"Webmaster" & sexist language
Gerry Gaffney
Apologies if this has already been done to death here during
one of my many absences.
The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
"webmaintainer" being used.
If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
are available or recommended?
____________________________________
Gerry Gaffney
Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au
Information & Design
+61 3 9521 5123
+61 3 9521 5124 fax
+61 19 424 404 mobile
PO Box 1255, Windsor VIC 3181 Australia
____________________________________
Bertel Lund Hansen
Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au (Gerry Gaffney) wrote:
>The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>"webmaintainer" being used.
>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>are available or recommended?
Maintainer of Arts ... hmm, there's something wrong here.
Maintainers degree ... ?
I have some difficulty maintaining the English language.
--
Regards, Bertel
Brian J Goggin
On 14 Feb 1997 00:31:08 GMT, Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au (Gerry Gaffney)
wrote:
>Apologies if this has already been done to death here during
>one of my many absences.
>
>The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>"webmaintainer" being used.
>
>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>are available or recommended?
Spider.
bjg
John M. Lawler
Brian J Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> writes:
>Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au (Gerry Gaffney) writes:
>>The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>>"webmaintainer" being used.
>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>>are available or recommended?
>Spider.
Might be a little hard to convince folks it's an honor, eh?
I'd recommend resuscitating "webster", which originated anyway
as a *feminine* word (along with "brewster" and "spinster").
How better to celebrate gender diversity than to use a word
that's generically feminine and make it neutral? Especially
when its femininity is so well-cloaked that the only association
most folks have with it is the man who published the first American
dictionary?
-John Lawler http://www.lsa.umich.edu/ling/jlawler/ U Michigan Linguistics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Language is the most massive and inclusive art we know, a - Edward Sapir
mountainous and anonymous work of unconscious generations." Language (1921)
Rob Pegoraro
>Apologies if this has already been done to death here during
>one of my many absences.
>
>The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>"webmaintainer" being used.
Not anywhere in the U.S.
>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>are available or recommended?
It isn't, IMHO--as somebody else pointed out, it's not like your Master of
Arts degree is sexist either. (I hope I'm not bringing up that old
discussion about Fowler's advocacy of gender-specific terms for every
profession.) When other terms are used--i.e., not "webmaster" or
"webmistress"--it's usually because the corporate culture considers
"webmaster" too stylish a term. At that point, the erstwhile webmaster is
usually rechristened an "Internet Publishing Coordinator" or "WWW
Production Manager" and required to wear a suit.
--
ro...@cais.com ====================================================
Rob Pegoraro At work, I'm r...@twp.com, but
Washington, D.C., USA I'm only speaking for myself here
======================================== http://www.cais.com/robp/
B.W. Battin
>Apologies if this has already been done to death here during
>one of my many absences.
>
>The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>"webmaintainer" being used.
>
>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>are available or recommended?
>
IMHO, master need not be considered sexist in all cases, despite some
of its gender specific meanings--male teacher, male head of household,
etc. Two of the most common definitions are (1) the person in charge
and (2) an expert at something. Many women are in charge; many are
experts. This the sense in which it is used in webmaster. Not much
sexism in that.
BWB
Brian J Goggin
On 14 Feb 1997 02:26:37 GMT, jla...@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M.
Lawler) wrote:
[...]
>I'd recommend resuscitating "webster", which originated anyway
>as a *feminine* word (along with "brewster" and "spinster").
>How better to celebrate gender diversity than to use a word
>that's generically feminine and make it neutral? Especially
>when its femininity is so well-cloaked that the only association
>most folks have with it is the man who published the first American
>dictionary?
My daughter learned HTML at our local Internet Cafe', which is called
Websters because of the web; there's nobody called Webster involved. I
don't know if they know of the female connection, but they may have
pioneered the resuscitation of a splendid word.
bjg
Matthew Rabuzzi
: > If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
:
: Spider.
Not so fast, cobber!
...............
Tantra tantivvy
Matthew Rabuzzi
Matthew Rabuzzi
John M. Lawler <jla...@galaga.rs.itd.umich.edu> writes:
: I'd recommend resuscitating "webster", which originated anyway
: as a *feminine* word (along with "brewster" and "spinster").
: How better to celebrate gender diversity than to use a word
: that's generically feminine and make it neutral? Especially
correct.
............................
A nice nylon/vajrayana blend
Matthew Rabuzzi
Brian J Goggin
Well I declare. It's bad enough your having one tantrum without trying
to impose several of them upon us.
"High Tantivee Scaramouches make Choice of a vast Heap of Epithets as
unintelligible_as impertinent."
bjg
Sally Milo
<snip>
> The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
> "webmaintainer" being used.
>
<snip>
As a woman who came of age in those early days of Women's Lib, I
find the politically correct movement to de-male the English language
unfortunate. When I tended bar, I "accidentally" put too much
vermouth in the martinis of those who referred to me as "nurse" or
"barmaid." I was a bartender - a professional, not the lesser nurse
or barmaid. When I chair a committee, I am not offended when referred
to as "chairman," nor do I (usually) write and say he/she when "he"
will do. We cannot deny our culture had a male bias over the last
many centuries and I am not offended by words which come from those
days. (On the other had, when I recieve business correspondence to
Mr. Milo or Sir, I throw a hissy-fit!)
_____________________________________________
\\\\\\\\\\\
| ö ||||||| Sally Milo
< ||||||| email: sal...@ix.netcom.com
= ×||||| home page:
L__ \\\ http://www.netcom.com/
|======| ~salmilo/page.html
_____________________________________________________________
Jonathan Paterson
Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au (Gerry Gaffney) wrote:
>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>are available or recommended?
"webslave"
(Seen yesterday on a British site.)
JC Dill
On Fri, 14 Feb 1997 12:21:56 GMT, bat...@concentric.net (B.W. Battin)
expound upon: "Re: "Webmaster" & sexist language"
>On 14 Feb 1997 00:31:08 GMT, Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au (Gerry Gaffney)
>wrote:
>
>>Apologies if this has already been done to death here during
>>one of my many absences.
>>
>>The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>>"webmaintainer" being used.
>>
>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>>are available or recommended?
There was an interesting article on this very subject in the SF
Chronicle yesterday
or www.sfgate.com (search for webmaster)
FWIW most females in HighTech aren't too worried about having a title
like Webmaster, if that is the title of the job, they take it and
don't look back. (good money if you can get it... too!)
_____
There is a *typo* in my return address, a spam prevention tactic.
So to email me, figure out the typo and correct it! But...
*Don't* send me ANY commercial email. You *will* regret it.
jc
Ralph M Jones
>
> <snip>
> > The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
> > "webmaintainer" being used.
> >
> > If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
> > are available or recommended?
>
Someone suggested "webster". Let's remember who did it and applaud them.
It seems like the right word to me.
Susan Carroll-Clark
Greetings!
>2) an expert at something. Many women are in charge; many are
>experts. This the sense in which it is used in webmaster. Not much
>sexism in that.
Er...yep. We don't generally refer to a woman who is also a talented
maker of widgets as a "Mistress Craftsman" (or -person).
Sheesh.
Susan Carroll-Clark
scl...@chass.utoronto.ca
Bertel Lund Hansen
Sally Milo wrote:
> As a woman who came of age in those early days of Women's Lib, I
>find the politically correct movement to de-male the English language
>unfortunate. ...
Very sensible in my opinion. The same tendency could be seen
in Denmark. Luckily I think it is receding. I always felt
that the womanized (!) titles signaled that the person in
question was less capable than a man.
--
Regards, Bertel
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <33066C...@hal-pc.org>, Ralph M Jones <rmj...@hal-pc.org>
writes:
(quoting I know not whom)--
>> > If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>> > are available or recommended?
Why does a "master" have to be a male?
I know any number of women who have pieces of paper proving that they are
Masters of Arts or Masters of Business Administration.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Ralph M Jones
Gary,
You snipped my contribution and retained my attributiion. I didn't say
anything about sexism pertaining to "webmaster". I did say that
"webster" is a word that I prefer. I don't remember who made the
suggestion but I applaud them and I will make use of "webster" in that
context when it seems appropriate.
Brian J Goggin
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 20:08:11 -0600, Ralph M Jones <rmj...@hal-pc.org>
wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>> > The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
>> > "webmaintainer" being used.
>> >
>> > If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>> > are available or recommended?
>> <snip>
>>
>Someone suggested "webster". Let's remember who did it and applaud them.
>It seems like the right word to me.
Step forward, John Lawler.
Tantara! (If Matthew will permit ....)
Or even tantantara tsing boom.
bjg
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <33074A...@hal-pc.org>, Ralph M Jones <rmj...@hal-pc.org>
writes:
> Gary,
>
> You snipped my contribution and retained my attributiion. I didn't say
> anything about sexism pertaining to "webmaster". I did say that
> "webster" is a word that I prefer.
True, and I apologize for any confusion; but I did take care to note that the
quoted material, although it came from your post, was not your material. I
didn't have the post you quoted at hand, and I don't think the source was
contained in your followup; but it was that quote to which I wanted to respond.
