact that the language
>> encourages and enables sex discrimination, or the fact that the language
>> is "forceful". Different people can have different opinions about the
>> priority of those two things.
>
> I don't agree that it's a fact that English encourages and enables sex
> discrimination.
Sorry, that isn't what I meant to say. I meant "fact" in the sense of
definition 3c of my American Heritage Dictionary of the English
Language, Fourth Edition, "Something believed to be true or real." But
obviously that didn't come out clearly, so strike what I wrote before.
What I meant to say is this: I believe that using "man" in some contexts
for all humankind, and in other contexts for only males, does encourage
and enable sex discrimination. And to me that's more important than
worrying about whether there are sufficiently "forceful" terms in the
language. I find I don't have much trouble being "forceful" with any
available set of words.
David desJardins
Anders Carlsson
> I wouldn't object to giving Seven of Nine 'one'.
On a scale 1-10 or what? (Am-I-hot-or-what-by-mail)
--
Anders Carlsson
MadCentral
encourages and enables sex discrimination, or the fact that the language
is "forceful". Different people can have different opinions about the
priority of those two things.<<
The language does not encourage or enable sex discrimination. Words can have
two meanings.
The use of "Man" as a word to encompass the human race is not the same as the
use of "man" to talk about a guy. It's a different meaning of the same word.
If this causes some people to think that the word implies sexism then that's
their own ignorance and poor understanding of the workings of the English
language.
"Man" with this usage is no more a sexist term than calling a carnival tableau
"gay" is a reference to homosexuality. (Apologies in advance to any homosexual
clowns, bearded "ladies" or lion tamers who are reading.)
Steve T.
MadCentral
for all humankind, and in other contexts for only males, does encourage
and enable sex discrimination. <<
Its a very nice sentiment, but equally a very annoying one. The word means
what the word means. It is patently NOT sexist. If it is somehow construed as
sexist, then the people who are incorrectly interpreting it are the ones at
fault. This is not a good reason to change the usage of a word.
The endless parade of "political correctness" which is, IMHO, making a mockery
of most of the Western world, is incredibly tiresome and mostly the result of
bored middle-class people with nothing better to do. It achieves nothing,
simply putting a pretty gloss over a deeper problem and pretending its gone
away.
If people want to stop using the word Golliwog because they think its racist
then thats fine by me, but it'll always be a golliwog to me. I'm not racist,
nor have I ever been racist, and I do not accept that I should stop using a
word I grew up with because it has some connotation to something that happened
before I was born to people who are mostly now dead. Nor do I accept any
implied responsibility to something some other folk, who happened to have the
same colour skin as I do, did before I was conceived to some other folk who did
not have the same skin colour as I do.
Equally, if people want to say humankind instead of mankind, or postal delivery
agent instead of postman, or Actor instead of actress then that's their
privelige. Not me, though. Personally, I prefer to think of racism, sexism
and any other form of mindless bigotry, as something that happens as a result
of deliberate ignorance, rather than because of the misuse of a few words
common to the language we speak. I'll make my stand with my actions and
motivations, not by bastardizing my language in the false pretence that this
somehow makes everything okay.
Steve T.
<climbs down and waits for the torrent of abuse> : )
MadCentral
Just dont give her two. She already has a nice pair. (Oh dear, im in trouble
now.)
Steve T.
Rick C
(anyone who shouldn't be looking at this kind of stuff at work or whatever,
don't.)
http://users.pandora.be/p0p0/Miss%20Tchernobil%202002.jpg
David desJardins
>> What I meant to say is this: I believe that using "man" in some contexts
>> for all humankind, and in other contexts for only males, does encourage
>> and enable sex discrimination.
>
> Its a very nice sentiment, but equally a very annoying one. The word
> means what the word means. It is patently NOT sexist. If it is
> somehow construed as sexist, then the people who are incorrectly
> interpreting it are the ones at fault. This is not a good reason to
> change the usage of a word.
I don't think the concept of "fault" is useful or relevant: there is
just cause and effect. Furthermore, I can't change all of the people in
the world, to whom you want to assign "fault". (The people who are
influenced by this sort of language to discriminate in sexist ways which
I think they otherwise would not.) I can, however, change the language
that I use. It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.
David desJardins
Carol Mulholland
> Sorry, that isn't what I meant to say. I meant "fact" in the sense of
> definition 3c of my American Heritage Dictionary of the English
> Language, Fourth Edition, "Something believed to be true or real." But
> obviously that didn't come out clearly, so strike what I wrote before.