But to give you the courtesy of a reply: I suppose webster would be a possible
term; but I consider it unnecessary, because I still don't see why "-master"
implies, in this enlightened day, maleness.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Dennis Baron
I did it, and I'm glad. Webster in its first incarnation in English was
the feminine of weaver. It also fits the spider motif. But my daughter
(now 30 something) became a Webmaster at her most recent promotion at our
Supercomputer Center, and she thinks Webmaster as a title is just fine.
You try to raise them right, but . . .
Dennis
____
In article <33066C...@hal-pc.org>, rmj...@hal-pc.org wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
> > > "webmaintainer" being used.
> > >
> > > If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
> > > are available or recommended?
> > <snip>
> >
> Someone suggested "webster". Let's remember who did it and applaud them.
> It seems like the right word to me.
--
Dennis Baron
deb...@uiuc.edu
Jonathan Mason
will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting)
wrote:
schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, postmasters and postmistresses, why
not webmasters and mistresses?
On the other hand, in chess and bridge we do have unisex masters and
grandmasters.
Websters seems unnecessarily obscure. If we are going to be so
metaphorical we might as well go to webweaver, or even spider, for that
matter.
Bertel Lund Hansen
Jonathan Mason wrote:
>I missed the first part of this post, but since we have always had
>schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, postmasters and postmistresses, why
>not webmasters and mistresses?
Why two names for exactly the same job. Aren't men and women
equally capable?
In Denmark we used to have two names for schoolteachers. The
one, that was used about women, has now totally disappeared.
--
Regards, Bertel
Les Smith
In article <5e53t4$m...@chass.utoronto.ca>,
scl...@chass.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark) wrote:
>Greetings!
>
>Er...yep. We don't generally refer to a woman who is also a talented
>maker of widgets as a "Mistress Craftsman" (or -person).
>
Actually, that's "Mistress Craftsperoffspring"
Can't be too careful, you know.
regards,
Leslie Smith
Matthew Rabuzzi
Mary Daly and (somebody else), in their _Intergalactic Wickedary
of the English Language_, published 10+ years ago; and
John Lawler <jla...@tempest.rs.itd.umich.edu> here recently.
............................................
Table of Malcontents: FBI terrorist database
Matthew Rabuzzi
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <3309a6c...@news.inet.tele.dk>, bert...@post3.tele.dk
(Bertel Lund Hansen) writes:
> Jonathan Mason wrote:
>
>>...since we have always had schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, postmasters
>
> Why two names for exactly the same job. Aren't men and women
> equally capable?
Bertel eloquently says what I would have said less well. Once you accept the
idea that it is the ability, not the sex, of the occupant of a post that is
relevant, the feminine ending becomes irrelevant. Once the feminine ending is
abandoned, the traditionally masculine ending no long implies masculinity, and
need not be avoided.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Mary F. Heath
Les Smith wrote:
>
> In article <5e53t4$m...@chass.utoronto.ca>,
> scl...@chass.utoronto.ca (Susan Carroll-Clark) wrote:
> >
<...> We don't generally refer to a woman who is also a talented
> >maker of widgets as a "Mistress Craftsman" (or -person).
> >
>
Another instance of linguistic hermaphroditism was in the text of a
1980s advertisement in the _San Francisco Chronicle_ for the appearance
of a visiting Englishwoman who was going to demonstrate her art or craft
at a fine department store. Her occupational title was shown as "Master
Paintress"!
From the leaden digits of m.h.,
whose new e-mail address is: mhe...@goldrush.com
Mark Barton
On Fri, Feb 14, 1997 9:21 PM, B.W. Battin <bat...@concentric.net> wrote:
>On 14 Feb 1997 00:31:08 GMT, Ge...@InfoDesign.com.au (Gerry Gaffney)
>wrote:
>
>>Apologies if this has already been done to death here during
>>one of my many absences.
>>
>>"webmaintainer" being used.
>>
>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>>are available or recommended?
>>
>
>
>of its gender specific meanings--male teacher, male head of household,
>etc. Two of the most common definitions are (1) the person in charge
>experts. This the sense in which it is used in webmaster. Not much
>sexism in that.
I don't think you're free to consider the various dictionary senses of a
word in isolation like that. We're talking about a word that not only has
masculine connotations and a feminine equivalent (mistress) but has gone so
far as to acquire specifically male denotative meanings. One might as well
argue that "he" is not sexist because many writers have used it in all
earnestness to denote "he or she" and this usage is recorded in
dictionaries. The issue is not what the dictionary says or even what the
author intends - the issue is what package of associations the reader is
likely to receive. In the case of "master" it is clear that an
overwhelmingly male package of associations is being delivered, to the
extent that the concept of a female master is at least slightly
incongruous.
Cheers,
Mark B.
----------------
Please remove the spam filter from my address before replying.
John M. Lawler
Lee Lester <lee.l...@guildnet.org> wrote:
>GW> Once you accept the idea that it is the ability, not the sex, of
>GW> the occupant of a post that is relevant, the feminine ending
>GW> becomes irrelevant. Once the feminine ending is
>GW> abandoned, the traditionally masculine ending no long implies
>GW> masculinity, and need not be avoided.
>I agree with you but one can accept that ability rather than sex is
>relevant without agreeing that one should do away with words identifying
>the sex of a person. If one does so, there is a loss of precision, the
>instant identification of the sex of that person.
And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
about people that need not be encoded into occupational titles. For that
matter, why not encode ability into the title? We could use the suffix
'-on' (from 'moron') and refer to, for instance, Senatron Strom Thurmond.
>Anyway, the whole theory of gender neutral terms is based on the idea
>that doing away with such words is likely to enhance women's prospects,
>lessen their being demeaned, etc.
No, that's not true. Certainly it's a determinant, but not the only one,
and definitely not the most useful or valuable one. A much better reason
is that the use of gender-neutral terms forces people to think about
what's important in a given context, instead of merely what's traditional,
and in a case where the traditional is demonstrably *not* important, and
even prejudicial, it's a good idea to avoid it.
>All very laudable but very wishful
>thinking which will not be realised by such changes.
I'm assuming, of course, that people are willing to think, a
similarly wishful idea, but not one I'm prepared to give up on yet.
J. Edward Sanchez
jla...@pacman.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) wrote:
>And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
>skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
>about people that need not be encoded into occupational titles.
Those things are all determiners of precision. The question is not why
we shouldn't add more of these determiners, but why we should
aggressively try to remove a determiner (sex) that's already firmly
established in our language.
IMO, information is a Good Thing.
Edward
--
J. Edward Sanchez <je...@lightlink.com>
http://www.spiresoft.com/ (SoftArts)
http://www.spiresoft.com/jess/ (Edward's Place)
Tom O'Brien
I once had a client, a man, who was referred to me by a competitor: a
long time client of hers. I began to understand the reason for the
referral when he referred to his physician as a "doctress".
--
Tom O'Brien, Seattle, to...@halcyon.com
-----------------------------------------------
I let my mind wander and it never came back
Lee Lester
THe best example I have come across of 'non-sexist' language is a
reference to a 'person-eating shark.' Somehow, I don't think a
hungry Great While or whatever would be concerned with the gender of its
victim.
Lee Lester
GW> Once you accept the idea that it is the ability, not the sex, of
GW> the occupant of a post that is relevant, the feminine ending
GW> becomes irrelevant. Once the feminine ending is
GW> abandoned, the traditionally masculine ending no long implies
GW> masculinity, and need not be avoided.
I agree with you but one can accept that ability rather than sex is
relevant without agreeing that one should do away with words identifying
the sex of a person. If one does so, there is a loss of precision, the
instant identification of the sex of that person.
Anyway, the whole theory of gender neutral terms is based on the idea
that doing away with such words is likely to enhance women's prospects,
lessen their being demeaned, etc. All very laudable but very wishful
thinking which will not be realised by such changes..
Truly Donovan
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
> need not be avoided.
Except in those cases where you do not wish to inflame the sensibilities
of the people who don't agree with the premise. If you don't consider
those sensibilities worth caring about, have at it.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Truly Donovan
Lee Lester wrote:
>
> Anyway, the whole theory of gender neutral terms is based on the idea
> that doing away with such words is likely to enhance women's prospects,
> lessen their being demeaned, etc.
That's the *whole* theory? Gee, and all these years I thought there was
something else to it.
Ralph M Jones
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>
> J. Edward Sanchez wrote:
>
> >IMO, information is a Good Thing.
>
>
> --
> Regards, Bertel
And irrelevant information is noise.
rmj
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <330AC5...@usyd.edu.au>, Adrian Tan <as...@usyd.edu.au> writes:
> That "male bias", that suggestion of maleness, might not blind one, as
> such, to considering the female side of things, but it does privelege
> the male side....The person who uses the phrase "woman scientist" might not
> intend that the attribute of femininity be thought relevant,...but words
> exist independently to their speaker.
I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of "webmistress". I think the issue
is whether the notion that sex is not a qualification for running a web is best
communicated by adopting some allegedly gender-neutral term like "webster", or
whether it is best done by letting it be known that some excellent webmasters
are female, thus depriving `-master' of its masculine force. I opt for the
latter.