Don't worry, we've all had weekends like that.
I like to see a dictionary citation, but of course (as definitions 1 & 2
& 3a-b probably show) we don't usually define 'opinion' or 'belief' as
'fact'. Maybe it'll be helpful to consider instead how a dictionary works.
Words don't always have a single intrinsic meaning: dictionary-makers have
to work out what a word means from how it's used. Context is what matters -
and that's a point which seems relevant to this discussion.
> What I meant to say is this: I believe that using "man" in some contexts
> for all humankind, and in other contexts for only males, does encourage
> and enable sex discrimination. And to me that's more important than
> worrying about whether there are sufficiently "forceful" terms in the
> language. I find I don't have much trouble being "forceful" with any
> available set of words.
I think that you're mistaken and that you're exaggerating the level of sex
discrimination in English-speaking countries. I find it offensive to be
excluded from "man" and "mankind" when they're used as general terms.
Why reject any chance to be inclusive?
There are problems enough in life, without inventing more - Carol
David desJardins
> I think that you're mistaken and that you're exaggerating the level of
> sex discrimination in English-speaking countries.
Well, I live in one and I can see it for myself. Between believing your
opinion or my own observation, I've got to go with my observation.
> I find it offensive to be excluded from "man" and "mankind" when
> they're used as general terms. Why reject any chance to be inclusive?
I'm not sure what your point is here; you don't seem to be responding to
anything that I said. I don't think "humanity" or "mankind" is less
"inclusive" than the corresponding usage of "man".
David desJardins
Carol Mulholland
> The endless parade of "political correctness" which is, IMHO, making a mockery
> of most of the Western world, is incredibly tiresome and mostly the result of
> bored middle-class people with nothing better to do. It achieves nothing,
> simply putting a pretty gloss over a deeper problem and pretending its gone
> away.
I dunno, Steve, it's provided employment opportunities for teachers of women's
studies and suchlike. I don't expect everyone to agree with me that they'd be
better employed studying Milton...
Carol
Carol Mulholland
> I don't think the concept of "fault" is useful or relevant: there is
> just cause and effect. Furthermore, I can't change all of the people in
> the world, to whom you want to assign "fault". (The people who are
> influenced by this sort of language to discriminate in sexist ways which
> I think they otherwise would not.) I can, however, change the language
> that I use. It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
> better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.
But Steve said "at fault". This means "puzzled, at a loss", rather than
"to blame". That's what my Concise Oxford English Dictionary says.
Personally, I'd define "at fault" as "wrong", ...
Carol
AC
> It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
> better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.
I think changing a language to fit some current trend of thinking is pretty
questionable at the best of times. "Mankind" as a term for humanity has
been in use for a long time, and was never seen as being a gender-specific
noun until the last thirty years. Then it was redefined for purely
political purposes by various feminist activists, who claimed that it
propogated a paternalistic mindset. If you actually read the context of the
word "Mankind" as it has been used historically in literature, you would
quickly find that the view that these activists have with some success
foisted upon modern media and education is simply false. "Mankind" does not
denote a specific gender. While it may be construed as a sensitive word by
some, I hardly see a reason to pretend that these people are right. I'm not
interested in making the ignorant and overly-sensitive feel better, and I
won't censor such an old and often-used word for their benefit.
--
AC
David desJardins
> I think changing a language to fit some current trend of thinking is
> pretty questionable at the best of times. "Mankind" as a term for
> humanity has been in use for a long time, and was never seen as being
> a gender-specific noun until the last thirty years.
If you read my postings, you'd note that I don't happen to object to
"mankind", so you're arguing a strawman.
> I'm not interested in making the ignorant and overly-sensitive feel
> better, and I won't censor such an old and often-used word for their
> benefit.
The purpose of avoiding language with sexist implications isn't to make
anyone feel better. The purpose is to reduce sexism. Of course people
will disagree as to whether that purpose is accomplished, in any
particular case.
David desJardins
Carol Mulholland
> Well, I live in one and I can see it for myself. Between believing your
> opinion or my own observation, I've got to go with my observation.
It would be easier to see where you're coming from if you gave examples?
I haven't been discriminated against because I'm a woman - I would have
noticed if I had been. I've been able to go out on my own, to attend
university, to marry at my own choice, to disagree with my husband in
public, to work, to have my own bank account...
> I'm not sure what your point is here; you don't seem to be responding to
> anything that I said. I don't think "humanity" or "mankind" is less
> "inclusive" than the corresponding usage of "man".
I'm glad that you countenance "mankind". I'd like you to accept "man" as
well. "Humanity" isn't as easy a word to put into verse as "man" is.
Carol
AC
>
>> I'm not interested in making the ignorant and overly-sensitive feel
>> better, and I won't censor such an old and often-used word for their
>> benefit.
>
> The purpose of avoiding language with sexist implications isn't to make
> anyone feel better. The purpose is to reduce sexism. Of course people
> will disagree as to whether that purpose is accomplished, in any
> particular case.
I think the whole problem of sexist language would be solved if we stopped
trying to create Newspeak and simply taught some manners. I care very
little for the overly-politicized world of professional feminist activism.
They would turn our language into a neutered, ugly language bereft of poetry
and symbolism.
--
AC
David desJardins
> I care very little for the overly-politicized world of professional
> feminist activism.
I'd guess I don't like it either, but I don't actually know any overly
politicized professional feminist activists, so it's hard for me to say
for sure. I don't see any connection between "overly politicized
professional feminist activism" and my own position.
David desJardins
AC
You can recognize them easily. They are the ones that tried to create the
word "herstory" because they apparently did not know the etymology of the
word "history". This is why I think we should be very careful before we
cave to such interests over words.
I am not a sexist, I don't consider women inferior. I believe in equal pay
for equal jobs. At the same time, I still call the guy the delivers my mail
the "mail man". If it's a woman, then "mail lady" seems sufficient. I don't
see that it creates any overly paternalistic view of women to say "garbage
man", or to refer to Katherine Hepburn as an "actress". In fact, I'm not
afraid to recognize the gender of the person at the other end of my sensory
apparatus, so terms like "actress" seem logical when talking about a female
that acts. It's considerably easier and less grating than "woman actor".
--
AC
David desJardins
> You can recognize them easily. They are the ones that tried to create
> the word "herstory" because they apparently did not know the etymology
> of the word "history". This is why I think we should be very careful
> before we cave to such interests over words.
I think you are completely mistaken that such ideas are based in
ignorance or misinformation. They are based on a difference of opinion,
which has nothing to do with etymology.
However, as I said, I've never met any person who holds such positions,
and I think introducing such positions is a strawman.
> I am not a sexist, I don't consider women inferior. I believe in
> equal pay for equal jobs. At the same time, I still call the guy the
> delivers my mail the "mail man". If it's a woman, then "mail lady"
> seems sufficient. I don't see that it creates any overly
> paternalistic view of women to say "garbage man", or to refer to
> Katherine Hepburn as an "actress".
I think distinguishing between people based on sex in situations where
that distinction is irrelevant doesn't accomplish any useful purpose.
One could imagine a world where we use one word for people with college
degrees, and another word for people without college degrees. Every
time we refer to any person, we make sure to use the correct term for
that person's level of education. We could, of course, explain to
everyone that we don't discriminate at all, we treat the two different
kinds of people exactly the same, even though we use different words for
them. But that raises the question of why we make such a distinction,
and whether repeating the distinction over and over has some effect on
people's expectations, regardless of whether or not that's the intent.
> In fact, I'm not afraid to recognize the gender of the person at the
> other end of my sensory apparatus, so terms like "actress" seem
> logical when talking about a female that acts. It's considerably
> easier and less grating than "woman actor".
The term "actor" seems logical to me. "Woman actor" seems as irrelevant
as "college-educated actor" or "actor over 5 foot 6 inches tall" or
"actor with freckles". All of those qualifiers might be true, but so
what? Why insert them into the conversation over and over, if you
really don't think that they are relevant?
My impression, for what it's worth, is that most woman actors would
rather be called "actor" than "actress". Does what people want enter
into your calcuation?
David desJardins
AC
>
> The term "actor" seems logical to me. "Woman actor" seems as irrelevant
> as "college-educated actor" or "actor over 5 foot 6 inches tall" or
> "actor with freckles". All of those qualifiers might be true, but so
> what? Why insert them into the conversation over and over, if you
> really don't think that they are relevant?
This is what disturbs me the most; the desire to remove gender entirely from
language. What is the motive? What is it about gender that causes everyone
to run for cover? Why can't I call someone an actress? Is actress a
derogatory term? Is recognizing that someone is male or female an
objectionable fact?