It's really the `waitperson' debate over a different word.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Jack Lynch
John M. Lawler wrote:
: >I agree with you but one can accept that ability rather than sex is
: >relevant without agreeing that one should do away with words identifying
: >the sex of a person. If one does so, there is a loss of precision, the
: >instant identification of the sex of that person.
: And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
: skin color or hair color? ... For that
: matter, why not encode ability into the title? We could use the suffix
: '-on' (from 'moron') and refer to, for instance, Senatron Strom Thurmond.
Second the motion.
--
But if he does really think that there is no distinction between virtue and
vice, why, Sir, when he leaves our houses let us count our spoons.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <330A15...@lunemere.com>, Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com>
writes:
> Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>>
>> Once the feminine ending is abandoned, the traditionally masculine ending
>
> Except in those cases where you do not wish to inflame the sensibilities
> of the people who don't agree with the premise.
But what's wrong with the premise?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Larry Krakauer
John M. Lawler wrote:
> Lee Lester <lee.l...@guildnet.org> wrote:
> [...]
> >I agree with you but one can accept that ability rather than sex is
> >relevant without agreeing that one should do away with words identifying
> >the sex of a person. If one does so, there is a loss of precision, the
> >instant identification of the sex of that person.
> And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
> skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
> about people that need not be encoded into occupational titles. For that
> matter, why not encode ability into the title? We could use the suffix
> '-on' (from 'moron') and refer to, for instance, Senatron Strom Thurmond.
Bingo! I think you hit the nail on the head here. Adding an
ending that notes the sex carries an implication that the sex
is relevant.
I once heard a talk by Isaac Asimov, sometime in the sixties.
In the sixties, a lot of young men were beginning to grow their
hair long, a novelty at that time. People were heard to complain
that when they saw someone coming towards them on the street,
they couldn't tell if it was a man or a woman.
Asimov's reaction to this was, "Why do you care? What are you
going to do differently?" In fact, he then added, "What
business is it of yours? Why do you seem to think you have
a right to know someone's sex? That's their private business."
Now that the internet has come along, I've found myself
communicating from time to time with people with ambiguous
names, or using anonymous "handles", without knowing what
sex they were. It was often interesting, because although
my correspondant's sex was irrelevant, I found myself from
time to time wondering about it while composing a message.
Of course, each time that happened, it exposed some sexist
assumption, often ones that I thought I had freed myself of.
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Bertel Lund Hansen
John M. Lawler
J. Edward Sanchez <je...@lightlink.com> writes:
>jla...@umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>>And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
>>skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
>>about people that need not be encoded into occupational titles.
>Those things are all determiners of precision.
In that case, *everything* is a determiner of precision, and
the term loses some of its, um, precision.
>The question is not why
>we shouldn't add more of these determiners, but why we should
>aggressively try to remove a determiner (sex) that's already firmly
>established in our language.
If we (or anybody) *were* aggressively trying to do that, I'd agree,
though there's little enough chance of English speakers giving up, say,
the definite article, which is certainly firmly established. And I know
of no social movements with that on their agenda.
But gender (not "sex", by the way -- gender is grammar, whereas sex is
fun) is *not*, as you seem to think, "firmly established in our language",
at least not if that language is English. Old English did have a firmly
established gender system, but it's been in the process of breaking down
and blowing away (along with all our other inflectional systems, like case
and tense) for about 900 years now, and what we're seeing at the moment is
just the ragtags and bobtails of a former gender system, used only
occasionally, pretty much at random, as part of derivational morphology,
and not as part of the inflectional system (like they are in Spanish, for
instance -- now *there's* a language with a firmly established gender
system).
You can root for these dying suffixes if you like, but you might as well
pine away for the Dative Case. Gender is a thing of the past in English.
Nevertheless, we manage to understand one another. Some times.
>IMO, information is a Good Thing.
Some information is a good thing, no doubt.
Still, nothing in nature is transitively valued.
Or, as the poet (sounds like Pope, but I've forgotten) says:
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
Adrian Tan
Sally Milo wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The word "webmaster" is in very common currency, but I also see
> > "webmaintainer" being used.
> >
> > If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
> > are available or recommended?
>
> As a woman who came of age in those early days of Women's Lib, I
> find the politically correct movement to de-male the English language
> unfortunate. When I tended bar, I "accidentally" put too much
> vermouth in the martinis of those who referred to me as "nurse" or
> "barmaid." I was a bartender - a professional, not the lesser nurse
> or barmaid. When I chair a committee, I am not offended when referred
> to as "chairman," nor do I (usually) write and say he/she when "he"
> will do. We cannot deny our culture had a male bias over the last
> many centuries and I am not offended by words which come from those
> days. (On the other had, when I recieve business correspondence to
> Mr. Milo or Sir, I throw a hissy-fit!)
Avoidance of usages with "male bias" normally isn't a communication
issue (lawyers can't use that loophole to re-interpret a few centuries
of statutes), but I don't think that the only other issue is of
offence.
That "male bias", that suggestion of maleness, might not blind one, as
such, to considering the female side of things, but it does privelege
the male side. This isn't just waffling: there are perceivable
ramifications to sexist language in the same way that rhetorical
insinuations have real effects. The person who uses the phrase "woman
scientist" might not intend that the attribute of femininity be thought
relevant, nor that a person should be thought-of firstly as a woman,
then as a scientist, but words exist independently to their speaker.
There is no doubt that a conceptualization of women as inferior could
easily be communicated by such a phrase, and that the attitude could be
internalised by those who so read it, and re-inforced and propagated
when they themselves use it.
John Davies
> Avoidance of usages with "male bias" normally isn't a communication
>issue (lawyers can't use that loophole to re-interpret a few centuries
>of statutes), but I don't think that the only other issue is of
>offence.
> That "male bias", that suggestion of maleness, might not blind one, as
>such, to considering the female side of things, but it does privelege
>the male side. This isn't just waffling: there are perceivable
>ramifications to sexist language in the same way that rhetorical
>insinuations have real effects. The person who uses the phrase "woman
>scientist" might not intend that the attribute of femininity be thought
>relevant, nor that a person should be thought-of firstly as a woman,
>then as a scientist, but words exist independently to their speaker.
>There is no doubt that a conceptualization of women as inferior could
>easily be communicated by such a phrase, and that the attitude could be
>internalised by those who so read it, and re-inforced and propagated
>when they themselves use it.
Right. Good riddance to "poetess" and "authoress" and the condescension
those usages implied. "Actress" is a tough one, though: I'm not sure
that the same objections hold with that, because panto and certain
eccentric productions of Shakespeare aside, actors do not compete with
actresses for jobs. I'd find it impossible to call Madonna an actor:
it's difficult enough calling her an actress.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
On that of which one cannot speak, one must remain silent. (Wittgenstein)
Steve MacGregor
Jonathan Mason <j...@sunline.net> wrote in article
<5e9sit$7...@clark.zippo.com>...
<<On the other hand, in chess and bridge we do have unisex masters and
grandmasters.>>
Oh? Kindly name one unisex grand master.
--
=======================================================
Reunite Gondwanaland!
=======================================================
J. Edward Sanchez
jla...@joust.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) wrote:
>J. Edward Sanchez <je...@lightlink.com> writes:
>>jla...@umich.edu (John Lawler) writes:
>
>>>And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
>>>skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
>>>about people that need not be encoded into occupational titles.
>
>>Those things are all determiners of precision.
>
>In that case, *everything* is a determiner of precision,
Yes, everything relevant to the object in question, that is.
>and the term loses some of its, um, precision.
How so? In my experience, modifiers serve to define things more
clearly and precisely, not less. Which of the following would you
consider more precise: "a book", or "a large, old, dusty book"?
>>The question is not why
>>we shouldn't add more of these determiners, but why we should
>>aggressively try to remove a determiner (sex) that's already firmly
>>established in our language.
>
>If we (or anybody) *were* aggressively trying to do that, I'd agree,
>though there's little enough chance of English speakers giving up, say,
>the definite article, which is certainly firmly established. And I know
>of no social movements with that on their agenda.
Don't you consider the move to eliminate gender-specific occupation
names (e.g. actress, seamstress, stewardess) aggressive?
>But gender (not "sex", by the way -- gender is grammar, whereas sex is
>fun)
Interestingly, I had originally typed "gender" in my follow-up, but
then backspaced over it when I saw that you had used the word "sex" in
your original post. I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion.
>is *not*, as you seem to think, "firmly established in our language",
>at least not if that language is English.
[snip]
Well, it depends on one means by "firmly established". Although gender
differentiation may not be as extensive and comprehensive in English
as it is in other languages, and although it may be (as you claim)
breaking down to the point of being vestigial, it's nevertheless still
there.
>You can root for these dying suffixes if you like, but you might as well
>pine away for the Dative Case. Gender is a thing of the past in English.
I'm not at all rooting for the dying suffixes. I was merely objecting
to your claim that gender is irrelevant when describing a person.
Gender *is* relevant, as are many other things that currently aren't
directly embedded in the language the way gender is.
Hmm. Since you seem to be in favor of letting the English gender
system wither away completely, let me ask you something: How would you
propose we reword the award titles "Best Actor" and "Best Actress"?
Mark Baker
In article <01bc1e1a$e754ab40$8a85...@goodnet.goodnet.com>,
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@GoodNet.Com> writes:
><<On the other hand, in chess and bridge we do have unisex masters and
>grandmasters.>>
>
> Oh? Kindly name one unisex grand master.
That's easy. Name one of both sexes.
Mark Baker
In article <5ed72r$j...@lastactionhero.rs.itd.umich.edu>,
jla...@joust.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M. Lawler) writes:
>But gender (not "sex", by the way -- gender is grammar, whereas sex is
>fun)
But in the case of schoolmaster/schoolmistress, the difference is not a
grammatical one, even if it was originally, but a description of the sex
of the person.
Rainer Thonnes
In article <3304E8...@ix.netcom.com>,
Sally Milo <Sal...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>
> When I tended bar, I "accidentally" put too much
> vermouth in the martinis of those who referred to me as "nurse" or
> "barmaid." I was a bartender - a professional, not the lesser nurse
> or barmaid.
Your customers, however, were not professionals of the bar trade and were
simply not aware that there is a distinction in seniority between
barmaid (and its male equivalent if there is one, "barman", perhaps), on
the one hand, and bartender on the other. Come to think of it, I'm not
aware of it either. To me, barman and bartender are synonyms, and barman
and barmaid are equivalent.
I've never come across "nurse" in this context, but it makes sense.
You might have considered it flattery. After all, nurses tend to their
patients. Merely tending the bar is lowly. Professionals look after
their clients in the first instance, their equipment later.
Besides, by spoiling their drinks, you were exhibiting unprofessional
conduct, thereby supporting any notions they might have had of your
lesserness.
Larry Krakauer
J. Edward Sanchez wrote:
> [...]
> Hmm. Since you seem to be in favor of letting the English gender
> system wither away completely, let me ask you something: How would you
> propose we reword the award titles "Best Actor" and "Best Actress"?
Simple. "Best male actor" and "Best female actor". The question is,
why is this distinction made in the first place?
Why not "best actor under six feet tall" and "best actor over
six feet tall", or "best white actor" and "best black actor"?
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Wendy Mueller
will...@ahecas.ahec.edu (Gary Williams, Business Services
Accounting) wrote:
Couldn't we just as easily give up the masculine ending? Or would
that upset too many people who happen to be male?
--
Wendy Mueller
John M. Lawler
>>>John Lawler writes:
>>>>And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
>>>>skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
>>>>about people that need not be encoded into occupational titles.
>>>Those things are all determiners of precision.
>>In that case, *everything* is a determiner of precision,
>Yes, everything relevant to the object in question, that is.
Well, "relevant" is a completely different issue. Relevance
is the engine that makes communication possible, since it's
not under the control of the speaker but rather the perceiver.
Thus, whatever we say and however we say it, we may well be
perceived as implying something we didn't intend (and in fact
tried to avoid), because of some "relevance" that the perceiver
imputes.
>>and the term loses some of its, um, precision.
>How so? In my experience, modifiers serve to define things more
>clearly and precisely, not less. Which of the following would you
>consider more precise: "a book", or "a large, old, dusty book"?
If you're really interested, I could go on for some time about
how modifiers work. But let me point you instead at any publication
of the US Internal Revenue Service, where the prose is full of
modifiers, but somehow the clarity index is less than optimum.
>>>The question is not why
>>>we shouldn't add more of these determiners, but why we should
>>>aggressively try to remove a determiner (sex) that's already firmly
>>>established in our language.
>>If we (or anybody) *were* aggressively trying to do that, I'd agree,
>>though there's little enough chance of English speakers giving up, say,
>>the definite article, which is certainly firmly established. And I know
>>of no social movements with that on their agenda.
>Don't you consider the move to eliminate gender-specific occupation
>names (e.g. actress, seamstress, stewardess) aggressive?
"Aggressive", in my book, describes something some people do to other
people. The question is which people. Apparently those people to whom
the words "actress" or "stewardess" are intended to refer (dunno about
"seamstress") feel that the use of those words by *others* is aggressive,
and demeaning, and less than ideal, and many of them have said so, and
sometimes react angrily when others use them nonetheless. I think we
could probably agree on that. Similar feelings have been expressed about
other terms by those denoted by them, like "nigger", "kike", "wop",
"greaser", etc.
Avoidance of gratuitous aggressive behavior, or any behavior that is known
to be construed as aggressive, is a part of simple civility (also in my
book -- your mileage may vary). And that's all there is to it. What you
call "the move" isn't any single movement or any single group of people,
as far as I can tell; it's just a growing dawning awareness, of the sort
we have become familiar with this century in the US, that some of our
unquestioned cultural values may in fact be in serious error, and that
others are now questioning them. I could cite smoking (look at a 40's
movie), stereotypes of ethnic minorities, bacon and eggs, and a host of
other things.
Now, some people feel that any criticism of their mythology (by which I
mean their list of unquestioned beliefs and the stories that go with them)
is aggressive. I think that's what you are referring to as "the move".
But we all have our own lists, and our own stories, and our own ways of
construing aggression. On my list is the idea that you will find
aggression if you look for it, but quite often it's not really there if
you don't look for it.
This is a longer answer than you may have expected, but I think I detected
a serious question.
>>But gender (not "sex", by the way -- gender is grammar, whereas sex is
>>fun)
>
>Interestingly, I had originally typed "gender" in my follow-up, but
>then backspaced over it when I saw that you had used the word "sex" in
>your original post. I didn't want to sidetrack the discussion.
Did I? Well, then, point taken. Though I still think sex is more fun
than grammar.
>>is *not*, as you seem to think, "firmly established in our language",
>>at least not if that language is English.
>[snip]
>Well, it depends on one means by "firmly established". Although gender
>differentiation may not be as extensive and comprehensive in English
>as it is in other languages, and although it may be (as you claim)
>breaking down to the point of being vestigial, it's nevertheless still
>there.
Some of it is, sure. Lots of things are there. But where is "there"?
What we laughingly call "the English language" doesn't exist anywhere
except in our minds and memories and habits, and those are prone to
change, to say the least. That's what's meant by "language change".
>>You can root for these dying suffixes if you like, but you might as well
>>pine away for the Dative Case. Gender is a thing of the past in English.
>I'm not at all rooting for the dying suffixes. I was merely objecting
>to your claim that gender is irrelevant when describing a person.
>Gender *is* relevant, as are many other things that currently aren't
>directly embedded in the language the way gender is.
Since humans spend most of their linguistic effort talking about other
humans, and since the majority of vocabulary items in every language deals
with humans, I'd say you may be overstating the case a bit. We have words
for all kinds of people and all kinds of traits and characteristics and
activities.
Sex is just one among many characteristics that are embedded in our
vocabulary. I agree it's on everybody's mind more often than some others,
and that puts it in danger of relevance, but it's only relevant in mating
situations (to put the matter rather abruptly), where the actual sex and
gender of the people takes on great significance.
That is, if one is interested in mating with (say) Meryl Streep, it
probably is extremely relevant to call her an actress, and it might well
feel strange to call her an actor (though no doubt there are cases...)
But in any other -- no doubt more common -- context, why make an
irrelevant distinction?
>Hmm. Since you seem to be in favor of letting the English gender
>system wither away completely,
It's not a matter of what I'm in favor of. Just as gravity and tides and
weather aren't a matter of what I'm in favor of. The English gender
system has already withered away, without any assistance from me.
Grammatical rules are self-enforcing, like all natural laws.
For the record, I *am* in favor of civility. After all, we're
supposed to be civilized, which means we can get along with one another
well enough to live crowded together in cities without stressing out
on threat displays or resorting to ethnic cleansing for population
control, among other things.
>.. let me ask you something: How would you
>propose we reword the award titles "Best Actor" and "Best Actress"?
I wouldn't. That's not my business.
Minding one's own business is another part of civility.
John M. Lawler
>>But gender (not "sex", by the way -- gender is grammar, whereas sex is
>>fun)
>But in the case of schoolmaster/schoolmistress, the difference is not a
>grammatical one, even if it was originally, but a description of the sex
>of the person.
Right. It's now a vocabulary difference, made with a derivational
agentive suffix pair that distinguishes gender (-[t]er/-[tr]ess, less
commonly -tor/-trix), at least potentially. This comes originally from
Indo-European *-ter/tor agentive suffixes, which was incidentally
inflected for gender en passant, as were all nouns, since I-E languages
all had full grammatical gender up until recently.
Now, though, this suffix has passed over into English derivational (rather
than inflectional) morphology -- it's become lexical, rather than
grammatical. And, in the maddeningly arbitrary manner of derivational
morphology, it only applies to some roots and not others. For instance,
I've never heard of
*paintress *writress *doctrix *bartendess
or many, many others. Only a few crippled old words are left lying
around, and some people feel they should be put on Lexical Security and
awarded their [Obs] label in the dictionaries.
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <330a90ee...@nntp.lightlink.com>, je...@lightlink.com
(J. Edward Sanchez) writes:
> Hmm. Since you seem to be in favor of letting the English gender
> system wither away completely, let me ask you something: How would you
> propose we reword the award titles "Best Actor" and "Best Actress"?