But if you want to alter your language in such a fashion, then so be it. As
long as we don't have language police coming and demanding that I say "where
no *one* has gone before" rather than "where no *man* has gone before" then
so be it.
> My impression, for what it's worth, is that most woman actors would
> rather be called "actor" than "actress". Does what people want enter
> into your calcuation?
My calculation is based upon the fact that I don't think language is the
source of sexism. It is usage. I think mutilating a language because some
may use it in a fashion that less than desirable is ridiculous. As I said,
I think most of the real problems people complain about could simply be
solved by manners and considering things in a just and reasonable manner.
--
AC
Rick C
news:vohel9r...@math.berkeley.edu...
Haven't been at a college lately? My wife once had an A paper downgraded to
a C because she didn't perfectly balance use of 'he' and 'she' as pronouns.
She had to threaten calling the local newspaper to get the professor
(professoress?) to change the grade.
Tim Booth
Am I allowed to say that "f***wit" is gender neutral?
Holy $gender of $deity - it's all a little silly really.
Webko
MadCentral
just cause and effect. Furthermore, I can't change all of the people in
the world, to whom you want to assign "fault".<<
Its not ME who is assigning fault. When you use or interpret a word
incorrectly thats pretty clearly a fault. (Unless you want to also get into
debating the meaning of the word fault as well?)
>> I can, however, change the language
that I use. It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.<<
Sure. If you think changing the way you speak because some people might choose
to twist those words is correct then you should feel free, of course, to go
right ahead. More power to you.
Steve T.
MadCentral
women's
studies and suchlike. I don't expect everyone to agree with me that they'd be
better employed studying Milton...<<
The whole thing is the perfect example of a high intelligence score coupled
with a low wisdom score. <g>
Steve T.
David desJardins
> Its not ME who is assigning fault. When you use or interpret a word
> incorrectly thats pretty clearly a fault. (Unless you want to also get
> into debating the meaning of the word fault as well?)
I do think the human brain is intrinsically wired in such a way that it
responds in certain ways to certain kinds of language, these responses
aren't under voluntary control. The same way that people respond
emotionally (e.g., get angry or happy or amused) at certain kinds of
language.
> If you think changing the way you speak because some people might
> choose to twist those words is correct then you should feel free, of
> course, to go right ahead. More power to you.
Certainly, the only reason to change language is because of how people
respond to it. The purpose of language is communication, the purpose of
changing it is to communicate better.
David desJardins
Paul Walker
> If you read my postings, you'd note that I don't happen to object to
> "mankind", so you're arguing a strawman.
Out of interest, which words do you object to?
--
Paul
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something
completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-- Douglas Adams
Greg Lindahl
Carol Mulholland <ca...@flagship-pbm.co.uk> wrote:
>I dunno, Steve, it's provided employment opportunities for teachers of women's
>studies and suchlike. I don't expect everyone to agree with me that they'd be
>better employed studying Milton...
I wrote a paper on Milton's views on marriage as shown in his writings. Made
an A on it, too. Gender exists; deal with it.
greg
Paul Walker
> I wrote a paper on Milton's views on marriage as shown in his writings.
> Made an A on it, too. Gender exists; deal with it.
I can't help thinking that would have been better directed at David than
Carol.
--
Paul
Carol Mulholland
> I wrote a paper on Milton's views on marriage as shown in his writings. Made
> an A on it, too.
Wow, forward it to me if you still have it. (Though I'm a bit surprised you
say 'marriage' rather than 'divorce'...) I was taught Areopagitica as a
liberty-of-the-press project in my early teens, but only discovered Paradise
Lost later and have never looked back. How nice to meet a fellow enthusiast.
> Gender exists; deal with it.
Um, er, thanks, but I've been dealing with gender for yonks - never had any
complaints.
Carol
Carol Mulholland
> I wrote a paper on Milton's views on marriage as shown in his writings. Made
> an A on it, too.
Wow, forward it to me if you still have it. (Though I'm a bit surprised you
say 'marriage' rather than 'divorce'...) How nice to meet a fellow
enthusiast: you'll have read Paradise Lost...
> Gender exists; deal with it.
Um, er, thanks, but I've been dealing with gender for yonks - never had any
complaints.
Carol
Greg Lindahl
Paul Walker <pa...@black-sun.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I can't help thinking that would have been better directed at David than
>Carol.
Thank you for sharing.
greg
MadCentral
Yeah forward it to me too! A bit of light reading before getting tucked into
my latest comic delivery... ; )
Steve T.
David desJardins
> This is what disturbs me the most; the desire to remove gender
> entirely from language. What is the motive?
Calling both men and women "actors" is not at all the same as removing
gender entirely from language. Removing gender entirely would involve
eliminating pronouns such as "he" and "she", which is certainly a much
larger change. While there are some who support that, it's a strawman
in this context.
The motivation to call both men and women "actors" is to avoid
distinguishing between them in situations where there is no reason to
distinguish between them. Making such distinctions facilitates and
supports discrimination, so some people are against it.
For what it's worth, the few professional female actors I've spoken to
on this subject all have felt that female actors are set apart and
generally given a lesser and separate status by the term "actress", and
they prefer to be called actors. It's clear that there are some people
who for some reason think that the work of male actors is different in
some way from the work of female actors; otherwise, for example, there
would be no reason to have separate Academy Award categories for males
and females.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> I'm glad that you countenance "mankind". I'd like you to accept "man" as
> well. "Humanity" isn't as easy a word to put into verse as "man" is.
For what it's worth, I think it's reasonable to use all sorts of
language in verse that one wouldn't use in ordinary speech.
David desJardins
AC
>
> The motivation to call both men and women "actors" is to avoid
> distinguishing between them in situations where there is no reason to
> distinguish between them. Making such distinctions facilitates and
> supports discrimination, so some people are against it.
I don't think making the distinction facilitates discrimination at all.
I've always found the argument questionable, since no one ever actually
produces much in the way of compelling evidence that calling someone "mail
man" or "mail lady" aids in discrimination. Since we are a species with two
genders, it seems rational that language would reflect this fact.
--
AC
David desJardins
> I don't think making the distinction facilitates discrimination at
> all.
It seems self-evident to me. It's harder to distinguish between two
things if your language doesn't do it naturally.
> Since we are a species with two genders, it seems rational that
> language would reflect this fact.
We are a species with multiple different hair colors; why don't we have
names and pronouns for people that incorporate their hair color? There
are any number of ways people could be divided into classes.
This much seems evident: sex-specific terms and pronouns developed as
part of human language during a time when human society discriminated
strongly against women. At the time, such language certainly
facilitated that discrimination: it's easier to make rules about what
women can do and what men can do if your language easily distinguishes
between them. Now, one can posit that in today's society discrimination
is entirely a thing of the past, and that these language constructs are
now a harmless artifact, since no one would discriminate any more. This
is, as far as I can tell, the argument that some are making: the terms
do no harm, we are all used to them, so why not keep them?
If people hold that position, I think they are entitled to their
opinion. I just have a different opinion, I think my opinion is equally
well justified and I wish that some people could accept it as a
difference of opinion without feeling the need to drown it out with
condescending insults and attacks.
David desJardins
Old Dead Eye
>> If people hold that position, I think they are entitled to their
> opinion. I just have a different opinion, I think my opinion is equally
> well justified and I wish that some people could accept it as a
> difference of opinion without feeling the need to drown it out with
> condescending insults and attacks.
>
> David desJardins
Everyone is allowed their opinion. Its just a shame that everyone has to go
on about racism and sexism when there are far bigger issues to be dealt
with, such as famine and disease. AIDS, for instance, does not descriminate
between a white heterosexual overweight balding middle aged man and a young
disabled black woman in a wheelchair.
One question I would put to you is if you were mugged down a dark alleyway
by either of the above, would you give the police a description of your
attacker or would you describe them as a member of the human race?
--
Old Dead Eye
"You pervert, just look at gay porn like the rest of us." Blue Raja
Carol Mulholland
> For what it's worth, I think it's reasonable to use all sorts of
> language in verse that one wouldn't use in ordinary speech.
Maybe - opinions differ - but I think that it'd be tricky for a poet
to use "man" in a sense that's diverging from its use in everyday
speech.
Carol
Carol Mulholland
> We are a species with multiple different hair colors; why don't we have
> names and pronouns for people that incorporate their hair color? There
> are any number of ways people could be divided into classes.
Um, there are names that distinguish people's hair colour (a blonde,
a brunette, Ginger etc) and their age (lad, lass, maid etc) and their age
(baby, toddler, crone etc). Language tends to be specific, but it's
important to maintain the general terms that we have as well.