If you think that male and female actors are pursuing different professions,
then let the present titles stand. If, on the other hand, you think they are
pursuing the same profession but that their roles are sufficiently distinct
that separate categories based on sex are justified (just as the roles of
running backs and linemen are sufficiently different that distinct awards are
given), then let the titles be "Best Actor (Male)" and "Best Actor (Female)".
This would be completely parallel to the recognition that leading and
supporting actors have different tasks within a single profession, and are
designated Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, if the categories were "Best
Actor in a Male Role" and "Best Actor in a Female Role". Of course, then we
might not know what to do with Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
John M. Lawler
>>Avoidance of gratuitous aggressive behavior, or any behavior that is known
>>to be construed as aggressive, is a part of simple civility (also in my
>>book -- your mileage may vary). And that's all there is to it. What you
>>call "the move" isn't any single movement or any single group of people,
>>as far as I can tell; it's just a growing dawning awareness, of the sort
>>we have become familiar with this century in the US, that some of our
>>unquestioned cultural values may in fact be in serious error, and that
>>others are now questioning them. I could cite smoking (look at a 40's
>>movie), stereotypes of ethnic minorities, bacon and eggs, and a host of
>>other things.
>Help! What's wrong with bacon and eggs?
Nothing's wrong with them, but in the States, at least, they have recently
been indicted, among other foods, as potential health risks. I merely
pointed to two that go together and contain substances many find less
healthy than previously.
>If I may raise two more serious points (assuming that bacon and eggs
>doesn't have an importance that escapes me):
>>Sex is just one among many characteristics that are embedded in our
>>vocabulary. I agree it's on everybody's mind more often than some others,
>>and that puts it in danger of relevance, but it's only relevant in mating
>>situations (to put the matter rather abruptly), where the actual sex and
>>gender of the people takes on great significance.
>I think that's a bit overstated (but I hope I'm not tripping over
>different meanings of 'gender' and 'sex': I'm not quite sure of the
>senses you assign to the words). There's the small point that many
>people expect to find female actors playing the parts of women.
If true, that's a market preference, and self-enforcing. But it
needn't affect terminology. "Actress" is actually a useful term
when discussing the (small) range of strong roles created for women.
But often enough it seems like pointless determinism.
>But there's also a range of jobs for which one sex is preferred: for
>instance, military positions, jobs in personal service, jobs looking
>after children and some nursing jobs where, it appears, female nurses
>may attend to male patients but males may not nurse females. Under
>Irish law, many (if not all) of these jobs are exempt from the
>provisions of legislation outlawing sexual discrimination; I don't
>know what US law says.
Neither do many US citizens, since the laws are in the process of being
altered, almost always away from gender (or sex) determination, except in
cases where relevance can be shown (and clearly there are some).
>Only some of the _terms_ used for these jobs have inbuilt distinctions
>(eg valet, maid, nursemaid) but the distinction is still made in the
>_jobs_ themselves.
And here we have a case where dialect differences will persevere for a
long time, since cultures and laws differ. Nothing new here.
>>It's not a matter of what I'm in favor of. Just as gravity and tides and
>>weather aren't a matter of what I'm in favor of. The English gender
>>system has already withered away, without any assistance from me.
>>Grammatical rules are self-enforcing, like all natural laws.
>To what extent, though, is the tide of usage affected by the
>preferences of those who broadcast, write books and articles and teach
>(in universities and elsewhere)? Do changes arise spontaneously or do
>they result from the definite preferences of the articulate?
That's a good question. I don't think there's a single answer, though.
Different changes happen in different ways. My guess, though, is that
vanishingly few changes "result from the definite preferences of the
articulate". I think Sapir was right in attributing them to "unconscious
generations"; as I grow older and learn more about language, I become more
and more convinced that the idea that we are in charge of the language we
speak is a kind illusion at best. It would be closer to the mark to say
that language speaks us than that we speak it.
>I'm not suggesting that there's a conspiracy afoot amongst the media,
>or that previous centuries didn't have their own small groups
>influencing the tides; I'm just wondering whether such groups have an
>effect.
No doubt some effect, for a while, in some contexts, but to have a
continuous, consistent effect on everybody for generations, which is what
it takes, requires more persistence and permanence than is usually evident
in the stylistic preferences of small groups. And the literate, not to
mention the articulate, have always been a small minority.
That may not be the way we'd prefer it, but it's the way it is.
Brian J Goggin
On 19 Feb 1997 13:25:34 GMT, jla...@frogger.rs.itd.umich.edu (John M.
Lawler) wrote:
[...]
>Avoidance of gratuitous aggressive behavior, or any behavior that is known
>to be construed as aggressive, is a part of simple civility (also in my
>book -- your mileage may vary). And that's all there is to it. What you
>call "the move" isn't any single movement or any single group of people,
>as far as I can tell; it's just a growing dawning awareness, of the sort
>we have become familiar with this century in the US, that some of our
>unquestioned cultural values may in fact be in serious error, and that
>others are now questioning them. I could cite smoking (look at a 40's
>movie), stereotypes of ethnic minorities, bacon and eggs, and a host of
>other things.
Help! What's wrong with bacon and eggs?
If I may raise two more serious points (assuming that bacon and eggs
doesn't have an importance that escapes me):
>Sex is just one among many characteristics that are embedded in our
>vocabulary. I agree it's on everybody's mind more often than some others,
>and that puts it in danger of relevance, but it's only relevant in mating
>situations (to put the matter rather abruptly), where the actual sex and
>gender of the people takes on great significance.
I think that's a bit overstated (but I hope I'm not tripping over
different meanings of 'gender' and 'sex': I'm not quite sure of the
senses you assign to the words). There's the small point that many
people expect to find female actors playing the parts of women. But
there's also a range of jobs for which one sex is preferred: for
instance, military positions, jobs in personal service, jobs looking
after children and some nursing jobs where, it appears, female nurses
may attend to male patients but males may not nurse females. Under
Irish law, many (if not all) of these jobs are exempt from the
provisions of legislation outlawing sexual discrimination; I don't
know what US law says.
Only some of the _terms_ used for these jobs have inbuilt distinctions
(eg valet, maid, nursemaid) but the distinction is still made in the
_jobs_ themselves.
>It's not a matter of what I'm in favor of. Just as gravity and tides and
>weather aren't a matter of what I'm in favor of. The English gender
>system has already withered away, without any assistance from me.
>Grammatical rules are self-enforcing, like all natural laws.
To what extent, though, is the tide of usage affected by the
preferences of those who broadcast, write books and articles and teach
(in universities and elsewhere)? Do changes arise spontaneously or do
they result from the definite preferences of the articulate?
I'm not suggesting that there's a conspiracy afoot amongst the media,
or that previous centuries didn't have their own small groups
influencing the tides; I'm just wondering whether such groups have an
effect.
bjg
Steve MacGregor
<<On the other hand, in chess and bridge we do have unisex masters and
grandmasters.>>
In article <01bc1e1a$e754ab40$8a85...@goodnet.goodnet.com>,
"Steve MacGregor" <Stev...@GoodNet.Com> writes:
> Oh? Kindly name one unisex grand master.
Mark Baker <mn...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in article
<5eeln4$c...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
<<That's easy. Name one of both sexes.>>
I've never heard of a grand master of both sexes.
JC Dill
On 18 Feb 1997 21:38:10 GMT, jly...@dept.english.upenn.edu (Jack
Lynch) expound upon: "Re: "Webmaster" & sexist language"
>John M. Lawler wrote:
>: >I agree with you but one can accept that ability rather than sex is
>: >relevant without agreeing that one should do away with words identifying
>: >the sex of a person. If one does so, there is a loss of precision, the
>: >instant identification of the sex of that person.
>
>: And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
>: skin color or hair color?
Perhaps more because persons of different sexes are naturally
different (in behavior, reactions, etc...) than persons of different
eye colors? Yet persons of different races *can* be naturally
different, and thus the tendency (non-p.c.) to refer to someone by
race when talking about them. For instance, it was common (pre-p.c.)
in newspaper articles to add in a bit about the person's race if that
made their comments more comprehendible, yet rare to mention eye
color...
I'm not arguing *for* the distinction (using a masculine or feminine
title), but rather trying to explain why/how it came to be...
_____
There is a *typo* in my return address, a spam prevention tactic.
So to email me, figure out the typo and correct it! But...
*Don't* send me ANY commercial email. You *will* regret it.
jc
Bertel Lund Hansen
Mark Barton wrote:
>One might as well argue that "he" is not sexist because many writers
>have used it in all earnestness to denote "he or she"
No, one mightn't, because the word "he" means "someone of
male gender". Master originally means "someone who is
capable of something". It is true that the latter is to some
degree associated with males, but in time when women masters
appear in growing numbers the word will lose this
association again and be gender neutral. "He" can never lose
its association with "male".
--
Regards, Bertel
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <5efta9$8...@camel0.mindspring.com>, dag...@pipeline.com.remove.this
In the first place, it's not always that easy; often the neutered terms are
inelegant (though that does not apply to the witty `webster').
My more important argument is that my (perhaps minority) opinion is that we can
deprive occupational and role titles of their allegedly masculine force (I say
allegedly, because many of these ending have masculine force only if the same
word exists with a feminine suffix--some people think an actor is necessarily
male, but they don't think that of a realtor) by applying them to females that
hold such positions.
I don't think of a dungeonmaster as male, perhaps because the first one I met
was a woman. I've known so many female chairmen that the image called to my
mind by "chairman" is certainly sex-indeterminate, and I feel no sense of a
clash of grammatical gender in addressing one as "Madame Chairman".
I see no advantage in spreading the notion that sex is relevant in roles where
it is not relevant by insisting that people must picture occupants of positions
with certain suffixes as males. I see much more advantage in insisting that,
regardless of the suffix, persons of either sex can fill a role.
For me, "master" reflects natural gender only in certain combinations. I
probably would picture a master of the castle as male, in contrast with its
mistress. But I do not picture a chessmaster as male; I do not picture as male
a master of a craft; I do not picture as male a Master of Arts or of Business
Administration; and I do not picture as male a webmaster. Why would you want
to insist that I or others should?
Do you always insist that, because a word or suffix is masculine in one
context, it must be so interpreted in all? Do you think that, because
"actress" exists, it is not only wrong to refer to a female thespian as an
actor, but that we must also convert realtors to realpersons?
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
B.W. Battin
On 17 Feb 97 16:01:07 +0900, "Mark Barton"
<mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.no-spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 14, 1997 9:21 PM, B.W. Battin <bat...@concentric.net> wrote:
>>IMHO, master need not be considered sexist in all cases, despite some
>>of its gender specific meanings--male teacher, male head of household,
>>etc. Two of the most common definitions are (1) the person in charge
>>and (2) an expert at something. Many women are in charge; many are
>>experts. This the sense in which it is used in webmaster. Not much
>>sexism in that.
>
>I don't think you're free to consider the various dictionary senses of a
>word in isolation like that. We're talking about a word that not only has
>masculine connotations and a feminine equivalent (mistress) but has gone so
>far as to acquire specifically male denotative meanings. One might as well
>argue that "he" is not sexist because many writers have used it in all
>earnestness to denote "he or she" and this usage is recorded in
>dictionaries. The issue is not what the dictionary says or even what the
>author intends - the issue is what package of associations the reader is
>likely to receive. In the case of "master" it is clear that an
>overwhelmingly male package of associations is being delivered, to the
>extent that the concept of a female master is at least slightly
>incongruous.
>
But haven't changes in usage left much of the maleness associated with
the term behind? Mistress sounds like something from an old novel
today, a quaint term that is rarely used. Master, in the sense of an
expert or a person in charge, seems genderless to me. A woman who
becomes an expert at building things out of wood would be a "master
carptenter"--it seems highly unlikely that anyone would call her a
"mistress carpenter."
BWB
John Cowan
Larry Krakauer wrote:
> Simple. "Best male actor" and "Best female actor". The question is,
> why is this distinction made in the first place?
>
> Why not "best actor under six feet tall" and "best actor over
> six feet tall", or "best white actor" and "best black actor"?
Because, in general, acting roles are dictated by gender. There
are few parts that could be played equally well by a man or a woman.
This, of course, is a contingent fact about {play,screen}writing,
but it's one that award-givers can't just ignore.
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org
e'osai ko sarji la lojban
Nick Carter
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com) wrote:
: Simple. "Best male actor" and "Best female actor". The question is,
: why is this distinction made in the first place?
: Why not "best actor under six feet tall" and "best actor over
: six feet tall", or "best white actor" and "best black actor"?
I know this is wrong, and I am deeply ashamed. But, I do not care how
tall an actor is. I DO tend to notice what gender they are.
NC
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting
In article <AF2E314...@133.11.142.52>, "Mark Barton"
<mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.no-spam.ac.jp> writes:
> One might as well argue that "he" is not sexist because many writers have
> used it in all earnestness to denote "he or she" and this usage is recorded
> in dictionaries.
I have and do so argue.
> In the case of "master" it is clear that an overwhelmingly male package of
> associations is being delivered,....
To me personally that is not altogether clear; see my immediately previous post
for examples.
Gary Williams
WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
Evan Kirshenbaum
In article <1997Feb19.075614.1@ahecas>,
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting <will...@ahecas.ahec.edu> wrote:
>In article <330a90ee...@nntp.lightlink.com>, je...@lightlink.com
>(J. Edward Sanchez) writes:
>
>> Hmm. Since you seem to be in favor of letting the English gender
>> system wither away completely, let me ask you something: How would you
>> propose we reword the award titles "Best Actor" and "Best Actress"?
>
>If you think that male and female actors are pursuing different
>professions, then let the present titles stand. If, on the other
>hand, you think they are pursuing the same profession but that their
>roles are sufficiently distinct that separate categories based on sex
>are justified (just as the roles of running backs and linemen are
>sufficiently different that distinct awards are given), then let the
>titles be "Best Actor (Male)" and "Best Actor (Female)".
I've always thought that the awards should go to "Best Actor in a
Romantic Role", "Best Actor in a Comedic Role", etc., and be open to
either sex.
>This would be completely parallel to the recognition that leading and
>supporting actors have different tasks within a single profession,
>and are designated Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, if the
>categories were "Best Actor in a Male Role" and "Best Actor in a
>Female Role". Of course, then we might not know what to do with
>Julie Andrews in Victor/Victoria.
Perhaps a better example would be Linda Hunt, who one the Best
Supporting Actress award for playing Billy Kwan (a man) in "The Year
of Living Dangerously". Andrews' role was clearly a woman (pretending
to be a man pretending to be a woman).
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(415)857-7572
Adrian Tan
> >IMO, information is a Good Thing.
>
> Some information is a good thing, no doubt.
> Still, nothing in nature is transitively valued.
> Or, as the poet (sounds like Pope, but I've forgotten) says:
>
> "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
> Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
I'm pretty sure it's Pope. Didn't he write "Essay on Criticism" or
something?
Truly Donovan
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
> In article <AF2E314...@133.11.142.52>, "Mark Barton"
> <mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.no-spam.ac.jp> writes:
>
> > One might as well argue that "he" is not sexist because many writers have
> > used it in all earnestness to denote "he or she" and this usage is recorded
> > in dictionaries.
>
> I have and do so argue.
In carefree obliviousness to the perceptions of the reader.
--
Truly Donovan
"Industrial-strength SGML," Prentice Hall 1996
ISBN 0-13-216243-1
http://www.prenhall.com
Larry Krakauer
John Cowan wrote:
> Larry Krakauer wrote:
> > Simple. "Best male actor" and "Best female actor". The question is,
> > why is this distinction made in the first place?
> > Why not "best actor under six feet tall" and "best actor over
> > six feet tall", or "best white actor" and "best black actor"?
> Because, in general, acting roles are dictated by gender. There
> are few parts that could be played equally well by a man or a woman.
> This, of course, is a contingent fact about {play, screen}writing,
> but it's one that award-givers can't just ignore.
Well, yes and no.
Acting roles are usually dictated by race, as well, but I
don't think anyone would accept "best white actor" and
"best black actor". It would be considered to be
patronizing and racist. Why don't we think about the use
of "Best male actor" and "Best female actor" in the same
way, at least for roles that could be played by either sex?
Certainly, *some* acting roles are dictated by gender.
For instance, the genders of a couple in a heterosexual
romance must be opposite. However, the fact that
*most* roles are written for a specific gender
is just a reflection of the society's sexism. You wrote,
"There are few parts that could be played equally well by
a man or a woman." I think that if filmgoers were less sexist,
then in fact a *majority* of all roles in movies could be
written as "person-34", and could be filled by the best
actor/actress to audition.
And indeed, as the society changes, we are seeing bits of
this. More and more, you will see, for example, the part
of a doctor being played by a woman, with no particular
point or fuss being made about it. A couple of decades
ago, a woman doctor would *never* have appeared in a film,
unless the fact of the doctor being female were a major
element of the plot. The funny thing is, though, that the
script probably was written with a specified gender for the
doctor, because in English it's hard to do otherwise.
--
Larry Krakauer (lar...@kronos.com)
Mark Barton
On Thu, Feb 20, 1997 4:20 PM, Bertel Lund Hansen
<mailto:bert...@post3.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>>One might as well argue that "he" is not sexist because many writers
>>have used it in all earnestness to denote "he or she"
>
>male gender".
This is quite false. That might be its most common meaning but it is listed
in dictionaries as meaning he or she, and this was a perfectly common sense
in older writing.
>Master originally means "someone who is
>capable of something".
That also is not at all clear. In my MW Collegiate 10th Ed, which is
organised chronologically, the first subsense of the first sense is "male
teacher". That can't be taken of proof of course because of the usual
caveats about documenting very old usages. However it is entirely possible
that the word came into English meaning male teacher and only later came to
mean someone highly capable (worthy of being a teacher).
That said, I think it's irrelevant. Whether a word is sexist or not depends
on the package of meanings and connotations it has _now_. Older senses will
_often_ be rooted more deeply in the package than derived senses, but not
necessarily - consider "gay", where the original meaning is near dead.