> This much seems evident: sex-specific terms and pronouns developed as
> part of human language during a time when human society discriminated
> strongly against women. At the time, such language certainly
> facilitated that discrimination: it's easier to make rules about what
> women can do and what men can do if your language easily distinguishes
> between them.
I'm not sure that this argument really holds up, though I've seen it
advanced before. I'd argue that it's Nature that discriminated against
women, by menstruation and the absence of reliable birth control. I don't
think that English easily distinguishes between the sexes: in English a
teacher, a doctor, a professor, a clerk etc can be of either sex. I think
that male/female pronouns helpful rather than discriminatory.
> Now, one can posit that in today's society discrimination
> is entirely a thing of the past, and that these language constructs are
> now a harmless artifact, since no one would discriminate any more. This
> is, as far as I can tell, the argument that some are making: the terms
> do no harm, we are all used to them, so why not keep them?
One distinction that English has always made is between singular and
plural. I hate to see a singular noun followed by a plural pronoun because
the writer is afraid to use "he", it goes against the grain of our
language.
> If people hold that position, I think they are entitled to their
> opinion. I just have a different opinion, I think my opinion is equally
> well justified and I wish that some people could accept it as a
> difference of opinion without feeling the need to drown it out with
> condescending insults and attacks.
I'm sorry if I've seemed to attack you. I do think that you exaggerate the
existence of sex discrimination in our shared culture. Historically, men
have had just as tough a time as women.
Carol
David desJardins
>> We are a species with multiple different hair colors; why don't we
>> have names and pronouns for people that incorporate their hair color?
>> There are any number of ways people could be divided into classes.
>
> Um, there are names that distinguish people's hair colour (a blonde, a
> brunette, Ginger etc) and their age (lad, lass, maid etc) and their
> age (baby, toddler, crone etc).
Exactly. But no one says "The mailblonde dropped off a package today",
nor does English have specialized pronouns that refer to old people or
tall people or bearded people. The way that our language emphasizes sex
is very different from how it treats all other personal characteristics.
This seems fairly obvious.
> I'm not sure that this argument really holds up, though I've seen it
> advanced before. I'd argue that it's Nature that discriminated
> against women, by menstruation and the absence of reliable birth
> control.
Certainly it's not some bizarre coincidence that early human societies
were male-dominated. It's a consequence of the biology of humans, of
course. That doesn't have much to do with whether it's right. There
are lots of things that humans do by nature or instinct that we now
don't think are right.
> I don't think that English easily distinguishes between the sexes: in
> English a teacher, a doctor, a professor, a clerk etc can be of either
> sex.
In the past, a female university instructor would sometimes have been
called a "professoress", just as today, in the 21st century, a female
actor may be called an "actress". It seems odd to me to declare the
obsolescence of "professoress" and the use of "professor" for both male
and female university instructors to be a desirable development, but to
defend the distinction between "actor" and "actress" as important
(why?).
> One distinction that English has always made is between singular and
> plural. I hate to see a singular noun followed by a plural pronoun
> because the writer is afraid to use "he", it goes against the grain of
> our language.
I don't do that, so it's a strawman in this discussion.
> I'm sorry if I've seemed to attack you. I do think that you
> exaggerate the existence of sex discrimination in our shared culture.
> Historically, men have had just as tough a time as women.
I didn't say that sex discrimination favors men over women. I think
it's bad for both.
David desJardins
Greg Lindahl
Carol Mulholland <ca...@flagship-pbm.co.uk> wrote:
>One distinction that English has always made is between singular and
>plural. I hate to see a singular noun followed by a plural pronoun because
>the writer is afraid to use "he", it goes against the grain of our
>language.
If you're referring to sentences like "Each student should bring their
pencil to class", then you'll have to quibble with Shakespeare and the
New York Times language guide.
-- greg
Carol Mulholland
etc)
Oops, I didn't mean to say that, what a mess! OK, if anyone's
interested let's run a revision: "their age within a sex (lad,
stripling, lass, crone etc and their age in without specifying
gender (baby, toddler, wrinklie etc)" - Carol
Rick C
news:vohwunh...@blue3.math.berkeley.edu...
> > Since we are a species with two genders, it seems rational that
> > language would reflect this fact.
> We are a species with multiple different hair colors; why don't we have
> names and pronouns for people that incorporate their hair color? There
> are any number of ways people could be divided into classes.
Blondes/Brunettes/Red-heads.
Flippancy aside, gender is a more significant difference between random
people than hair color.
Bent C Dalager
David desJardins <da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
>"AC" writes:
>> This is what disturbs me the most; the desire to remove gender
>> entirely from language. What is the motive?
>
>Calling both men and women "actors" is not at all the same as removing
>gender entirely from language. Removing gender entirely would involve
>eliminating pronouns such as "he" and "she", which is certainly a much
>larger change. While there are some who support that, it's a strawman
>in this context.
>
>The motivation to call both men and women "actors" is to avoid
>distinguishing between them in situations where there is no reason to
>distinguish between them. Making such distinctions facilitates and
>supports discrimination, so some people are against it.
Removing the distinction would serve to further confuse the language
or else make it more cumbersome to use. As it is, I can easily
distinguish between two people within one sentence if they are of
different genders. If the gender-specific words were removed, I
couldn't, and so I would have to further qualify any subsequent
references to the two people introduced.
"I met two people; a bus driver and an actor. While he was happy with
the new reforms, she was not."
is clearly confusing and requires further qualification in the last
sentence whileas
"I met two people; a bus driver and an actress. While he was happy with
the new reforms, she was not."
is quite understandable.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Bent C Dalager
MadCentral <madce...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>The use of "Man" as a word to encompass the human race is not the same as the
>use of "man" to talk about a guy. It's a different meaning of the same word.
As a man, I suppose I really should be upset that the word used to
describe me is simultaneously recycled and put to a different use
altogether. I feel used <g>
At least women have a word all to their own. Although "woman" does
imply that women are really just subtypes of men. Has there been any
movement towards replacing the word "woman"?
Rick C
> At least women have a word all to their own. Although "woman" does
> imply that women are really just subtypes of men. Has there been any
> movement towards replacing the word "woman"?
Other than silly misspellings like "womyn"? Not that I'm aware of.
Daniel Vuurboom & Gerry Damen
> I think they otherwise would not.) I can, however, change the language
> that I use. It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
> better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.
>
On the subject of changing language: I'm not so sure you can. Years ago,
the dutch used one of two words to describe immigrants,
buitenlander(foreigner) or gastarbeited(guestworker). Over time, both
words got 'contaminated' if you will by being used in a racist manner.
The PC brigade decided to do something about that by introducing the
word 'allochtoon' to take their place. To be used by people who wanted
to advertise the fact that they weren't racist.
Nowadays, my local library (I live in a very multiethnic neighbourhood)
has placards in the window, trying to remove the current racist overtone
of the word 'allochtoon'.
My point is, that if the concept you try to express is used in
discrimination, it does not matter which word you use for it. The word
will receive that negative semantic overtone.
Daniel
David desJardins
>> I think they otherwise would not.) I can, however, change the language
>> that I use. It seems to me that changing that which I can control is
>> better than saying it's all someone else's responsibility.
>
> discrimination, it does not matter which word you use for it. The word
> will receive that negative semantic overtone.
Sure. I'm not talking about replacing one word with another just
because of its derogatory connotation. I'm talking about changing the
set of words in the language. If "doctor" refers to both men and women
(rather than women being called "doctress", as they once were), then it
becomes much less common to emphasize or imply the sex of a doctor when
talking about one. Similarly for "ambassador" vs "ambassadress",
"flight attendant" vs "steward/stewardess", "actor" vs "actress", "one"
or "they" vs the nonspecific "he", "zie" vs the specific "he" and "she",
etc., etc. I do think that such changes are effective. The question is
just how far and how fast people are willing to go.
David desJardins
David desJardins
> At least women have a word all to their own. Although "woman" does
> imply that women are really just subtypes of men. Has there been any
> movement towards replacing the word "woman"?
Yes, there was a strong feeling among some groups in the 70s or so that
"woman" carried the connotation that you describe. Alternatives like
"womyn" were advanced, for exactly that reason. However, none of those
alternatives have caught on, and I'd say their use is declining. Many
language inventions (of any type) don't work and don't catch on and are
abandoned. Sometimes it takes many efforts. Many other contemporaneous
inventions have caught on and become well accepted in the language, but
this one didn't.
As I discussed earlier in the thread, I'm more concerned with words with
dual meanings (like "man" to mean either everyone, or a male human) than
I am with words with only a single meaning but some possible arguments
about their spelling or internal construction (such as "mankind" or
"history" or "woman"---yes, I do know the etymologies of all of these
words). In my observation, my attitude is pretty common---people have
largely decided that the origin or spelling of words isn't as important
as their meanings, and since there's no ambiguity about the meaning of
"woman", language change in that area is less important. Of course
there's still a small group with strong feelings otherwise.
David desJardins
Carol Mulholland
> Exactly. But no one says "The mailblonde dropped off a package today",
> nor does English have specialized pronouns that refer to old people or
> tall people or bearded people. The way that our language emphasizes sex
> is very different from how it treats all other personal characteristics.
> This seems fairly obvious.
Other personal characteristics are more fleeting than gender.
> Certainly it's not some bizarre coincidence that early human societies
> were male-dominated. It's a consequence of the biology of humans, of
> course. That doesn't have much to do with whether it's right. There
> are lots of things that humans do by nature or instinct that we now
> don't think are right.
Indeed, but changing personal pronouns would be (a) very difficult to
achieve and (b) unlikely to make any difference.
> In the past, a female university instructor would sometimes have been
> called a "professoress" just as today, in the 21st century, a female
> actor may be called an "actress". It seems odd to me to declare the
> obsolescence of "professoress" and the use of "professor" for both male
> and female university instructors to be a desirable development, but to
> defend the distinction between "actor" and "actress" as important
> (why?).
I don't think I have. I don't care what the profession calls itself -
I guess they all aim for the gender-neutral term "film star".
> I didn't say that sex discrimination favors men over women. I think
> it's bad for both.
I don't think that sex discrimination is a serious problem in Western
society. Sex, on the other hand...
Carol
Carol Mulholland
> If you're referring to sentences like "Each student should bring their
> pencil to class", then you'll have to quibble with Shakespeare and the
> New York Times language guide.
I wasn't. "Each" and "every" cause anomalies - Carol
Carol Mulholland
> Has there been any movement towards replacing the word "woman"?
"Lady" was used until quite recently, in Britain at least, as a term
that conveyed more respect than "woman". Virtually obsolescent now.
Carol
Bill Hay
>>The use of "Man" as a word to encompass the human race is not the same as the
>>use of "man" to talk about a guy. It's a different meaning of the same word.
>
> As a man, I suppose I really should be upset that the word used to
> describe me is simultaneously recycled and put to a different use
> altogether. I feel used <g>
>
BTW the actor/actress division makes a lot more sense than most other
gender dependant terms. Whatever you think of Catherine Zeta-Jones
as an actress she's going to have a hard time playing Winston
Churchill convincingly.
--
TANSTAAFM
Rick C
news:slrnatn6g...@cerberus.dumain.com...
> [...]
Huh? Oh, I see, Outlook Express (comments to /dev/null, please) saw your
first line of text starting with the word "begin" and thought your post was
an attachment.
> BTW the actor/actress division makes a lot more sense than most other
> gender dependant terms. Whatever you think of Catherine Zeta-Jones
> as an actress she's going to have a hard time playing Winston
> Churchill convincingly.
Altho this didn't stop the Greeks from using men in women's roles in plays.
Bruce Sinclair
Shall we point out the real stupidity here ... what shall we replace this
with ...
Human - huperson ? ... nope. Son is sexist ... so it will have to be
huperchild. Likewise perchild and woperchild ... Silly enough for you ? :)
The drive to get rid of 'sexist' language has people talking to chairs.
Silly enough yet ? :)
Personally I call actors actors because I don't like the word actresses - to
me it's clumsy. Does it make any real difference ? ... probably not. Will we
have any say about what happens to the language ? ... probably not :)
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Oook !
NOTE remove the not_ from the address to reply. NO SPAM !
Tim Booth
> Shall we point out the real stupidity here ... what shall we replace this
> with ...
>
> Human - huperson ? ... nope. Son is sexist ... so it will have to be
> huperchild. Likewise perchild and woperchild ... Silly enough for you ? :)
I believe, having just picked up the second volume
of Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, that "hupersun" is
the preferred term ;-)
Webko
Bruce Sinclair
nice ... but I still hear "son" ... almost certainly won't do :)
Bill Godfrey
> I believe, having just picked up the second volume
> of Politically Correct Bedtime Stories, that "hupersun" is
> the preferred term ;-)
My favourite example is...
"man" is sexist, so use "person".
"person" includes "son", which is sexist, so use "peroffspring".
"peroffspring" includes "spring", which is seasonist, so use
"peroffseason".
"peroffseason" includes "son", which is sexist, so use ...
I didn't think of this originally, but I forget who did.
Bill, a peroffseaoffseaoffsea.