>It is true that the latter is to some
>degree associated with males, but in time when women masters
>appear in growing numbers the word will lose this
>association again and be gender neutral. "He" can never lose
>its association with "male".
My point is simply that having a non-sexist meaning listed in a dictionary
is not a sufficient condition for a word being non-sexist. In the case of
"master" as a common noun meaning a supremely competent person, I even
fancy that you are right - if we all go about using it unselfconciously,
the word is probably salvageable.
However in the case of "Master" as a title, my feeling is that it is not
salvageable, since all other uses as a title are (and have been for
centuries) denotatively male. Since "webmaster" inherits much more from the
title than from the common noun, I am very uncomfortable about it.
A lot of people (both males and females) assuring me that they do not
perceive masculine connotations in "webmaster" would change my mind.
Pointing out that "master" has one nominally gender-neutral sense will not.
Cheers,
Mark B.
----------------
Please remove the spam filter from my address before replying.
Ronald D. Cuthbertson
Gary Williams, Business Services Accounting wrote:
>
> writes:
>
> > Gary,
> >
> > You snipped my contribution and retained my attributiion. I didn't say
> > anything about sexism pertaining to "webmaster". I did say that
> > "webster" is a word that I prefer.
>
> True, and I apologize for any confusion; but I did take care to note that the
> quoted material, although it came from your post, was not your material. I
> didn't have the post you quoted at hand, and I don't think the source was
> contained in your followup; but it was that quote to which I wanted to respond.
>
> But to give you the courtesy of a reply: I suppose webster would be a possible
> term; but I consider it unnecessary, because I still don't see why "-master"
> implies, in this enlightened day, maleness.
>
> Gary Williams
> WILL...@AHECAS.AHEC.EDU
I agree, in the American Heritage Dictionary, 3rd ed., of the 16
definitions only 4 refer to a man, the first 5 do not refer to gender.
Reagrds,
Ron
--
Inmark Inc.
R. D. Cuthbertson, M.Ed.
President
P. O. Box 30296
Midwest City, OK 73140 USA
Tel: (405) 732-0051
Fax: (405) 732-0052
It is unlawful to use this fax or email address for
unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec. 227. We assess a
US$500 charge for reviewing & deleting each unsolicited ad.
Send remittance to the above P. O. Box address.
Mark Barton
On Thu, Feb 20, 1997 11:53 PM, ? wrote:
>In article <AF2E314...@133.11.142.52>, "Mark Barton"
><mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.no-spam.ac.jp> writes:
>
have
recorded
>> in dictionaries.
>
>I have and do so argue.
Well I can't withhold marks for inconsistency, then. However I suggest that
if we go with the dictionary definition of sexism, "behaviour, conditions,
or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex", then
using "he" to mean "he or she" is clearly sexist because the distinction
between "he (male)" and "he (inclusive)" is wholly unmarked, fostering the
stereotype that all persons of any note are male. This strikes me as the
prevailing interpretation of "sexist" as applied to language.
If you are arguing that "sexist" _should_ mean something different,
something compatible with inclusive "he", then you are welcome to your
opinion. I can only point out that that's not what most people mean by it.
>> In the case of "master" it is clear that an overwhelmingly male package
of
>> associations is being delivered,....
>
>To me personally that is not altogether clear; see my immediately previous
post
>for examples.
Well if you, and preferably a few others, including women, assure me that
that in fact it doesn't have strong masculine connotations, I will
reconsider. That's the only sort of data that's important.
Les Smith
In article <5efta9$8...@camel0.mindspring.com>,
dag...@pipeline.com.remove.this (Wendy Mueller) wrote:
>Couldn't we just as easily give up the masculine ending? Or would
>that upset too many people who happen to be male?
>
your surname.
Lee Lester
>And why is sex a determiner of 'precision', and not (say) eye color or
>skin color or hair color? There are many things we might like to know
>that
>matter, why not encode ability into the title? We could use the suffix
>'-on' (from 'moron') and refer to, for instance, Senatron Strom
>Thurmond.
Because sex is the most obvious determinent. Go into a room and you
immediately pick out the one man there or if there are more men than
women. And why not? Blue eyes, etc., are harder to discern.
>Anyway, the whole theory of gender neutral terms is based on the idea
>that doing away with such words is likely to enhance women's prospects,
>lessen their being demeaned, etc.
>No, that's not true. Certainly it's a determinant, but not the only
>one,
>and definitely not the most useful or valuable one. A much better
>reason
>is that the use of gender-neutral terms forces people to think about
>what's important in a given context, instead of merely what's
>traditional,
>and in a case where the traditional is demonstrably *not* important,
>and even prejudicial, it's a good idea to avoid it.
Do you really think so? More likely it's hardly likely than one person
in a thousand even considers it. Even if your contention is correct,
there are the many who do not like the change or object to the
philosophy behind it.
There are many ways to tackle inequalities and lack of justice, etc.
Artificial, forced monkeying with the language rather than allowing
natural growth or death of certain words or expressions is a
distraction from far important matters as well as having the
effect of splitting those who might otherwise be allies.
However, this might be a suitable point to accept our differences as we
are still on the subject of words and language rather than of sexual
politics.
lee lester
Christopher Perrott
Larry Krakauer wrote:
> The funny thing is, though, that the
> script probably was written with a specified gender for the
> doctor, because in English it's hard to do otherwise.
Patient: Hello Doctor.
Doctor: Good morning Mr Smith.
(Doctor walks to desk, picks up stethoscope.)
Doctor: And how do you feel today?
Nope, I've given away the sex of the patient, but not the doctor's.
I didn't even have to use "they".
--
Chris Perrott
Matthew Rabuzzi
John M. Lawler writes:
:
: Some information is a good thing, no doubt.
: Still, nothing in nature is transitively valued.
: Or, as the poet (sounds like Pope, but I've forgotten) says:
:
: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing;
: Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring."
of the Law of Conservation of Crenitic Energy.
...........................
But will it play in Pieria?
Matthew Rabuzzi
Keith C. Ivey
"Mark Barton" <mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.no-spam.ac.jp> wrote:
>A lot of people (both males and females) assuring me that they
>do not perceive masculine connotations in "webmaster" would
>change my mind.
Count me in as one of those people (though my vote may not count
fully because I'm male). There are a lot of female webmasters
out there, and few call themselves webmistresses except as a
joke. My feelings about the "master" part of "webmaster" are
similar to my feelings about the "master" part of "masterpiece".
Even if someone points it out, I don't see anything incongruous
about a woman creating a masterpiece.
Moreover, in chess, female grandmasters are not referred to as
grandmistresses. And I don't believe the title "postmistress"
is used anymore. When you get to headmistresses, however, the
situation may be different, probably because of the association
of "headmaster" with boys' schools.
On the other hand, I don't believe the "man" ending can be
satisfactorily degendered.
Keith C. Ivey <kci...@cpcug.org> Washington, DC
Contributing Editor/Webmaster
The Editorial Eye <http://www.eeicom.com/eye/>
K. Edgcombe
In article <AF335D7...@133.11.142.52>,
<someone - sorry! wrote....
>
>>> In the case of "master" it is clear that an overwhelmingly male package
>of
>>> associations is being delivered,....
>>
>>To me personally that is not altogether clear; see my immediately previous
>post
>>for examples.
>
>Well if you, and preferably a few others, including women, assure me that
>that in fact it doesn't have strong masculine connotations, I will
>reconsider. That's the only sort of data that's important.
Wel, here is one woman to say that it doesn't have strongly masculine
connotations, at any rate with a prefix - webmaster, postmaster etc. carry no
gender loading to me. Similarly some particular titles, like the Master of the
Mint (the place that makes the money, not the thing with the hole,in case
anyone was wondering) are neutral. If someone asked to see "the master of the
house", on the other hand, I might snort a bit but I'd know who was meant.
I believe the Queen is titular Master of this and that, which doesn't bother me
-or, as far as I know, her. And at least one major educational estaoblishment
in this country (though not this city) has had a female Master.
And chess masters, surely, are neutral.
I think the word is, as someone put it, salvageable - or indeed hardly in need of
salvaging.
>
All credit to the poster whose name I have accidentally erased for being
willing to be convinced by evidence from others. It's a rare distinction in
this particular discussion.
Katy
cwu...@ibm.net
>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>>are available or recommended?
Websmith
Bertel Lund Hansen
Lee Lester
MB> . However I suggest that
MB> if we go with the dictionary definition of sexism, "behaviour,
MB> conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles
MB> based on sex", then using "he" to mean "he or she" is clearly
MB> sexist because the distinction between "he (male)" and "he
MB> (inclusive)" is wholly unmarked, fostering the stereotype that all
MB> persons of any note are male. This strikes me as the prevailing
MB> interpretation of "sexist" as applied to language.
The mere differentiation of sex, in language and in many other
connotations, does infer sexism. The context decides all. For instance,
we can have different toilets for each sex but that does not mean that
the discrimination involved is necessarily a bad thing. Thus talking
about an actor and an actress certainly points to a difference of sex.
But it certainly does not imply superiority or inferiority for either of
those categories. Vive la difference!
Ronald D. Cuthbertson
Katy,
I might be king of my castle, but my wife is certainly the master of the
house! Aren't you really the master also??
Regards,
Christopher Perrott
Sorry, the feminine form of "smith" escapes me. My sister-in-law
took some silversmithing classes. Did that make her a
silversmithstress or something?
--
Chris Perrott
jds...@psu.edu
In article <33100b2...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
Bert...@post3.tele.dk (Bertel Lund Hansen) wrote:
>
> cwu...@ibm.net wrote:
>
> >>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
> >>>are available or recommended?
>
> >Websmith
>
> I'm afraid a smith is as much a man as a master.
>
> Regards, Bertel
I'm Sorry, maybe it is just me, the word "webmaster" is as much a male as
it is a female. There is not inherent sex related to the word. Next you
are going to say that the word "woman" is also sexist!
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Bertel Lund Hansen
jds...@psu.edu wrote:
>I'm Sorry, maybe it is just me, the word "webmaster" is as much a male as
>it is a female. There is not inherent sex related to the word.
Welcome to our little discussion.
--
Regards, Bertel
Simon Hosie
Larry Krakauer wrote:
> Simple. "Best male actor" and "Best female actor". The question is,
> why is this distinction made in the first place?
>
> Why not "best actor under six feet tall" and "best actor over
> six feet tall", or "best white actor" and "best black actor"?
John Cowan:
> Because, in general, acting roles are dictated by gender. There
> are few parts that could be played equally well by a man or a woman.
I suspect that roles are also dictated by race, quite often. At least in
America.
Truly Donovan
Simon Hosie wrote:
>
> I suspect that roles are also dictated by race, quite often. At least in
> America.
"Miss Saigon" almost didn't open because of the objection of some
minority group or other to the casting of Jonathan Pryce to play an
Asian.
Mirabelle Severn & Thames
In article <330fbb8d...@news2.ibm.net>, <cwu...@ibm.net> wrote:
>>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
>>>are available or recommended?
>Websmith
Oooh. While I do not infer maleness from "webmaster",
I do like "websmith".
(For me, "Webmaster" calls up connections to "dungeonmaster",
the leader and storyteller in various role-playing games,
and [also for me] experience has prevented "dungeonmaster"
from implying males exclusively.)
Naomi Brokaw
from California's central coast
Robert Lipton
Truly Donovan (tr...@lunemere.com) wrote:
: Simon Hosie wrote:
: >
: > I suspect that roles are also dictated by race, quite often. At least in
: > America.
: "Miss Saigon" almost didn't open because of the objection of some
: minority group or other to the casting of Jonathan Pryce to play an
: Asian.
Mmm... not exactly. It was more an objection that we needed to hire a
British man to play a foreigner when there are so many members of Equity
out of work. I shan't begin to discuss the versions of H.M.S. PINAFORE
I've seen when Major General Stanley's come in Caucasian, Chinese,
negroid and Amerindian. Doesn't reflect at all well on Stanley's
intellect...
Bob
Truly Donovan
Mirabelle Severn & Thames wrote:
>
> In article <330fbb8d...@news2.ibm.net>, <cwu...@ibm.net> wrote:
> >>>If "webmaster" is an inherently sexist word, what alternatives
> >>>are available or recommended?
>
> >Websmith
>
> Oooh. While I do not infer maleness from "webmaster",
> I do like "websmith".
When the time comes, I'm going to vote for "webwright." Think of the
potential for verbal carnage with that one!
Lee Lester
"Best male actor" and "Best female actor."
So what was wrong with actor and actress? At least, the descriptions
were shorter and no more sexist, if indeed, that was the reason for the
changes.
joy beeson
"Mark Barton" <mba...@icrr.u-tokyo.no-spam.ac.jp> wrote:
[snip]
>dictionaries. The issue is not what the dictionary says or even what the
>author intends - the issue is what package of associations the reader is
>likely to receive. In the case of "master" it is clear that an
>overwhelmingly male package of associations is being delivered, to the
>extent that the concept of a female master is at least slightly
>incongruous.
This happens, IF it happens, solely because the reader thinks it
faintly ludicrous that a woman can be a master. It is this
perception, not words such as "doctor" and "master", that needs to be
changed.
Joy Beeson
Remove the "x" from my e-mail address and replace it with my first
initial.
Lee Lester
>dictionaries. The issue is not what the dictionary says or even what
the
>author intends - the issue is what package of associations the reader
is
>likely to receive. In the case of "master" it is clear that an
>overwhelmingly male package of associations is being delivered, to the
>extent that the concept of a female master is at least slightly
>incongruous.
Not at all. Probably 999 people out of 1,000 utter a word or words
without any thought as to anything but the obvious and usual sense. They
certainly don't stop to ponder any real or supposed hidden meanings.
That is left to lawyers and academics who build their careers on looking
at such things or those with a politico-sexual hangup.
The whole concept of 'sexist' or 'exclusionary' language is a detour
and distraction from the main course of rectifying inequalities. It
certainly does nothing to get rid of them and only causes divisions
among those who would otherwise be united in pursuing things that really
matter.
John Davies
In article <97022803...@guildnet.org>, Lee Lester
<lee.l...@guildnet.org> writes
[attribution snipped by Lee]
> In the case of "master" it is clear that an
>>overwhelmingly male package of associations is being delivered, to the
>>extent that the concept of a female master is at least slightly
>>incongruous.
>
>Not at all. Probably 999 people out of 1,000 utter a word or words
>without any thought as to anything but the obvious and usual sense. They
>certainly don't stop to ponder any real or supposed hidden meanings.
> The whole concept of 'sexist' or 'exclusionary' language is a detour
>and distraction from the main course of rectifying inequalities. It
>certainly does nothing to get rid of them and only causes divisions
>among those who would otherwise be united in pursuing things that really
>matter.
opinion expressed in your last paragraph. I changed my mind when I was
involved in re-drafting the conditions of service applying to staff in
the British Council. The object was to bring them into line with the
organization's recently-adopted equal opportunities policy. At the
beginning of this three-volume work, which covered in great detail
matters like maternity leave, overseas allowances for married staff,
rights of spouses to travel at official expense etc, there was the usual
blanket statement that "he" meant "he or she" throughout. To save time,
I was in favour of leaving that in, rather than going through the whole
thing to insert "he or she" at appropriate points. A colleague soon
persuaded me otherwise: she showed me a dozen or so examples where there
would be genuine doubt in the mind of any reasonable person whether an
entitlement applied to a woman as well as a man, or a husband as well as
a wife. And when we looked into it there was evidence that this doubt
was actually affecting the decisions taken by the managers all over the
world who had to apply the regulations.
So I don't think we should be too hasty in assuming that getting rid of
sexist language has nothing to do with the real fight for equality of
treatment: it can be an integral part of it. But I have to say it *is*
very irritating when people bang on about words like "master plan" or
"seminal" - that sort of nonsense damages a worthy cause.
--
John Davies (jo...@redwoods.demon.co.uk)
On that of which one cannot speak, one must remain silent. (Wittgenstein)
Lee Lester
Where specificity is required, one should use the appropriate personal
pronoun. Obviously, in relation to pregnancy, 'he or she' or just 'he'
is ridiculous.
But that bears out my original point, that gender-specific terms are
preferable to the neutral forms being advocated, in that they are more
precise.
As far as groups are concerned, using the pronoun which describes the
majority is also appropriate, e.g. 'he' for soldiers and 'she for
'nurses.'
Anton Sherwood
Truly Donovan <tr...@lunemere.com> says:
: "Miss Saigon" almost didn't open because of the objection of some
: minority group or other to the casting of Jonathan Pryce to play an
: Asian.
*half* Asian, at that!
--
Anton Sherwood *\\* +1 415 267 0685 *\\* DAS...@netcom.com
"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within
the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." --Claire Wolfe
Chris Perrott
Lee Lester wrote:
>
> As far as groups are concerned, using the pronoun which describes the
> majority is also appropriate, e.g. 'he' for soldiers and 'she for
> 'nurses.'
I take it this is just a troll. Otherwise, it's outrageous.
--
Chris Perrott
barbara@.bookpro.com
lee.l...@guildnet.org (Lee Lester) wrote:
>Where specificity is required, one should use the appropriate personal
>pronoun. Obviously, in relation to pregnancy, 'he or she' or just 'he'
>is ridiculous.
Yes.
<snip>
>As far as groups are concerned, using the pronoun which describes the
>majority is also appropriate, e.g. 'he' for soldiers and 'she for
>'nurses.'
This makes a hash of the argument that "he" is inclusive. Either "he"
means both male and female or it doesn't. If it does, it should be
used for nurses as well as soldiers. If it doesn't, I don't see any
reason to use it for both sexes.
BWillette
seotea...@gmail.com
Jenny Telia
> my web zarams.com my web upload 40 days 5 days ago web master site submit my web content not a show in google not a index please solve my probleum
>
I have examined your uploaded content and have come to a conclusion:
you need to improve your English.
The Webmaster
Bertel Lund Hansen
> my web zarams.com my web upload 40 days 5 days ago web master
> site submit my web content not a show in google not a index
> please solve my probleum
--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark