To avoid the clumsy he/she ...
Geoff Cutter
Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure" contains
the explanation:
"To avoid the clumsy he/she and his/her we have refered to the child as
she."
Why not he, as it always was?
Small publisher? No.
Published by Ladybird Books Ltd
A subsidiary of the Penguin Group
A Pearson Company
Copyright Disney MCMXCVII
--
regds Geoff Saturday, 1998-05-23
gcu...@melbpc.org.au (address expires end Mar 99)
http://www.focus-asia.com/home/gcutter/index2.htm
Emma
Geoff Cutter wrote:
> Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure" contains
> the explanation:
> "To avoid the clumsy he/she and his/her we have refered to the child as
> she."
> Why not he, as it always was?
When I raise questions (about why "he"?) I am told that it doesnt
matter....it's not an issue. It doesnt mean anything, it refers to men _and_
women.
So, if thats the case, why the problem when she is used to represent men and
women?
I wonder....
Bob Newman
Geoff Cutter wrote of:
> Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure".
A A Milne didn't write a book with this title. What is going on?
Bob Newman
JNugent231
>From: Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>> "To avoid the clumsy he/she and his/her we have refered to the child as
>> she."
>When I raise questions (about why "he"?) I am told that it doesnt
>matter....it's not an issue. It doesnt mean anything, it refers to men _and_
>women.
>
>So, if thats the case, why the problem when she is used to represent men and
>women?
>
>I wonder....
>
You are right to wonder. The reason is that "she" does not represent men AND
women in the way that "he" does.
You may think that this is "unfair", but your feelings cannot and do not cause
"she" and "he" to exchange meanings. The quoted usage is simply incorrect.
Please leave politics out of our beautiful language.
Donna
Emma wrote:
>
> Geoff Cutter wrote:
>
> > Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure" contains
> > the explanation:
> > "To avoid the clumsy he/she and his/her we have refered to the child as
> > she."
>
> matter....it's not an issue. It doesnt mean anything, it refers to men _and_
> women.
>
> So, if thats the case, why the problem when she is used to represent men and
> women?
>
> I wonder....
At one time I would have responded as such: "it doesn't matter". I
want to blame that on my naivete, maybe add a touch of ignorance; but, I
have learned! And it does matter.
Now I experience the same sort of reactions to my queries, people
saying it doesn't matter. Hmmmmmmmmm.
Well, if everyone is so set on using one singular term that encompasses
all, seems to me that "she" would be the better choice. Afterall, "she"
appears to be more comprehensive linguistically (she contains he)than
the term "he".
Emma
Donna wrote:
Ah...youre a grand student, Donna ;o)
Steve MacGregor
Bob Newman <No...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<3566D001...@dial.pipex.com>...
re Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure".
<<A A Milne didn't write a book with this title. What is going on?>>
Someone else wrote a book with that title. Next stupid question?
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231) crafted the following words:
>>From: Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>
>>> "To avoid the clumsy he/she and his/her we have refered to the child as
>>> she."
>
>>When I raise questions (about why "he"?) I am told that it doesnt
>>matter....it's not an issue. It doesnt mean anything, it refers to men _and_
>>women.
>>
>>So, if thats the case, why the problem when she is used to represent men and
>>women?
>>
>>I wonder....
>>
>
>You are right to wonder. The reason is that "she" does not represent men AND
>women in the way that "he" does.
Actually, "she" DOES represent men and women in exactly the same way "he" does
to many people, in a word, badly.
>You may think that this is "unfair", but your feelings cannot and do not cause
>"she" and "he" to exchange meanings. The quoted usage is simply incorrect.
We aren't talking about unfair, we are talking about reality. Grammarians can
declare that "he" is a gender neutral pronoun that equally represents men and
women, but they can not make it so in the minds of people reading the written
word. Studies have shown that when "he" is used, people will create a mental
image of a man (or boy, in the case of a child's story). To use "she"
occasionally raises consciousness about this so-called gender neutrality and
lets boys feel excluded occasionally, just as "he" lets girls feel excluded most
of the time.
>Please leave politics out of our beautiful language.
This isn't about politics. It's about the (known, tested and proved) mental
impression real people get when they read certain words. Despite the
grammarian's insistence that "he" is a first person singular gender neutral
pro-noun, when people hear and read that word in the real world they create
mental images of men (or boys), and thus it simply *isn't* gender neutral.
If you haven't experienced this realization yourself, you will tend to think it
doesn't exist. This is a typical myopic view of the world. But once you know
that it does frequently happen to other people (generally girls and women), you
should have the grace to recognize that it *does* happen and stop pontificating
as if your experience is the only one that exists or matters. I also happen to
have multiple orgasms - are you going to say that doesn't happen either because
it's never happened to *you*?
sheesh.
jc
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, Bob Newman <No...@dial.pipex.com> crafted the following words:
>Geoff Cutter wrote of:
>
>> Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure".
>
>A A Milne didn't write a book with this title. What is going on?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0786831359/002-3558991-3605808
n...@my-dejanews.com
gcu...@melbpc.org.au wrote:
------
> Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure" contains
> the explanation:
> "To avoid the clumsy he/she and his/her we have refered to the child as
> she."
> Why not he, as it always was?
> Small publisher? No.
> Published by Ladybird Books Ltd
> A subsidiary of the Penguin Group
> A Pearson Company
> Copyright Disney MCMXCVII
>......
* Ladybird may specialize in books for girls or women
* The editor of this particular book may have been a woman
* The editor, of either sex, may have been following a house
policy aimed at balancing the scales a bit
* Disney, Ladybird, or Penguin may simply have wanted to sell
some Pooh books to girls, who would have a little trouble relating
to Christopher Robin and the mainly male cast of these books
----NM [REAL ADDRESS : aj...@lafn.org]
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
Rich
Vesa Raiskila wrote:
>
> Emma wrote:
> > Donna wrote:
>
> > > > So, if thats the case, why the problem when she is used to represent men and
> > > > women?
> > > >
> > > > I wonder....
> > >
> > > want to blame that on my naivete, maybe add a touch of ignorance; but, I
> > > have learned! And it does matter.
> > > Now I experience the same sort of reactions to my queries, people
> > > saying it doesn't matter. Hmmmmmmmmm.
> > > Well, if everyone is so set on using one singular term that encompasses
> > > all, seems to me that "she" would be the better choice. Afterall, "she"
> > > appears to be more comprehensive linguistically (she contains he)than
> > > the term "he".
>
> 'linguistic credibility': with the levelling of its inflections, English
> lost grammatical gender, and a natural-gender pronoun like 'he' or 'she'
> has not proven to be very convincing in its 'unisex' role. Moreover, as
> recently discussed on a.u.e., it simply doesn't work in such literary
> contexts in which the referent is sexless or in which the sex of the
> person written about in third person should not be revealed. This alone
> shows how gender-laden the generic 'he' is (the same obviously applies
> to 'she' if _it_ is used generically).
In case you missed it Vesa, the feminists here are claiming that
"she" is a gender neutral pronoun. I guess if you are a female
supremacist as are many of the poster here this bald-faced
hypocrisy is understandable, but that does not make it acceptable.
> Perhaps just because the conventionality of the generic 'he' is so
> transparent, so obvious, I personally find the following kind of usage
> relatively tolerable:
>
> "Man occupies a peculiar position in the animal kingdom. Unlike the
> other higher mammals, he has no species-specific environment, no
> environment firmly structured by his own instinctual organization."
> (Berger & Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality")
>
> I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>
> "- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
I have a few programming books that use "she" throughout. I have
boycotted those publishers, there are plenty of sources for computer
material. Nevertheless, it remains true that references to anything
-male- are considered sexist while the most blatant pro-female
sexism is considered acceptable, and is in fact the norm for most
of the feminist posters here.
> I guess I find the generic 'he' an especially unfortunate option in
> cases where its use could produce the reply of the type "Actually, it's
> a she".
You have invented a "generic" "she". If the sex is known it is appropriate
to use it, unless it is male of course.
> I'm basically saying that the otherwise complete lack of grammatical
> gender in English makes the grammatically based use of the natural
> gender pronoun 'he' as a gender-neutral pronoun quite problematic (but
> perhaps I'm just repeating what some others have already argued).
Feminists have two faces about this sort of thing. They claim that
when people hear the word "he" they think -male-. They refuse to
even consider that when people hear the word "feminism" they think
of "female". Feminism is not against sexed pronouns, they are
against male pronouns and anything even remotely male.
> This
> kind of use of 'he' (or 'she') has an air of artificiality about it,
What is artificial about male and female?
> and in some contexts the artificiality is more apparent than in others.
The entire context is contrived and nonsensical.
> Personally, of course, I continue to recommend the adoption of the
> Finnish gender-neutral pronoun 'se', which looks like a shortened form
> of 'he or she' and which is the only GFP ever that (in the inflection
> se/sem/ses/semself) has received even limited sympathy among some a.u.e.
> regulars.
a.u.e.? And when pronounced, it looks as if it would sound like "she",
so we are back to the basic male=bad and female=good, even in pronouns.
> And to those who argue that no new pronoun can ever be introduced into
> English, I'll cite the apposite formulation of the Encarta encyclopedia:
> "Despite the warnings of linguistic purists, new words are constantly
> being coined and usages modified to express new concepts." I don't think
> that there are few of those who think that it is time that English got a
> genuinely gender-neutral singular pronoun -- whatever shape it will
> take.
I doubt it, feminists and women will probably back the claim that "she"
is not a sexed pronoun. They have already replaced the word "sex" with
-gender-, mostly inappropriately. Whenever I see a box that says
Gender []male []female
I write in, buy a dictionary.
Rich
> Vesa
> --
> http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
> I welcome corrections to my English. To reply via e-mail, please delete
> DEL. from my e-mail address.
Robert Lieblich
Rich wrote:
<snipped what everyone but he (and, at the end, Vesa) wrote>
> In case you missed it Vesa, the feminists here are claiming that
> "she" is a gender neutral pronoun. I guess if you are a female
> supremacist as are many of the poster here this bald-faced
> hypocrisy is understandable, but that does not make it acceptable.
The phrase "as are many of the poster [sic] here" is a parenthesis and
should be set off with commas, or dashes, or parentheses. I assume the
singular "poster" is a typo. [Do you think Vesa is a woman? He's not.]
> I have a few programming books that use "she" throughout. I have
> boycotted those publishers, there are plenty of sources for computer
> material. Nevertheless, it remains true that references to anything
> -male- are considered sexist while the most blatant pro-female
> sexism is considered acceptable, and is in fact the norm for most
> of the feminist posters here.
The second sentence is a run-on; or, if you prefer, it contains a comma
fault or comma splice. The comma between "acceptable" and "and" is at
best inadvisable. A comma after "sexist" would probably improve things.
And I'd suggest "flagrant" in place of "blatant."
> You have invented a "generic" "she". If the sex is known it is appropriate
> to use it, unless it is male of course.
The second sentence could be profitably rewritten to avoid following an
expletive "it" with an "it" referring to an antecedent.
> Feminists have two faces about this sort of thing. They claim that
> when people hear the word "he" they think -male-. They refuse to
> even consider that when people hear the word "feminism" they think
> of "female". Feminism is not against sexed pronouns, they are
> against male pronouns and anything even remotely male.
The last sentence is another run-on. Also, "feminism" is not a plural,
and the plural pronoun "they" should not be used to refer to it. (This
is not an instance of singular "they." "Feminism" -- the word -- is
both sexless and genderless -- and it is plainly singular, as the
singular verb following it indicates.)
> The entire context is contrived and nonsensical.
Grammatically sound, but does one really use words like "contrived" and
"nonsensical" to describe a "context."
> a.u.e.? And when pronounced, it looks as if it would sound like "she",
> so we are back to the basic male=bad and female=good, even in pronouns.
The reference is to "se," the Finnish gender-neutral singular pronoun.
Using "male=bad and female=good" as the object of a preposition is
somewhere between informal and sloppy.
> I doubt it, feminists and women will probably back the claim that "she"
> is not a sexed pronoun. They have already replaced the word "sex" with
> -gender-, mostly inappropriately. Whenever I see a box that says
>
> Gender []male []female
>
> I write in, buy a dictionary.
A third run-on sentence at the start of this passage. I think we may
have to confiscate all of the author's commas for at least a week until
he learns the correct rule. "Gender" in the second sentence should be
in quotation marks whether emphasized or not. In the last sentence,
"buy a dictionary" should be in quotation marks, and "buy" should be
capitalized. I'd replace the comma in that sentence with a colon.
>
> Rich
>
> > Vesa
> > --
> > http://www.jyu.fi/~raives/
> > I welcome corrections to my English. To reply via e-mail, please delete
> > DEL. from my e-mail address.
Omigod. This Rich person didn't say *he* would welcome corrections. He
quoted Vesa's signature after his own, and I mistook it for his own
words at the end of his posting. I did this work as a posting rather
than an email so that the whole group would know that someone had done
it and would not repeat the effort.
Well, Rich, you do seem to need some help, particulary with run-on
sentences, so here it is for your edification. Enjoy.
BTW, you ought to take a look (through DejaNews) at a few of the old
threads on this topic (with different subject lines but comparable
content). You'll find that it's been covered quite thoroughly already.
Your perspective is hardly unique, and there have been many, many
postings presenting other views.
Followups set to AUE only.
Bob Lieblich
Vesa Raiskila
Emma wrote:
> Donna wrote:
> > > So, if thats the case, why the problem when she is used to represent men and
> > > women?
> > >
> > > I wonder....
> >
> > At one time I would have responded as such: "it doesn't matter". I
> > want to blame that on my naivete, maybe add a touch of ignorance; but, I
> > have learned! And it does matter.
> > Now I experience the same sort of reactions to my queries, people
> > saying it doesn't matter. Hmmmmmmmmm.
> > Well, if everyone is so set on using one singular term that encompasses
> > all, seems to me that "she" would be the better choice. Afterall, "she"
> > appears to be more comprehensive linguistically (she contains he)than
> > the term "he".
The problem with the generic use of 'he' (or 'she') is that it lacks
'linguistic credibility': with the levelling of its inflections, English
lost grammatical gender, and a natural-gender pronoun like 'he' or 'she'
has not proven to be very convincing in its 'unisex' role. Moreover, as
recently discussed on a.u.e., it simply doesn't work in such literary
contexts in which the referent is sexless or in which the sex of the
person written about in third person should not be revealed. This alone
shows how gender-laden the generic 'he' is (the same obviously applies
to 'she' if _it_ is used generically).
Perhaps just because the conventionality of the generic 'he' is so
transparent, so obvious, I personally find the following kind of usage
relatively tolerable:
"Man occupies a peculiar position in the animal kingdom. Unlike the
other higher mammals, he has no species-specific environment, no
environment firmly structured by his own instinctual organization."
(Berger & Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality")
I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
I guess I find the generic 'he' an especially unfortunate option in
cases where its use could produce the reply of the type "Actually, it's
a she".
I'm basically saying that the otherwise complete lack of grammatical
gender in English makes the grammatically based use of the natural
gender pronoun 'he' as a gender-neutral pronoun quite problematic (but
perhaps I'm just repeating what some others have already argued). This
kind of use of 'he' (or 'she') has an air of artificiality about it, and
in some contexts the artificiality is more apparent than in others.
Personally, of course, I continue to recommend the adoption of the
Finnish gender-neutral pronoun 'se', which looks like a shortened form
of 'he or she' and which is the only GFP ever that (in the inflection
se/sem/ses/semself) has received even limited sympathy among some a.u.e.
regulars.
And to those who argue that no new pronoun can ever be introduced into
English, I'll cite the apposite formulation of the Encarta encyclopedia:
"Despite the warnings of linguistic purists, new words are constantly
being coined and usages modified to express new concepts." I don't think
that there are few of those who think that it is time that English got a
genuinely gender-neutral singular pronoun -- whatever shape it will
take.
Vesa
j. lyle
In article <356743F0...@cc.jyu.fi>,
Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
>I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>
>"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
The only person who would respond to this question with "Oh, what's he
like?" is someone who is used to having male bosses, or who can't think of
a boss in terms of anyone but a male. That type of mindset has nothing to
do with the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun. Those of us who work in
fields in which the bosses tend to be women would be more likely to say
"Oh, what's she like?" But in truth, very few people would respond by
trying to specify this unknown boss's sex. There are so many other
options: "What's he or she like?" or "What's she or he like?" would be a
formal way of asking. But more common would be something like "So, what do
you think?" "So, what's your opinion of this new boss?" "What's your
initial reaction?" or "And?????"
I don't think this seeming deficiency in our language hampers us in
"real-life" interactions as much as you seem to think it does. Yes, there
are sexist thinkers. But sexists would be sexists no matter how many
pronouns they had to choose from.
Jane Lyle
Indiana University Press
Vesa Raiskila
j. lyle wrote:
> In article <356743F0...@cc.jyu.fi>,
> Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
> >
> >I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
> >
> >"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
> The only person who would respond to this question with "Oh, what's he
> like?" is someone who is used to having male bosses, or who can't think of
> a boss in terms of anyone but a male. That type of mindset has nothing to
> do with the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun.
The above exchange was meant to illustrate what I consider the second
type of generic 'he'. The first type is that in which 'he' _necessarily_
covers and represents _both_ sexes, as in
"Man, of course, has his instincts. Compared to other animals, however,
his instincts are underdeveloped and..."
The second type is that in which 'he' is used to refer to individuals of
_unknown_ or _unspecific_ gender, of which the example you cite above
represents only one variation. Another variation has been discussed in
this thread from the viewpoint of the decision to refer to an
androgynous (?) children's book character by 'she' instead of the
admittedly clumsy 'he/she' (a decision which I regard as equally unhappy
as resorting to 'he' would have been).
I wasn't saying that one couldn't come up with gender-neutral responses
to the statement "Our new boss has arrived today". I was only
illustrating the kind of use of 'he' in which the referent of the
pronoun is _either_ male _or_ female. It is this general type of generic
'he' that I find particularly problematic.
However, I tend to think that only the first type represents 'true'
_generic_ 'he' (ie expressions that necessarily cover both sexes), but I
haven't thought this through yet, so feel free to complement or correct
my categorization...
> Those of us who work in
> fields in which the bosses tend to be women would be more likely to say
> "Oh, what's she like?" But in truth, very few people would respond by
> trying to specify this unknown boss's sex. There are so many other
> options: "What's he or she like?" [...]
Of course. Personally, I have always found 'he or she' (or 'she or he',
which I haven't actually used) not only formal but also a bit clumsy and
technical-sounding, and it obviously cannot be used in the kinds of
narrative contexts discussed earlier.
a1a5...@bc.sympatico.ca
>
>Omigod. This Rich person didn't say *he* would welcome corrections. He
>quoted Vesa's signature after his own, and I mistook it for his own
>words at the end of his posting. I did this work as a posting rather
>than an email so that the whole group would know that someone had done
>it and would not repeat the effort.
>
>Well, Rich, you do seem to need some help, particulary with run-on
>sentences, so here it is for your edification. Enjoy.
>
>BTW, you ought to take a look (through DejaNews) at a few of the old
>threads on this topic (with different subject lines but comparable
>content). You'll find that it's been covered quite thoroughly already.
>Your perspective is hardly unique, and there have been many, many
>postings presenting other views.
>
>Followups set to AUE only.
>
>Bob Lieblich
Bad day at the office?
Raymot
In article <3567790D...@cc.jyu.fi>, del.r...@cc.jyu.fi says...
>
>j. lyle wrote:
>
>> In article <356743F0...@cc.jyu.fi>,
>> Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>> >
>> >I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>> >
>> >"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
>
>> The only person who would respond to this question with "Oh, what's he
>> like?" is someone who is used to having male bosses, or who can't think of
>> a boss in terms of anyone but a male. That type of mindset has nothing to
>> do with the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun.
>
>The above exchange was meant to illustrate what I consider the second
>type of generic 'he'.
>Vesa
Yes Vesa, but don't you realise that most people are
already using your Finnish pronouns, and that what
is often heard as "What's he like?" is actually
"What's se like?"
The more rabid of the feminists will not thank you
for replacing "he" with "se", as it can so often be
misinterpreted aurally as the disgusting pronoun
which it is meant to replace.
Raymot
======
Brisbane, Australia
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Donna Richoux
Rich <pay...@earthlink.net> wrote:
[snip]
>
> a.u.e.?
This thread is being cross-posted to alt.usage.english.
[snip]
> I doubt it, feminists and women will probably back the claim that "she" is
> not a sexed pronoun. They have already replaced the word "sex" with
> -gender-, mostly inappropriately. Whenever I see a box that says
>
> Gender []male []female
>
> I write in, buy a dictionary.
I've already bought one, thank you, and it includes Meaning #3: "sex
(example) the female gender." I don't have dated citations for this
usage, but I believe it goes back to at least the early anthropologists,
who needed to distinguish between sexual practices (sex) and sexual
divisions of labor and other customs (gender roles). Since "gender"
comes from a very old word meaning "kind, class, sort," still seen in
the scientific term "genus," it feels completely appropriate to me. The
fact that it is also a grammatical term, of most use to those studying
foreign languages, is immaterial. Many words have two or more meanings,
as of course you know.
In fact, I own another dictionary, a reprint of Noah Webster's 1828
Dictionary of the American Language. Under "gender" is:
1. Properly, kind; sort. Obsolete.
2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
3, In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex;
usually a difference of termination in nouns [snip a very long
description of the term]
So even 170 years ago, the meaning you despise was considered normal and
even older (note the "hence") than the term used in the study of
grammar.
-- Donna Richoux
John Goodwin
>Rich wrote:
>
snip
>> I have a few programming books that use "she" throughout. I have
>> boycotted those publishers, there are plenty of sources for computer
>> material. Nevertheless, it remains true that references to anything
>> -male- are considered sexist while the most blatant pro-female
>> sexism is considered acceptable, and is in fact the norm for most
>> of the feminist posters here.
>
snip
> The comma between "acceptable" and "and" is at
>best inadvisable.
Why? The comma is there to indicate a pause, and I doubt that many
people would read the part of the sentence after sexist, without a
pause before the and.
The purpose of punctuation is to aid reading and understanding, not to
show how well you can follow a set of rules.
When I was at school we were taught that the comma before an and was
optional, and I have used it ever since as a courtesy to those who
read my words.
I have been informed by people younger than myself that I am wrong,
but their only "authority" for that assertion was that they had been
taught another rule. I have never (yet) been given a logical reason
why one should make the reader guess where a pause might be
beneficial.
snip
>> The entire context is contrived and nonsensical.
>
>Grammatically sound, but does one really use words like "contrived" and
>"nonsensical" to describe a "context."
Why on earth not (assuming, of course, that there are grounds for such
an assertion)?
snip
JG
John Goodwin
On 24 May 1998 00:13:49 GMT, jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu (j. lyle)
wrote:
>In article <356743F0...@cc.jyu.fi>,
>Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>>
>>I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>>
>>"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
>
>The only person who would respond to this question with "Oh, what's he
>like?" is someone who is used to having male bosses, or who can't think of
>a boss in terms of anyone but a male. That type of mindset has nothing to
>do with the lack of a gender-neutral pronoun. Those of us who work in
>fields in which the bosses tend to be women would be more likely to say
>"Oh, what's she like?"
I think that you are spot on up to here.
>But in truth, very few people would respond by
>trying to specify this unknown boss's sex. There are so many other
>options: "What's he or she like?" or "What's she or he like?" would be a
>formal way of asking. But more common would be something like "So, what do
>you think?" "So, what's your opinion of this new boss?" "What's your
>initial reaction?" or "And?????"
I think you are incorrect in your assertions above (unless the people
in question have trained themselves to speak in this way).
The issue is the way we process language and understand it.
When someone says:
"The new boss arrived today", No normal person will fail to produce
some mental image.
This is quite likely to be wrong on any or all of:
{Sex, Height, Colour, Age, Weight, Clothing, Accent}
The picture will be based on the persons prior experience of "bosses",
in that particular context.
For example, although I am aware that a man can be a secretary just as
well as a woman, when someone refers to a secretary I invariably think
of a woman, because I have encountered (at least) hundreds of female
secretaries, and only one male.
Now even if every time I read about a secretary, it was male, I would
still make a mental image of a woman, because that is my experience.
Similarly, although the media, and senior fire officers are always
very careful to refer to those who man (person) fire engines as
"firefighters", in normal conversation they are rarely referred to as
anything other than "firemen", because female firefighters are so
rare.
>I don't think this seeming deficiency in our language hampers us in
>"real-life" interactions as much as you seem to think it does. Yes, there
>are sexist thinkers. But sexists would be sexists no matter how many
>pronouns they had to choose from.
>
This is undoubtedly true, but I think it is wrong to accuse someone of
sexism if they select their language based on overwhelming experience
rather than a set of rules for "correctness".
Of course when one is addressing a wider audience, one has a
responsibility to use more care in the selection one's language as a
matter of general courtesy. (Any man who thinks that the routine use
of "he" is unimportant, should try following a recipe from a fifties
cookery book that used the idiom: "when the cook has done this, she
will find...". This will rapidly disabuse them of that belief).
JG
Emma
John Goodwin wrote:
> >I don't think this seeming deficiency in our language hampers us in
> >"real-life" interactions as much as you seem to think it does. Yes, there
> >are sexist thinkers. But sexists would be sexists no matter how many
> >pronouns they had to choose from.
>
> This is undoubtedly true, but I think it is wrong to accuse someone of
> sexism if they select their language based on overwhelming experience
> rather than a set of rules for "correctness".
I dont think that because someone does something of a sexist nature, that they
are necessarily sexist.
What I'm trying to say, is that where the first poster was talking about some
people making a conscious choice to use language that is sexist, it isnt wrong
to suggest that people using sexist language - for whatever reason - are doing
so, because it doesnt follow that they are necessarily sexist.
We all pick up on parts of the sexist socialisation we have all experienced, so
it is fair to expect that we will be unaware of aspects of our language and
behaviour that perpetuate the sexism inherent in society. To point it out,
should not be seen as a personal attack (providing it isnt dressed up as a
personal attack, of course) but a pointer that something that that person had
used as part of their everyday language is of a nature that can undermine and
disempower a section of society by it's constant usage.
Some people will even agree and say "hey...I never thought of that" Others will
get on the defensive, but at least the issue will have been raised. So it's not
necessarily a question of _accusing_ people...but of raising issues and
entering into discussions about the effects of language etc.
> Of course when one is addressing a wider audience, one has a
> responsibility to use more care in the selection one's language as a
> matter of general courtesy.
Why should this only happen with a wider audience? Do we not have a general
responsibility for our language use? Does it not matter that we are only
disempowering one or two people with our constant use of sexist
pronouns/stereotypes/whatever? Or should we look to take responsibility for our
language always?
Vesa Raiskila
I think that (some) grammarians refer to this by the term "selection
restriction rules". The adjective 'intelligent' cannot be used to
describe a potato, because a potato is a vegetable, and vegetables are
not characterized by intelligence. Similarly, a person's utterance or
piece of writing can be nonsensical, but a context cannot be
nonsensical. A story or explanation can be contrived, but a context
cannot.
Poets, of course, make a living (although typically a meagre one) out of
violating such selection restriction rules. Did I just break one such
rule by using the adjective 'meagre'? Can a living be 'meagre'?
Bob Newman
The next stupid question would have been, "Isn't someone infringing
copyright here?", but I no longer need to ask that, because someone else
gave my last question a sensible answer. It seems Pooh has been subjected
to ritual Disnification. Is nothing sacred?
Bob Newman
Steve MacGregor wrote:
> Bob Newman <No...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
> <3566D001...@dial.pipex.com>...
>
> re Advice to parents in the children's book "Pooh's Grand Adventure".
>
> <<A A Milne didn't write a book with this title. What is going on?>>
>
Geoff Cutter
Being 170 years old or older is not a good reason for adopting it. It shows
such a system has worked in those circumstances but we have discarded that
and much else.
On 24 May 1998 07:49:22 GMT, tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
[...]
>So even 170 years ago, the meaning you despise was considered normal and
>even older (note the "hence") than the term used in the study of
>grammar.
regds Geoff Sunday, 1998-05-24
Geoff Cutter
Thanks Cheryl,
I admit to not having read all the 900 posts I got from AUE before posting.
It seems to me that you and others have been taught to feel excluded
whereas you should have been taught to feel included. I think your teachers
have done us all a disservice.
On Sat, 23 May 1998 21:15:27 -0230, Cheryl Perkins
<cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca> wrote:
>I've noticed that publications aimed at parents of small children
>sometimes use he, sometimes use she, sometimes use he/she alternatively
>(most often in a magasine article on health care) and sometimes resort
>to 'they', when the plural is acceptable. This has been going on for
>years, and a quick re-reading of a.u.e posts will show that some females
>have felt excluded by being referred to as males. I'm one of them. I
>hope this clarifies the matter for you.
>
>Cheryl
--
Geoff Cutter
Are you saying a boy should not read Alice in Wonderland?
On Sat, 23 May 1998 19:53:49 GMT, n...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>* Disney, Ladybird, or Penguin may simply have wanted to sell
>some Pooh books to girls, who would have a little trouble relating
>to Christopher Robin and the mainly male cast of these books
Geoff Cutter
On Sun, 24 May 1998 00:47:28 +0300, in alt.feminism you wrote:
>Perhaps just because the conventionality of the generic 'he' is so
>transparent, so obvious, I personally find the following kind of usage
>relatively tolerable:
>
>"Man occupies a peculiar position in the animal kingdom. Unlike the
>other higher mammals, he has no species-specific environment, no
>environment firmly structured by his own instinctual organization."
>(Berger & Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality")
>
>I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>
>"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
There is no assumption about the sex of the new boss here. It is equivalent
to saying "what's the new boss like?"
OTOH, if the one arriving was known to be a receptionist, secretary, bank
clerk, nurse, etc., it would be reasonable to use "she". That you might be
wrong about the sex doesn't matter.
>
>I guess I find the generic 'he' an especially unfortunate option in
>cases where its use could produce the reply of the type "Actually, it's
>a she".
The "actually it's a she" is not used unless the occupation is strange for
a woman. More usual is "She's..." which conveys the correct sex and other
information instantly.
>Personally, of course, I continue to recommend the adoption of the
>Finnish gender-neutral pronoun 'se', which looks like a shortened form
>of 'he or she' and which is the only GFP ever that (in the inflection
>se/sem/ses/semself) has received even limited sympathy among some a.u.e.
>regulars.
Cantonese (of Hong Kong and part of Southern China) has "keri".
Emma
Geoff Cutter wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 1998 00:47:28 +0300, in alt.feminism you wrote:
>
> >Perhaps just because the conventionality of the generic 'he' is so
> >transparent, so obvious, I personally find the following kind of usage
> >relatively tolerable:
> >
> >"Man occupies a peculiar position in the animal kingdom. Unlike the
> >other higher mammals, he has no species-specific environment, no
> >environment firmly structured by his own instinctual organization."
> >(Berger & Luckmann, "The Social Construction of Reality")
> >
> >I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
> >
> >"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
> There is no assumption about the sex of the new boss here. It is equivalent
> to saying "what's the new boss like?"
Erm...how many women do you know who are referred to as "he"? The assumption is
that the boss is a man.
> OTOH, if the one arriving was known to be a receptionist, secretary, bank
> clerk, nurse, etc., it would be reasonable to use "she". That you might be
> wrong about the sex doesn't matter.
Erm...it does, actually. It perpetuates damaging stereotypes about the
suitability of one sex for certain jobs. It is damaging to both men and women.
> >I guess I find the generic 'he' an especially unfortunate option in
> >cases where its use could produce the reply of the type "Actually, it's
> >a she".
> The "actually it's a she" is not used unless the occupation is strange for
> a woman.
No..."actually its a she" is normally used when the assumption that it is a
male boss is wrong.
> More usual is "She's..." which conveys the correct sex and other
> information instantly.
Which is the same thing.
Emma
Geoff Cutter wrote:
> Are you saying a boy should not read Alice in Wonderland?
Well I can think of a number of male characters in Alice in Wonderland.
In the Pooh books, I can think of.....one.
>
>
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 19:53:49 GMT, n...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> >* Disney, Ladybird, or Penguin may simply have wanted to sell
> >some Pooh books to girls, who would have a little trouble relating
> >to Christopher Robin and the mainly male cast of these books
> --
>
Emma
Geoff Cutter wrote:
> Thanks Cheryl,
>
> I admit to not having read all the 900 posts I got from AUE before posting.
>
> It seems to me that you and others have been taught to feel excluded
> whereas you should have been taught to feel included. I think your teachers
> have done us all a disservice.
By not teaching us to feel included in language that excludes us?
>
>
> On Sat, 23 May 1998 21:15:27 -0230, Cheryl Perkins
> <cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca> wrote:
> >I've noticed that publications aimed at parents of small children
> >sometimes use he, sometimes use she, sometimes use he/she alternatively
> >(most often in a magasine article on health care) and sometimes resort
> >to 'they', when the plural is acceptable. This has been going on for
> >years, and a quick re-reading of a.u.e posts will show that some females
> >have felt excluded by being referred to as males. I'm one of them. I
> >hope this clarifies the matter for you.
> >
> >Cheryl
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 11:00:01 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>John Goodwin wrote:
>
>> >I don't think this seeming deficiency in our language hampers us in
>> >"real-life" interactions as much as you seem to think it does. Yes, there
>> >are sexist thinkers. But sexists would be sexists no matter how many
>> >pronouns they had to choose from.
>>
>> This is undoubtedly true, but I think it is wrong to accuse someone of
>> sexism if they select their language based on overwhelming experience
>> rather than a set of rules for "correctness".
>
>I dont think that because someone does something of a sexist nature, that they
>are necessarily sexist.
I suspect that most people would disagree with the above sentence, at
least if the person continually performs the alledgedly sexist act (as
in the case of habitualy using a male pronoun).
Sexist is generally understood to be a pejorative term.
>What I'm trying to say, is that where the first poster was talking about some
>people making a conscious choice to use language that is sexist, it isnt wrong
>to suggest that people using sexist language - for whatever reason - are doing
>so, because it doesnt follow that they are necessarily sexist.
See above.
>We all pick up on parts of the sexist socialisation we have all experienced, so
>it is fair to expect that we will be unaware of aspects of our language and
>behaviour that perpetuate the sexism inherent in society. To point it out,
>should not be seen as a personal attack (providing it isnt dressed up as a
>personal attack, of course) but a pointer that something that that person had
>used as part of their everyday language is of a nature that can undermine and
>disempower a section of society by it's constant usage.
>
>Some people will even agree and say "hey...I never thought of that" Others will
>get on the defensive, but at least the issue will have been raised. So it's not
>necessarily a question of _accusing_ people...but of raising issues and
>entering into discussions about the effects of language etc.
Unfortunately you can often do more harm than good. If the person with
whom you raise some matter thinks that you are being unnecessarily
finicky about their mode of speech, it is possible that they will not
only reject your points, but also other more important points.
This is particularly true when some entity is seen to be guilty of
"pandering". People who have come over to a more enlightened way of
thinking will sometimes revert to their old ways if they see the
beneficial group has been treated with undue generosity.
Now you may well say that is their problem, but it could well end up
being yours.
>> Of course when one is addressing a wider audience, one has a
>> responsibility to use more care in the selection one's language as a
>> matter of general courtesy.
>
>Why should this only happen with a wider audience? Do we not have a general
>responsibility for our language use? Does it not matter that we are only
>disempowering one or two people with our constant use of sexist
>pronouns/stereotypes/whatever? Or should we look to take responsibility for our
>language always?
I think you have misunderstood what I meant.
If someone says to me.
"My new secretary arrived today"
and I respond
"Do you think she'll be as good as X"
I very much doubt that my use of "she" will cause the person to whom
I'm talking to, to turn down a male applicant the next time she needs
a new secretary.
JG
Steve MacGregor
Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in article
<35682B93...@globalnet.co.uk>...
<<Well I can think of a number of male characters in Alice in
Wonderland.>>
So can we all.
<<In the Pooh books, I can think of ... one.>>
Most of us can think of many. Besides Pooh himself, there's ...
everybody except Kanga.
Steve MacGregor
re>I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>>>
>>>"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
Geoff Cutter <gcu...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in article
<358123ed...@news.melbpc.org.au>...
<<There is no assumption about the sex of the new boss here. It is
equivalent to saying, "What's the new boss like?"
The "actually it's a she" is not used unless the occupation is
strange for
a woman. More usual is "She's..." which conveys the correct sex and
other
information instantly.>>
This is not possible for some people to say. They must not just
continue with the conversation and provide additional information,
but must beat you over the head with the fact that the new boss is a
woman. Such people must do more than simply use a feminine pronoun
in the response, but must state, "She is not a man -- she's a woman,"
as this is more important to them than what she's like, and how good
a boss she is.
C Porter9
>
Vesa Raiskila <del.r...@cc.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
>I find the following kind of usage more problematic:
>
>"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
And J.Lyle replied (in part):
The only person who would respond to this question with "Oh, what's he
like?" is someone who is used to having male bosses, or who can't think of
a boss in terms of anyone but a male.
My turn:
J.Lyle, you just made an assumption that the responder
(who said "Oh, what's he like?") was using "he" as specifying
a man. In reality, the responder was using "he" as a
gender neutral pronoun. It's interesting
that you didn't pick up on that.
This perhaps points out (yet again) that the default assumption of
"he" is not gender neutral, but male. If "he" was genuinely
gender neutral, I would have expected you to say something like
"So what? Asking who the new boss was, using "he," is perfectly fine,
since "he" is a gender neutral pronoun."
Cheers, Chris
http://members.aol.com/cporter9/
j. lyle
In article <1d9j0gu.nu7...@p601.asd.euronet.nl>,
Donna Richoux <tr...@euronet.nl> wrote:
>
>In fact, I own another dictionary, a reprint of Noah Webster's 1828
>Dictionary of the American Language. Under "gender" is:
>
>1. Properly, kind; sort. Obsolete.
>2. A sex, male or female. Hence,
>3, In grammar, a difference in words to express distinction of sex;
>usually a difference of termination in nouns [snip a very long
>description of the term]
>
>even older (note the "hence") than the term used in the study of
>grammar.
Yes, this use of "gender" is much older--it well precedes the days when
grammarians went to work trying to set down a set of rules and terms for
the English language. From the OED:
C. 1460 Towneley Myst, xxx.161 Primus demon. Has thou oght writen there
of the femynyn gendere?
1632 Marmion Holland's Leaguer iii. iv Here's a woman! The soul of
Hercules has got into her. She has a spirit is more masculine than the
first gender.
This is another case where the original meaning of a word fell out of
favor for a time but then experienced a resurgence.
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 15:17:18 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>Geoff Cutter wrote:
>
>> Thanks Cheryl,
>>
>> I admit to not having read all the 900 posts I got from AUE before posting.
>>
>> It seems to me that you and others have been taught to feel excluded
>> whereas you should have been taught to feel included. I think your teachers
>> have done us all a disservice.
>
>By not teaching us to feel included in language that excludes us?
No, by teaching you the idea that you are excluded because you are not
an exact match with the main character in the book.
I recently read a book called "Sophie's World", in which the lead
character was a young Norwegian girl.
Not a very good match for a 45 year old Englishman, but do you know, I
didn't feel excluded once. Must have been something sadly lacking in
my education.
Many years ago, I read a book by Maralyn French called "The women's
room". It was about the lives of a disparate group of American women,
stretching over many years.
Despite being from another continent, being a different sex, and being
quite a lot younger than the characters (at the time), I got so
involved with the group that when one of them was murdered by the
police, I felt physicaly shocked.
Not once did I feel excluded because of my age/nationality/gender.
Must be something lacking in my education.
It's good however that *you* had such good teachers that you were
taught that you should feel excluded if you were not a close match
with the hero(ine) of the book.
It will save you from reading all those silly books about people who
are different from youself.
JG
John Goodwin
>John Goodwin wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 May 1998 19:07:26 -0400, Robert Lieblich
>> <lieb...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>> >Rich wrote:
>
>> >> The entire context is contrived and nonsensical.
>
>> >Grammatically sound, but does one really use words like "contrived" and
>> >"nonsensical" to describe a "context."
>
>> Why on earth not (assuming, of course, that there are grounds for such
>> an assertion)?
>
>I think that (some) grammarians refer to this by the term "selection
>restriction rules". The adjective 'intelligent' cannot be used to
>describe a potato, because a potato is a vegetable, and vegetables are
>not characterized by intelligence. Similarly, a person's utterance or
>piece of writing can be nonsensical, but a context cannot be
>nonsensical. A story or explanation can be contrived, but a context
>cannot.
I see your point, but the distinction seems very artificial. You need
to write or speak to describe a context, so if your writing or spoken
utterances are nonsensical, surely it is fair to say that which you
are describing is nonsensical?
e.g.
In a world where people had three feet, it would make sense to sell
shoes in triples.
The writer contrives to generate a context, why is the context not
contrived?
JG
j. lyle
In article <3567e9e1....@news.demon.co.uk>,
John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>But in truth, very few people would respond by
>>trying to specify this unknown boss's sex. There are so many other
>>options: "What's he or she like?" or "What's she or he like?" would be a
>>formal way of asking. But more common would be something like "So, what do
>>you think?" "So, what's your opinion of this new boss?" "What's your
>>initial reaction?" or "And?????"
>
>I think you are incorrect in your assertions above (unless the people
>in question have trained themselves to speak in this way).
I think that a good number of people of the last couple of generations (at
least in the U.S.) *have* been "trained" (conditioned is more like it, I
think) to speak and think in this way. I am really embarrassed when I
unthinkingly assume that someone is a man or a woman because of some sort
of stereotype hidden away in my brain. (It happened to me just this week,
when I wrongly assumed that someone named Gill was a man.)
My former boss was named Terry, which in the U.S. is both a man's and a
woman's name. It was interesting to see how people who didn't know her
addressed mail to her. Some automatically assumed that since she was in a
position of authority, she was a he. Some assumed the opposite. And many
called the front desk and asked before writing the letter. It's all in how
you've come up to view the world and people's place in it.
As I said, I work in a field (scholarly publishing) that seems to have a
preponderance of women; at the press where I work, I think we have
something like 10 male employees out of 55 or 60. Our director is a man,
but the assistant directors are all women. Our current managing editor is
a man, but the previous four were women. Women head several of the
departments. It's rare for us to get a new male employee, so the "default
setting" for a new hire there is "she"! If we were to hear that the new
sales manager was named Chris, most of us would not immediately think
that Chris was a man; quite the opposite.
>The issue is the way we process language and understand it.
>
>When someone says:
>
>"The new boss arrived today", No normal person will fail to produce
>some mental image.
>
>This is quite likely to be wrong on any or all of:
>
>{Sex, Height, Colour, Age, Weight, Clothing, Accent}
>
>The picture will be based on the persons prior experience of "bosses",
>in that particular context.
Correct. It has nothing to do with the generic "he," and everything to do
with our personal experience and our own concept of what a "boss" (or a
"doctor" or a "firefighter") is. My current gynecologist is a man, but I
have a friend who will not go to a male gynecologist. The first time I
told her that I had just returned from an appointment with my gynecologist
because of a problem I was having, my friend asked, "What did she say?" To
her, gynecologist = female. She has never seen a male gynecologist and
never will, so to her gynecologist = male is unthinkable. That is her
personal experience--and we all tend to react to life on the basis of our
own personal experience.
The fact that so many of us tend to associate secretary with woman, doctor
with man, scientist with man, daycare worker with woman, and the like
really has nothing to do with the use of the generic "he." It has to do
with the fact that certain fields in our lifetime have tended to split
along male-female lines--and the reasons for that are certainly related to
the fact that "he" was picked as the generic pronoun, but the relationship
is not a causal one.
j. lyle
In article <199805241525...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
C Porter9 <cpor...@aol.com> wrote:
>>"- Our new boss arrived today." -"Oh, what's he like?"
>
>And J.Lyle replied (in part):
>The only person who would respond to this question with "Oh, what's he
>like?" is someone who is used to having male bosses, or who can't think of
>a boss in terms of anyone but a male.
>
>My turn:
>J.Lyle, you just made an assumption that the responder
>(who said "Oh, what's he like?") was using "he" as specifying
>a man. In reality, the responder was using "he" as a
>gender neutral pronoun. It's interesting
>that you didn't pick up on that.
I "didn't pick up on that" because this use of "he" is not an example of
what I would consider "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun. The gender-neutral
pronoun is normally used with an indefinite antecedent--"A person who . .
. he"; "Someone who . . . his"; "A student who finds himself . . . "; "He
who hesitates is lost"; and the like. "Our new boss" is a definite
antecedent, not an indefinite one. "A boss," however, *would* be
indefinite.
Anyone who responds to "Our new boss arrived today" with "Oh, what's he
like?" *is* specifying a man--because in that person's mind, boss = man,
at least much more often than boss = woman. While there are a limited
number of ways to write around "A good boss lets his/his or her employees
go home early on New Year's Eve," there are many, many options for one's
response to "Our new boss arrived today."
Emma
John Goodwin wrote:
Well it's good that you can think of two opportunities where you could have felt
excluded. For women it is more difficult to think of instances where they weren't.
However, we are not just talking about books now, are we? It isnt just in
literature that the norm is men and masculinity. It is everyday language. And it
_does_ exclude and undermine people. To say it doesnt happen just because you
werent, is shortsighted to say the least.
Emma
Steve MacGregor wrote:
Sorry...thats what I meant to say. All except one. Didnt engage brain
before starting to type.
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 17:23:54 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
wrote:
You are talking nonesense. I could find thousands. I simply find
literature written by a woman, in the first person, or where the main
character, or characters are women.
I picked those two examples, because I got very involved with them.
Genearlly, nobody has taught me how to feel excluded (or conditioned
me to feel excluded) by literature that is written from a different
perspective from my own.
They seem to have done a excellent job on you though.
>For women it is more difficult to think of instances where they weren't.
Where on earth have you been looking?
The libraries and bookshops are full to bursting with books written
from a women's point of view.
Even if you do have the misfortune to have been conditioned into
feeling excluded by books written from a male perspective, you
couldn't read the rest if you did nothing else for the resr of your
life.
>However, we are not just talking about books now, are we? It isnt just in
>literature that the norm is men and masculinity. It is everyday language. And it
>_does_ exclude and undermine people.
I can see a vast chip nestling on your shoulder.
If you are truly concerned about male domination in the world there
are three things that you can do about it:
1) Ignore it.
2) Whine about it.
3) Go out and achieve something and help to lessen it.
The great strides we have made in reducing unfair masculine dominance,
(and don't think that great strides have not been made, just because
we still have some way to go), have, in the main, been made by women
who were prepared to go out, work hard and work their way up the
ladder, in many cases to the very top.
One woman who puts in the effort, and becomes a senior manager, police
officer or civil servant, has more effect than ten thousand
schoolgirls whining about how unfair life is.
> To say it doesnt happen just because you
>werent, is shortsighted to say the least.
>
Let's recast that sentence.
> To say it always happens to everyone just because it happens to you,
> is shortsighted to say the least.
JG
Emma
John Goodwin wrote:
No-one teaches people to feel excluded...it just happens. And it isnt about things
written from a different perspective...it's about things written (or spoken) with a
male=normal female=subnormal point of view.
> They seem to have done a excellent job on you though.
>
> >For women it is more difficult to think of instances where they weren't.
>
> Where on earth have you been looking?
>
> The libraries and bookshops are full to bursting with books written
> from a women's point of view.
>
> Even if you do have the misfortune to have been conditioned into
> feeling excluded by books written from a male perspective, you
> couldn't read the rest if you did nothing else for the resr of your
> life.
> >However, we are not just talking about books now, are we? It isnt just in
> >literature that the norm is men and masculinity. It is everyday language. And it
> >_does_ exclude and undermine people.
>
> I can see a vast chip nestling on your shoulder.
Not at all.
> If you are truly concerned about male domination in the world there
> are three things that you can do about it:
>
> 1) Ignore it.
> 2) Whine about it.
> 3) Go out and achieve something and help to lessen it.
>
> The great strides we have made in reducing unfair masculine dominance,
> (and don't think that great strides have not been made, just because
> we still have some way to go), have, in the main, been made by women
> who were prepared to go out, work hard and work their way up the
> ladder, in many cases to the very top.
>
> One woman who puts in the effort, and becomes a senior manager, police
> officer or civil servant, has more effect than ten thousand
> schoolgirls whining about how unfair life is.
This is the self same patronising attitudes that I am on about. Anyone who has a
different point of view to you, who happens to be female and who happens to express
that view is a "schoolgirl whining about how unfair life is." This is the whole
point, John.
As an educated white female, who has _had_ to get on and fight against the sexism
that I experience, I am well aware of the need to "go out and achieve something"
however, dont feel that the lengths I and other women who have manage to "achieve
something" is equitable compared to the fact that most men obtain the opportunities
to do those things _as_a_right_. The right to hold an opinion different to a man and
not be called a "whining schoolgirl" is one that so readily springs to mind. The
right to be taken seriously when doing a job traditionally done by men, is another.
You cant see how language fits into that? What a surprise. Well why should you care?
It doesnt affect you, does it?
> > To say it doesnt happen just because you
> >werent, is shortsighted to say the least.
> >
> Let's recast that sentence.
>
> > To say it always happens to everyone just because it happens to you,
> > is shortsighted to say the least.
Which I havent said anywhere. I have never said that _everyone_ would feel excluded.
I just _know_ that some _do_. That you refuse to see that, speaks volumes about you.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John Goodwin) crafted the following words:
>>Well it's good that you can think of two opportunities where you could have felt
>>excluded.
>
>You are talking nonesense. I could find thousands. I simply find
>literature written by a woman, in the first person, or where the main
>character, or characters are women.
>
>I picked those two examples, because I got very involved with them.
We aren't talking about specific books. We *are* talking about language.
The English language is currently used in a way that leaves women (and girls)
feeling excluded, by the continued use of the "gender-neutral use of he", when
this word is NOT in fact gender neutral in all the was that grammarians try to
dictate that it *should* be.
>Genearlly, nobody has taught me how to feel excluded (or conditioned
>me to feel excluded) by literature that is written from a different
>perspective from my own.
We aren't talking about being taught. We are talking about the result that
happen from language usage all around us. A girl who has heard people say "he"
to refer to unknown persons has a warped view of the world she can't see. She
*does* make mental pictures of the referenced people, and all of those pictures
are of boys or men, because that's what "he" means. So if she hears her
day-care provider say:
"Mommy had to take fluffy to the Vet. Now we have to wait to see
what he says."
She draws a mental picture of a male Vet (he), even though the care giver
probably has no personal knowledge of the gender of the Vet and was using the
so-called gender neutral "he".
It is this everyday usage of "he" that requires people to ignore what they
instinctively know about "he=male" and magically pretend that "he=person of
unknown gender" that is faulty. You can dictate that people should be able to
learn this, but reality is that people don't learn this, they learn that he=male
and she=female and that there isn't any good gender neutral singular pronoun.
This is why young children easily use "they" as a gender neutral singular
pronoun for persons of unknown gender. These young children know that he=male
and she=female and they instinctively look for the real gender neutral pronoun
that is available to them, then use it.
Then in school we try to beat it out of them.
>The libraries and bookshops are full to bursting with books written
>from a women's point of view.
BFD
What about the newspapers? What about daily language all around us?
>>However, we are not just talking about books now, are we? It isnt just in
>>literature that the norm is men and masculinity. It is everyday language. And it
>>_does_ exclude and undermine people.
>
>I can see a vast chip nestling on your shoulder.
I can see a vast ignorance residing inside your cranium.
You obviously don't understand the problem or the issue at hand. I suggest you
visit that library that you speak so highly of and learn more about this issue
before you yet again start chewing on your toes for our amusement.
>> To say it doesnt happen just because you
>>werent, is shortsighted to say the least.
>>
>Let's recast that sentence.
>
>> To say it always happens to everyone just because it happens to you,
>> is shortsighted to say the least.
To say (as a women) that it does always happen to ALL women, because we DO feel
this way and studies have proven it, and it isn't a "learned response" is to
speak the truth.
Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just
because this is an internal thing that happens inside women's and girl's minds
and thus isn't visible to you doesn't mean that this doesn't happen.
I highly suggest you stop your pontification on this subject until you have
taken the steps necessary to further educate yourself about the realities of
this issue. To do otherwise is to further demonstrate your ignorance.
jc
All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.
JNugent231
>From: cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>A girl who has heard people say "he"
>to refer to unknown persons has a warped view of the world she can't see.
>She
>*does* make mental pictures of the referenced people, and all of those
>pictures
>are of boys or men, because that's what "he" means. So if she hears her
>day-care provider say:
>
> "Mommy had to take fluffy to the Vet. Now we have to wait to see
> what he says."
>
>She draws a mental picture of a male Vet (he), even though the care giver
>probably has no personal knowledge of the gender of the Vet and was using the
>so-called gender neutral "he".
Who are you talking about? Someone other than yourself? At the risk of asking a
question I have put before (but got no answer) - how do you know?
Gwen Lenker
John Goodwin wrote in message <35682289....@news.demon.co.uk>...
[...]
>
>I think you have misunderstood what I meant.
>
>If someone says to me.
>
>"My new secretary arrived today"
>
>and I respond
>
>"Do you think she'll be as good as X"
>
>I very much doubt that my use of "she" will cause the person to whom
>I'm talking to, to turn down a male applicant the next time she needs
>a new secretary.
Where I live, all the secretaries have been magically transformed into
administrative assistants. It came as a bit of a shock to some people
who had gone around thinking, "Well, if this new career doesn't pan
out, I can always fall back on my secretarial skills," and then
discovered that there were no more secretarial jobs to be had.
Donna Richoux
Geoff Cutter <gcu...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
[about "gender" meaning "sex"]
> Being 170 years old or older is not a good reason for adopting it.
I didn't say you had to adopt it. My feeling is that, in light of the
evidence, you should refrain from sneering at the usage, which you said
you go out of your way to do. But that's just my opinion and you'll do
whatever you like.
>It shows such a system has worked in those circumstances but we have
>discarded that and much else.
And your evidence for the "we have discarded" part is what, exactly? I
have proved that was used in 1828, I have asserted that anthropologists
used it in the early 20th century, and of course we both know that it is
being used today. For all I know at the moment, it could have been in
continuous use in the US during that entire period. You say feminists
"invented" it, I say you are mistaken.
Perhaps people in Australia discarded it long ago, or never even adopted
it, but that's what makes regional differences, isn't it?
I guess it's time to ask someone with the OED -- that's Oxford English
Dictionary, for you -- to please give us the citations for this sense of
the word. I find the OED is not really sharp on American usage, so if
the term became obsolete in Britain but stayed current in the US, the
OED might not report that.
-- Donna Richoux
Steve MacGregor
<<Erm...it does, actually. It perpetuates damaging stereotypes about
the suitability of one sex for certain jobs. It is damaging to both
men and women.>>
Are you saying that, for example, =women= are unsuited to be
nurses, or that =men= are?
Truly Donovan
On Sun, 24 May 1998 09:37:59 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
Goodwin) wrote:
>The purpose of punctuation is to aid reading and understanding, not to
>show how well you can follow a set of rules.
Where I come from, we call this "The Spoken Pause School of
Commatography."
Too bad that some of us find a great many commas (or the lack thereof)
significant in interpreting the content and are thus mislead by
writers who think that it is simply a matter of taste.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
Truly Donovan
On Sun, 24 May 1998 14:07:32 GMT, gcu...@melbpc.org.au (Geoff Cutter)
wrote:
>I admit to not having read all the 900 posts I got from AUE before posting.
Me, too.
>It seems to me that you and others have been taught to feel excluded
>whereas you should have been taught to feel included. I think your teachers
>have done us all a disservice.
How convenient for you that you were taught that it is inclusive.
But in what way are you disserved by someone's feeling excluded by
language that is inherently exclusionary because the so-called generic
"he" (and its counterpart, the generic "she") is only generic when it
isn't specific and there is no clue as to which one we might be
dealing with an instance of -- and no amount of teaching one way or
the other is going to change that?
It hasn't affected how you choose to express yourself, has it?
Truly Donovan
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 15:17:18 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>By not teaching us to feel included in language that excludes us?
>
>No, by teaching you the idea that you are excluded because you are not
>an exact match with the main character in the book.
I don't know of anyone who objects to the use of a gender-specific
pronoun when the sex of the individual referred to is known. And I
don't know of too many books (some, true, but not a lot) where the
gender of the main character is not known. And, in the cases I am
aware of, the authors who choose to conceal the sex of the main
character excercise that choice in part by not using third person
singular pronouns.
And I don't know of anyone who has been taught the idea that they are
excluded because they are not an exact match with the main charcter in
the book. If this teaching is going on in any signficant amount, it
certainly hasn't been very effective.
John Goodwin
On 24 May 1998 14:28:45 EDT, cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>See ye here, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John Goodwin) crafted the following words:
>>On Sun, 24 May 1998 17:23:54 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Well it's good that you can think of two opportunities where you could have felt
>>>excluded.
>>
>>You are talking nonesense. I could find thousands. I simply find
>>literature written by a woman, in the first person, or where the main
>>character, or characters are women.
>>
>>I picked those two examples, because I got very involved with them.
>
>We aren't talking about specific books.
Well we were, I mentioned two books, you mentioned two books, and
implied that there was something "good" about the fact that I could
think of two.
> We *are* talking about language.
That's what the group's about.
You might however note the message that started this thread. It was
about the sex of the hero(ine) of a book.
That's why we were talking about books.
Do try not to let your attention wonder.
>The English language is currently used in a way that leaves women (and girls)
>feeling excluded, by the continued use of the "gender-neutral use of he", when
>this word is NOT in fact gender neutral in all the was that grammarians try to
>dictate that it *should* be.
Actually, I've never claimed that "he" is gender neutral. In fact in a
previous post I specifically gave some advice to any man who believed
that using he was not a discourtesy when speaking to a mixed (or
potential mixed audience).
>
>>Genearlly, nobody has taught me how to feel excluded (or conditioned
>>me to feel excluded) by literature that is written from a different
>>perspective from my own.
Then why do you, when most of the rest of the human race is quite
capable of reading books written from widely differing perspectives,
and empathising with the characters even though they may be different
sexes, different nationalities, different ages, of other times ...
>We aren't talking about being taught. We are talking about the result that
>happen from language usage all around us. A girl who has heard people say "he"
>to refer to unknown persons has a warped view of the world she can't see. She
>*does* make mental pictures of the referenced people, and all of those pictures
>are of boys or men, because that's what "he" means. So if she hears her
>day-care provider say:
>
> "Mommy had to take fluffy to the Vet. Now we have to wait to see
> what he says."
>
>She draws a mental picture of a male Vet (he), even though the care giver
>probably has no personal knowledge of the gender of the Vet and was using the
>so-called gender neutral "he".
Of course, if she'd seen the vet in practice series, she'd have seen
an equal number of female and male veterinary students graduate.
She might also have noticed that not one of the spent any time
bleating about it being harder for a woman than it was for a man.
She might also have noticed that the women did not seem to have a
harder time getting a job, or indeed doing the job, than the men.
And, having noticed all that she might well barely even noticed the
exact pronoun used by her child minder.
Of course that assumes she is the sort of little girl who is going to
grow up and do something, rather than spend her time complaining about
how hard and unfair it all is.
>
>It is this everyday usage of "he" that requires people to ignore what they
>instinctively know about "he=male" and magically pretend that "he=person of
>unknown gender" that is faulty. You can dictate that people should be able to
>learn this, but reality is that people don't learn this, they learn that he=male
>and she=female and that there isn't any good gender neutral singular pronoun.
>
>This is why young children easily use "they" as a gender neutral singular
>pronoun for persons of unknown gender. These young children know that he=male
>and she=female and they instinctively look for the real gender neutral pronoun
>that is available to them, then use it.
That is exactly my preferred technique to write in a gender neutral
way. Some people do not like it, but tough. It's the least clumsy of
all the alternatives, and I rarely have a problem writing non gender
specific prose.
>Then in school we try to beat it out of them.
I don't know what country you are writing from, but in the UK, beating
children in school would lead to an assault charge against the person
doing the beating.
>>The libraries and bookshops are full to bursting with books written
>>from a women's point of view.
>
>BFD
What?
>What about the newspapers? What about daily language all around us?
The newspapers, at least the ones I read, are in the vanguard of
attempting to use truly gender neutral language.
Of course they often get it laughably wrong.
The Guardian used to refer to a spokesman as a spokesperson when she
was female, but revert to spokesman when it was a man.
>
>>>However, we are not just talking about books now, are we? It isnt just in
>>>literature that the norm is men and masculinity. It is everyday language. And it
>>>_does_ exclude and undermine people.
>>
>>I can see a vast chip nestling on your shoulder.
>I can see a vast ignorance residing inside your cranium.
Hmm, X-ray vision.
>You obviously don't understand the problem or the issue at hand.
So you say.
> I suggest you
>visit that library that you speak so highly of
I didn't speak highly of it. I simply said it contained a lot of
books.
>and learn more about this issue
>before you yet again start chewing on your toes for our amusement.
Well, I'm glad you're amused. You are sounding more petulant than
amused.
>>> To say it doesnt happen just because you
>>>werent, is shortsighted to say the least.
>>>
>>Let's recast that sentence.
>>
>>> To say it always happens to everyone just because it happens to you,
>>> is shortsighted to say the least.
>
>To say (as a women) that it does always happen to ALL women, because we DO feel
>this way and studies have proven it, and it isn't a "learned response" is to
>speak the truth.
My God, that must have been some survey. So they asked ALL women, and
they ALL said it happens ALWAYS.
Actually, they must have missed a few, because some that I know are
too busy doing useful things with their lives to bother with (in their
words: "All that none sense").
>Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just
>because this is an internal thing that happens inside women's and girl's minds
>and thus isn't visible to you doesn't mean that this doesn't happen.
Actually, you only know for certain, what goes on in your mind.
If a significant number of women tell me that they do not notice a
feeling of exclusion, are you claiming to know their minds better than
they do, or are you saying they are lying.
>
>I highly suggest you stop your pontification on this subject until you have
>taken the steps necessary to further educate yourself about the realities of
>this issue. To do otherwise is to further demonstrate your ignorance.
It would, of course, be possible to say *exactly* the same to you.
I won't, because I prefer rational argument to that sort of
patronising bullshit.
JG
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 18:57:20 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>No-one teaches people to feel excluded...it just happens. And it isnt about things
>written from a different perspective...it's about things written (or spoken) with a
>male=normal female=subnormal point of view.
If you check the start of this thread, you will see that it *is* about
the perceived perspective of a books charactre(s).
Or are you trying to change the subject because you have been unable
to prove that point.
>This is the self same patronising attitudes that I am on about. Anyone who has a
>different point of view to you, who happens to be female and who happens to express
>that view is a "schoolgirl whining about how unfair life is."
I did not say that you were a whining schoolgirl. I enumerated the
ends of a spectrum that goes from the whining schoolgirl, through to
the hard working, high achieving woman who provides a good role model
for young girls.
It is of course, entirely up to you, which end of the spectrum you
wish to associate yourself with.
Much as I detest Thatcher, at least no little girl can ever think to
herself (or be told) that she cannot be prime minister just because of
her sex.
> This is the whole
>point, John.
>
>As an educated white female, who has _had_ to get on and fight against the sexism
>that I experience, I am well aware of the need to "go out and achieve something"
>however, dont feel that the lengths I and other women who have manage to "achieve
>something" is equitable compared to the fact that most men obtain the opportunities
>to do those things _as_a_right_.
Actually they don't. We have to get an education, work hard, get the
breaks and stick at it if we want to get on.
And if we don't, we can't claim that it's because were men, and life's
so unfair.
{I do of course admit that in some industries such complaints by women
are fully justified)
> The right to hold an opinion different to a man and
>not be called a "whining schoolgirl" is one that so readily springs to mind.
Nobody called you a whining schoolgirl. You seem to have readily
identified with that description, which, as I said was merely one end
of a broad spectrum.
> The
>right to be taken seriously when doing a job traditionally done by men, is another.
>You cant see how language fits into that? What a surprise. Well why should you care?
>It doesnt affect you, does it?
That is just arrogant self satisfied crap.
Surprising as it may be, some of the people about whom I care most are
women. Some who have still to make their way in the world.
And one of the things I hate most in the world is injustice, of any
kind.
So I do care very much about *anything* that I think promotes
injustice, and therefore hurts *anyone*.
What I do not accept is that just because some woman decides that she
has determined a cause of injustice that she has a right to dictate to
me, or anyone else, what I or they should think about any particular
aspect of anything.
The overbearing arrogance of that attitude is just as offensive as the
attitudes that it those who espouse it seek to overturn.
>
>> > To say it doesnt happen just because you
>> >werent, is shortsighted to say the least.
>> >
>> Let's recast that sentence.
>>
>> > To say it always happens to everyone just because it happens to you,
>> > is shortsighted to say the least.
>
>Which I havent said anywhere.
That's what you seemed to be saying.
>I have never said that _everyone_ would feel excluded.
>I just _know_ that some _do_.
If you read my part of these exchanges you will see that it is
fundamental that I *do* believe that some do, so:-
> That you refuse to see that, speaks volumes about you.
Merely shows you have been spouting off without taking the trouble to
understand that to which you are responding.
JG
John Goodwin
This is just the sort of PC garbage that get right up sane people's
noses.
What about child care facilities.
What about career advancement prospects.
What about equal pay and conditions.
No, much easier to give them a bright shiny new name. Cheaper and much
less hassle.
Any secretary I've asked finds such cosmetic renaming offensive,
because it makes the implicit assumption that there is something
inherently wrong with being a secretary.
One graduate secretary I know always, when asked what she does, says
in one breath:
"I'm an administrative assistant, - that just a glorified name for a
secretary".
The reason she does this is because she does not want anyone to think
she is so stupid or gullible as to belive that the new name made any
difference to the job.
(By the way, she checked, and found (surprise, surprise) that when
they changed the name there was no change to the salaries, perks,
working conditions, or job responsibilities).
JG
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 12:30:11 -0700, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
Kahn) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 14:32:13 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately you can often do more harm than good. If the person with
>>whom you raise some matter thinks that you are being unnecessarily
>>finicky about their mode of speech, it is possible that they will not
>>only reject your points, but also other more important points.
>
>"...other more important points"?
Yes, there are many.
Such as making sure that a woman is considered on level terms with a
man for any advancement opportunity.
Such as making sure that there are not hidden disadvantages for women
in the way things such as shift systems operate.
Such as making sure that there is not an oppressively male culture in
the workplace.
Such as making sure that women's voices are heard at meetings, and
their ideas are not ignored, only to be accepted minutes later when
put forward by a man.
Such as ensuring that the men understand that it is not for them to
decide what constitutes sexual harassment. It is a matter of what is
offensive to women.
>Other than the fact that I'd insert
>a comma between "other" and "more," this phrase more clearly than any
>other shows your lack of concern over this entire issue that looms so
>important to so many of the rest of us.
It does not show anything of the sort.
There is only a certain amount that any one person or group of people
can do to further any cause, and careful prioritisation is of the
utmost importance.
>I wish that for one day you could view this issue as some of the rest
>of us do -- and realize how exclusionary the so-called "generic he"
>truly is.
Why is it that the PC language lawyers always think they speak for
everyone, and always think they have a God given right to determine
what is and isn't important, and what is right and wrong in language.
I've spoken on this subject to many, many women, and *in my
experience* it is not a major issue for most of them.
Equal pay
Equal access
Equal opportunities
i.e. the concrete is much more important than such abstract concepts
of gender and pronouns.
JG
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:59:38 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 09:37:59 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote:
>
>
>>The purpose of punctuation is to aid reading and understanding, not to
>>show how well you can follow a set of rules.
>
>Where I come from, we call this "The Spoken Pause School of
>Commatography."
And is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
i.e.
Do you belive that punctuation is there to show how well you can
follow a set of rules, or to ais understanding/reading ?
>Too bad that some of us find a great many commas (or the lack thereof)
>significant in interpreting the content and are thus mislead by
>writers who think that it is simply a matter of taste.
Could yo run that one past us again, I don't understand what you are
saying.
JG
Maria Conlon
cauce.nospam wrote:
>>A girl who has heard people say "he"
>>to refer to unknown persons has a warped view of the world she can't
see.
>>She
>>*does* make mental pictures of the referenced people, and all of
those
>>pictures
>>are of boys or men, because that's what "he" means. So if she hears
her
>>day-care provider say:
>>
>> "Mommy had to take fluffy to the Vet. Now we have to wait to see
>> what he says."
>>
>>She draws a mental picture of a male Vet (he), even though the care
giver
>>probably has no personal knowledge of the gender of the Vet and was
using the
>>so-called gender neutral "he".
JNugent231 responded:
>Who are you talking about? Someone other than >yourself? At the risk
of asking a
>question I have put before (but got no answer) - how do >you know?
If you've gotten no answer to your question, you probably haven't read
the many messages on the subject of the "generic he" that have been
posted to this newsgroup.
The "she" in the opening message could have been me. "She" could also
have been any number of women posting here -- or their daughters. In
fact, "she" could be anyone, including men and boys who hear the
"generic he" as "he." The point is that the "generic he" is anything
but. It means "male" to many, many people. How this leads to females
feeling excluded should be fairly plain.
How does the poster know? How do I know? Observation. Conversation.
Listening. Reading. Thinking.
I think if you gave it some more thought, your own common sense and
intelligence would guide you into realizing that the "generic he" can
easily be perceived as "he" alone.
Once you realize that it *can* be perceived as such, it is but a small
step to realizing that it *is* perceived as such by people who say it
is.
Instead of asking, "how do you know?" and implying that proof ought to
be easily produced here if the assertion is true, just try to imagine
a "generic she" being used throughout *your* life, especially in
reference to the practitioners of highly-regarded occupations, often
wherein, not incidentally, the monetary rewards are considerably
higher than in "women's professions."
Or, imagine being a woman. If that is not possible, just pay
attention to what women -- and many men -- say on the subject of the
"generic he."
Note: I am assuming JNugent is a male. If I'm wrong, I will revise my
response but the main points will remain the same.
Maria Conlon
mcon...@sprynet.com
Email copies of replies will be appreciated.
JNugent231
>From: "Maria Conlon" <mcon...@sprynet.com>
>Instead of asking, "how do you know?" and implying that proof ought to
>be easily produced here if the assertion is true, just try to imagine
>a "generic she" being used throughout *your* life, especially in
>reference to the practitioners of highly-regarded occupations, often
>wherein, not incidentally, the monetary rewards are considerably
>higher than in "women's professions."
>Note: I am assuming JNugent is a male. If I'm wrong, I will revise my
>response but the main points will remain the same.
Why do you assume that? Do you often make such assumptions?
Maria Conlon
JNugent231 wrote in message
[snip]
>>Note: I am assuming JNugent is a male. If I'm wrong, I >>will revise
my
>>response but the main points will remain the same.
>Why do you assume that? Do you often make such >assumptions?
Why do you not answer the points raised in my posting? Do you often
avoid the real issue?
Reinhold Aman
Mimi "The Moron" Kahn wrote:
> On Sun, 24 May 1998 23:01:26 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
> Goodwin) wrote:
> >Do try not to let your attention wonder.
> About what?
>
> --
> Mimi
About whether Mimi Kahn is a moron or not.
No need to wonder or wander: she *is* a moron.
--
Reinhold Aman
Editor, MALEDICTA
Santa Rosa, CA 95402-6123, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Reinhold Aman
Emma wrote:
> As an educated white female
... you ought to know how to spell the following:
> isnt
> dont
> cant
> doesnt
> werent
> havent
These aren't isolated typos but recurring errors.
Here are a few apostrophes, Emma; please
use them: ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John Goodwin) crafted the following words:
>On 24 May 1998 14:28:45 EDT, cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>>We aren't talking about being taught. We are talking about the result that
>>happen from language usage all around us. A girl who has heard people say "he"
>>to refer to unknown persons has a warped view of the world she can't see. She
>>*does* make mental pictures of the referenced people, and all of those pictures
>>are of boys or men, because that's what "he" means. So if she hears her
>>day-care provider say:
>>
>> "Mommy had to take fluffy to the Vet. Now we have to wait to see
>> what he says."
>>
>>She draws a mental picture of a male Vet (he), even though the care giver
>>probably has no personal knowledge of the gender of the Vet and was using the
>>so-called gender neutral "he".
>
>Of course, if she'd seen the vet in practice series, she'd have seen
>an equal number of female and male veterinary students graduate.
>
>She might also have noticed that not one of the spent any time
>bleating about it being harder for a woman than it was for a man.
>
>She might also have noticed that the women did not seem to have a
>harder time getting a job, or indeed doing the job, than the men.
>
>And, having noticed all that she might well barely even noticed the
>exact pronoun used by her child minder.
>
>Of course that assumes she is the sort of little girl who is going to
>grow up and do something, rather than spend her time complaining about
>how hard and unfair it all is.
You can speculate about the above all you want.
Studies have shown that following the above exchange, or reading the above
exchange, a child (boy or girl) will pick out a picture of a male Vet as
representative of "the Vet" in a great majority of tests, even those children
that have met a Vet in real life and only knew a Vet that was female. Their
personal knowledge of female Vets is overpowered by the image that their mind
creates when "he" is used to represent a person unknown. Their mind *does*
imagine a male person. Thus, "he" isn't a gender neutral pronoun, and
attempting tell women and girls that they should somehow learn to overcome the
feelings caused by this discriminatory language usage is a poor solution.
The feelings are not always at the surface. In fact, for most people these
feelings are buried so deeply that they aren't aware of them This is why your
female friends may say that they don't feel excluded. I bet they would be quite
surprised at the results if they participated in a study like the one above, and
become more aware of how often they do create mental pictures of men because the
language uses a male pronoun as the default.
>>It is this everyday usage of "he" that requires people to ignore what they
>>instinctively know about "he=male" and magically pretend that "he=person of
>>unknown gender" that is faulty. You can dictate that people should be able to
>>learn this, but reality is that people don't learn this, they learn that he=male
>>and she=female and that there isn't any good gender neutral singular pronoun.
>>
>>This is why young children easily use "they" as a gender neutral singular
>>pronoun for persons of unknown gender. These young children know that he=male
>>and she=female and they instinctively look for the real gender neutral pronoun
>>that is available to them, then use it.
>
>That is exactly my preferred technique to write in a gender neutral
>way. Some people do not like it, but tough. It's the least clumsy of
>all the alternatives, and I rarely have a problem writing non gender
>specific prose.
Well, in the book that started this thread there was obviously a reason to use
*some* gender specific pronoun, and the author simply attempted to balance the
scales by using "she" to attempt to create some literature balance for all the
works that use "he".
>>Then in school we try to beat it out of them.
>
>I don't know what country you are writing from, but in the UK, beating
>children in school would lead to an assault charge against the person
>doing the beating.
That was a metaphor. furrfu
>>>I can see a vast chip nestling on your shoulder.
>
>>I can see a vast ignorance residing inside your cranium.
>
>Hmm, X-ray vision.
And you can see her shoulder better than I can see the inside of your skull?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
>>To say (as a women) that it does always happen to ALL women, because we DO feel
>>this way and studies have proven it, and it isn't a "learned response" is to
>>speak the truth.
>
>My God, that must have been some survey. So they asked ALL women, and
>they ALL said it happens ALWAYS.
When they test a group of people (any gender) they can prove that the use of
"he" to represent an unknown person results in 100% of the group choosing
pictures showing a male person more often than when they use real gender neutral
language. This is KNOWN.
For women, the results (conscious or unconscious) is to make mental images of
men doing things more often than we make mental images of women doing things.
This is disenfranchising, disempowering, regardless of if we are aware of it
consciously or not.
I really doubt that you can find ANY women who would be unable to experience
*any* of the bias I am discussing. Or for that matter men. It's just that men
don't care that the unknown person is represented as their gender, it gives them
more visibility, they don't see what's wrong with it!
Politically active women (and girls) do care, the more they can get society to
drop the pretense of using "gender neutral he" the more they can get society to
create mental pictures of unknown people who are actually representative of the
population (mental pictures that aren't created by the gender presence of the
biased pronoun), and THEN more real opportunities for women will open up, and
more girls will feel empowered to dare to strive for those opportunities.
Language usage molds us. Using "he" in a pretend gender neutral way molds all
of society to close doors to women and girls. I don't think it is unrelated
that women are slowly gaining status and opportunities in correlation to our
language usage becoming more gender neutral.
>>Just because you haven't experienced it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just
>>because this is an internal thing that happens inside women's and girl's minds
>>and thus isn't visible to you doesn't mean that this doesn't happen.
>
>Actually, you only know for certain, what goes on in your mind.
>
>If a significant number of women tell me that they do not notice a
>feeling of exclusion, are you claiming to know their minds better than
>they do, or are you saying they are lying.
It is surprising what you can experience in an unconscious fashion and not
notice or remark on in conscious discussion. I expect that these women would be
very surprised if they took part in any of the tests and discovered that they do
in fact have this bias within themselves.
Some of us are just more conscious of this than others. I am not personally
very bothered by it, I think I was quite fortunate in the way I was raised. My
parents (especially my mother) were careful to not talk to us as if we were to
be raised with gender-specific plans for our future (myself and my three
sisters, no boys). We were taught to change a tire, not to expect some man to
do it for us. Mother *never* said, "Some day when you have children..." because
she didn't want to typecast us as mothers, she wanted us to choose to be mothers
or have careers (or both) but to not have any one role pushed at us as if it
were the role we were destined for. All possible careers were made available to
us. We were heavily encouraged to participate in science projects in and out of
school (my mother was a natural history major finishing her BA while we were in
middle and high schools). I was a tom-boy and no attempt was made to get me
interested in Barbie or wear dresses.
Even so, I did experience gender biased language, and occasionally even find
myself trapped by it. I work in the computer field. Most of my co-workers are
male engineers. The natural tendency to say "What's he like?" in response to
learning that we have hired a new person is overwhelming. And bad. Yet there
isn't any good gender neutral alternative that rolls off the tongue. One either
needs to actively prepare gender neutral phrases to replace common replies like
"What's he like" or one finds oneself using them, to one's chagrin.
>>I highly suggest you stop your pontification on this subject until you have
>>taken the steps necessary to further educate yourself about the realities of
>>this issue. To do otherwise is to further demonstrate your ignorance.
>
>It would, of course, be possible to say *exactly* the same to you.
I have read the studies I referred to (people [men and women] exposed to dialog
using so-called gender neutral "he", then asked to pick out pictures that
represent the people in the dialog, thus showing what mental pictures the dialog
created in their minds). Have you? I suggest you find them, read up on them.
Once you become more educated on the results of study on this issue I think you
will consider you personal empirical evidence (talking with a few women friends)
to be very incomplete experience on this issue.
Maria Conlon
Cheryl Perkins said:
I've noticed that publications aimed at parents of small children
sometimes use he, sometimes use she, sometimes use he/she
alternatively (most often in a magasine article on health care) and
sometimes resort to 'they', when the plural is acceptable. This has
been going on for years, and a quick re-reading of a.u.e posts will
show that some females have felt excluded by being referred to as
males. I'm one of them. I hope this clarifies the matter for you.
Geoff Cutter wrote:
Thanks Cheryl,
I admit to not having read all the 900 posts I got from AUE before
posting. It seems to me that you and others have been taught to feel
excluded whereas you should have been taught to feel included. I think
your teachers have done us all a disservice.
Emma asked:
By not teaching us to feel included in language that excludes us?
John Goodwin then said:
No, by teaching you the idea that you are excluded because you are not
an exact match with the main character in the book.
I recently read a book called "Sophie's World", in which the lead
character was a young Norwegian girl. Not a very good match for a 45
year old Englishman, but do you know, I didn't feel excluded once.
Must have been something sadly lacking in my education.
Many years ago, I read a book by Maralyn French called "The women's
room". It was about the lives of a disparate group of American women,
stretching over many years. Despite being from another continent,
being a different sex, and being quite a lot younger than the
characters (at the time), I got so involved with the group that when
one of them was murdered by the police, I felt physicaly shocked.
Not once did I feel excluded because of my age/nationality/gender.
Must be something lacking in my education.
It's good however that *you* had such good teachers that you were
taught that you should feel excluded if you were not a close match
with the hero(ine) of the book.
It will save you from reading all those silly books about people who
are different from youself.
Maria responds to John:
I have included Cheryl's, Geoff's, and Emma's posts so that you may
re-read what preceded your response.
I cannot find any statement that women/girls feel excluded because
they are "not an exact match with the main character in the book," as
you lead off with. I find, instead, that you have twisted words.
If you truly think that not being "an exact match with the main
character in the book," is what bothers women, I can only conclude
that your later statement ("Must be something lacking in my
education") is true. The something that is lacking is the ability to
comprehend what is being said.
And by the way, reading and enjoying a book written by or about
someone unlike yourself is hardly something to crow about. It is not
unique and is not the exclusive province of men.
I wouldn't come on so strong about this if you hadn't trivialized the
whole matter and then ended your post with such an absolutely
ridiculous comment.
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 17:20:44 -0700, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
Kahn) wrote:
>
>When I went from "legal secretary" to "administrative assistant" to
>the president of a smallish law corporation (who had and retained a
>"secretary" to take his dictation, keep his calendar, and arrange his
>life), I received a $7,000/year raise (and was earning more than some
>of the younger attorneys). I was given sole responsibility for
>researching, choosing, ordering, setting up, and instructing the staff
>in the use of a new computer system, and I was able to turn that
>around into a position as sysadmin of a computer network for a much
>larger law corporation.
>
>Titles mean something on resumes.
>
>
In the case you mention, you got the substance as well as the title,
so your employer was not just making a cynical gesture.
I am, however surprised that you accepted the new title.
Since there has been a wholesale move from the term secretary to AA, I
would have thought the title would tend to hide your extra
responsibilites.
I would perceive a legal secretary as being more highly qualified than
an AA.
JG
John Goodwin
On Sun, 24 May 1998 17:11:43 -0700, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
Kahn) wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 23:01:35 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote in pertinent part:
>
>Ah, then you can admit that perhaps women perceive things differently
>from their different vantage point -- and that, when we say "he" is
>exclusionary, no matter how often anyone calls it "generic," perhaps
>it *is* exclusionary.
When any one woman says she finds it exclusionary, I, of course,
believe that *she* finds it exclusionary.
When five women say that all women find it exclusionary, and ten women
tell me that they are sufficiently intelligent to think round it, I
have no option but to believe that the first five are exaggerating.
********************************************************************
DISHONESTY ALERT.
This poster has removed the newsgroup alt.feminism from the Newsgroups
header line, without making any mention of so doing in the text.
She then uses the modified Newsgroups line as part of her argument.
The post to which she is replying has the Newsgroups line:
alt.usage.english,alt.feminism
********************************************************************
>This is a newsgroup discussing *language*. We are not discussing the
>entire feminist agenda, assuming any of us would agree on what,
>exactly, that is. Therefore, it is the priority of most of us to
>discuss *language*. The use of the so-called "generic he" may not be
>my #1 priority in life, but it's certainly appropriate for discussion
>in aue.
If you check the beginning of the thread you will find that it was not
about generic he, it was about the claim that women feel excluded if
the main character in a book is male.
>>Why is it that the PC language lawyers always think they speak for
>>everyone, and always think they have a God given right to determine
>>what is and isn't important, and what is right and wrong in language.
>
>Anyone who disagrees with you is, ipso facto, a "PC language lawyer"?
No.
>>I've spoken on this subject to many, many women, and *in my
>>experience* it is not a major issue for most of them.
>
>Then you're hearing something different for a change -- and perhaps
>the "many, many women" to whom you've spoken didn't want to unleash a
>tirade of opposition.
Or just maybe they were telling me the truth, and you find that truth
unpalatable because it does not fit in with your agenda.
I doubt that your assertion is correct anyway, because it tended to be
the more articulate and assertive (in a positive sense), who claimed
not to feel excluded.
>>Equal pay
>>
>>Equal access
>>
>>Equal opportunities
>>
>>i.e. the concrete is much more important than such abstract concepts
>>of gender and pronouns.
>
>Perhaps -- but in any case not subjects for discussion in a newsgroup
>devoted to the English language. This isn't, after all, alt.universal
>or even alt.feminist.agenda.
No, but is was in alt.feminism until you edited it out of the
Newsgroups line for this post.
>Your thesis that consideration of the so-called "generic he" isn't as
>important as a discussion of these other issues you've raised is
>irrelevant when the "generic he" is an appropriate subject for this
>newsgroup while the others are best discussed elsewhere.
Once again, that paragraph would have made sense but for your deceit
in editing the Newsgroups line of the post.
JG
John Goodwin
On 24 May 1998 23:55:37 EDT, cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
Great screeds of stuff.
I'm not going to reply in detail, because everything you've said has
been done to death many times already.
Way back in this thread I said:
|Of course when one is addressing a wider audience, one has a
|responsibility to use more care in the selection one's language as a
|matter of general courtesy. (Any man who thinks that the routine use
|of "he" is unimportant, should try following a recipe from a fifties
|cookery book that used the idiom: "when the cook has done this, she
|will find...". This will rapidly disabuse them of that belief).
{the wider audience being any occasion when you were not having an
informal one to one conversation).
That, I think defines where I stand on gender specific pronouns.
This thread started with a discussion about the sex of the character
in a book. I questioned the notion that anyone should feel excluded
just because they didn't match the sex/age/race etc, of the main
character.
That discussion has been transmuted into a general discussion about
gender specific pronouns.
I maintain, that from my own experience, and that of women with whom I
have discussed the matter, that most people do not feel excluded by
the use of he as a gender non-specific pronoun (even if in an ideal
language, we would have a true gender non-specific pronoun).
My opponents have side stepped that argument by talking about the
image one conjures up when the terms he/she are used.
I do not dispute that fact, but, I maintain that it will not cause an
intelligent person to feel excluded. They will look far deeper than an
initial impression.
Thus the only real argument is about the degree of exclusion felt by
(mainly) women as a result of the use of gender specific pronouns.
I can only really consider common sense, and the opinions of the many
women with whom I have discussed this subject.
They all agree that the general use of he for he/she is annoying when
read in the context of, say, a manual:
"when the user enters his password he will see"
The mostly agree that it is irksome when used in the context:
"when we go to the doctor he will give you some medicine"
And the almost all disagree with the assertion that such usage has in
any way made them feel "excluded".
JG
Ross Howard
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:59:38 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 May 1998 09:37:59 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>>Goodwin) wrote:
>>>The purpose of punctuation is to aid reading and understanding, not to
>>>show how well you can follow a set of rules.
>>Where I come from, we call this "The Spoken Pause School of
>>Commatography."
>And is that a good thing, or a bad thing?
It is to proper punctuation what Zeppo was to Groucho -- close, but no
cigar.
>>Too bad that some of us find a great many commas (or the lack thereof)
>>significant in interpreting the content and are thus mislead by
>>writers who think that it is simply a matter of taste.
>
>Could yo run that one past us again, I don't understand what you are
>saying.
If I understand her correctly, which on pretty well all things
punctuative I think I do, Truly is saying that commas provide clues to
the relationships between different parts of sentences that spoken
pauses do not. Readers who expect comma usage to be conventional -- in
other words, to "follow a set of rules" that you seem to see no need
for -- are often thrown off track by writers who punctuate according
to the way they speak, and so misinterpret the meaning.
Ross Howard
**************************************
There's a number in my e-mail address.
Subtract four from it to reply.
**************************************
Emma
John Goodwin wrote:
And why not? It's worked for other things. When Windscale (Nuclear power
station in the UK) was causing environmental problems, they changed it's
name to Sellafield, and now it's OK and nice and clean and healthy.
Emma
Steve MacGregor wrote:
Steve, what I am saying is that stereotypes perpetuate the myth that it
is only women that can do nursing jobs, for example, when in reality, men
make perfectly good nurses. Change that around for most jobs you can
think of and you have the point.
Emma
Reinhold Aman wrote:
> Emma wrote:
>
> > As an educated white female
>
> ... you ought to know how to spell the following:
>
> > isnt
> > dont
> > cant
> > doesnt
> > werent
> > havent
>
> These aren't isolated typos but recurring errors.
> Here are a few apostrophes, Emma; please
> use them: ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I'll tell you what...as you so clearly have precious little to entertain
yourself with, I'll let you follow behind me and you can put them in
yourself. After all, it's obviously a big issue for you.
Sap.
John Goodwin
On Mon, 25 May 1998 02:49:23 -0400, "Maria Conlon"
<mcon...@sprynet.com> wrote:
snip
>I have included Cheryl's, Geoff's, and Emma's posts so that you may
>re-read what preceded your response.
I already have it on my machine thanks.
>
>I cannot find any statement that women/girls feel excluded because
>they are "not an exact match with the main character in the book," as
>you lead off with.
Geoff implied that, and Emma did not correct the implication.
> I find, instead, that you have twisted words.
>If you truly think that not being "an exact match with the main
>character in the book," is what bothers women.
I was only commenting on those women who claim they are "excluded"
from a piece of literature because it is written from a male
perspective.
My remarks were not, of course, directed at the vast majority of women
who do not find that bothers them.
There are, however, both men and women who are unable to identify with
a main character who differs from themselves in some fundamental
sense.
> I can only conclude
>that your later statement ("Must be something lacking in my
>education") is true. The something that is lacking is the ability to
>comprehend what is being said.
Geoff implied that Emma had been taught to feel excluded.
Emma did not deny this.
I gave two examples where I could have felt excluded. Emma responded:
|Well it's good that you can think of two opportunities where you could have felt
|excluded. For women it is more difficult to think of instances where they weren't.
The first of her two sentences seems to show that she is of a mind-set
that clearly recognises that a feeling of exclusion can be engendered
by a difference between character and reader.
Her second sentence seems to reinforce that impression, because she
claims that for "women" (notice that is not qualified in any way; not
"some women", or "a few women") "it is more difficult to think of
instances where they weren't."
Those two quoted sentences do not make sense unless Emma felt she was
excluded, and, moreover, thought it a problem for "women" in general.
>And by the way, reading and enjoying a book written by or about
>someone unlike yourself is hardly something to crow about.
I wasn't crowing about it.
>It is not unique
I didn't say it was.
>and is not the exclusive province of men.
Indeed not, but I know men who won't read books written from a female
perspective, and I know women who won't read books written from a
man's.
It's sad for them, but then, there are a hell of a lot of books.
>I wouldn't come on so strong about this if you hadn't trivialized the
>whole matter.
I don't think it is trivial if people can't empathise with a character
in literature because they are of a different age/sex/nationality.
It is by looking at things from other people perspectives that we
learn understanding and tolerance. (It's also entertaining, and
instructive in other ways).
I would be dismayed if a teacher encouraged a class of black school
children to read the works of black authors exclusively.
I would be delighted if a teacher encouraged a class of white school
children to include the works of some black authors in their reading.
>and then ended your post with such an absolutely
>ridiculous comment.
Of course it was ridiculous. Can you not recognise satire when you see
it?
JG
Emma
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
I know of a girl who, when playing doctors and nurses, refused to be the
doctor...saying that "...boys are doctors, girls are nurses" Despite the fact that her
mother was a doctor.
Markus Laker
tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> Geoff Cutter <gcu...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>
> [about "gender" meaning "sex"]
>
> > Being 170 years old or older is not a good reason for adopting it.
>
> I didn't say you had to adopt it. My feeling is that, in light of the
> evidence, you should refrain from sneering at the usage, which you said
> you go out of your way to do. But that's just my opinion and you'll do
> whatever you like.
Go easy, Donna. Anyone who's reached the age of 170 deserves a little
leeway.
[...]
> I guess it's time to ask someone with the OED -- that's Oxford English
> Dictionary, for you -- to please give us the citations for this sense of
> the word. I find the OED is not really sharp on American usage, so if
> the term became obsolete in Britain but stayed current in the US, the
> OED might not report that.
OED2 gives meaning 3 as
Transferred meaning. Sex. Now only jocular.
It gives citations from 1387-8 to 1896, of which the last is
_Daily News_ 17 July 6/4 As to one's success in the work one does,
surely that is not a question of gender either.
Since the English feminist movement hadn't really got going in the 14th
Century, I think we can agree that 'gender = sex' wasn't invented by
feminists.
But wait — there's more. Meaning 3b is
In modern (especially feminist) use, a euphemism for the sex
of a human being, often intended to emphasize the social and
cultural, as opposed to the biological, distinctions between the
sexes. Frequently attr[ibutive].
Citations start with
1963 Alex Comfort _Sex in Society_ ii. 42 The gender role learned by
the age of two years is for most individuals almost irreversible,
even if it runs counter to the physical sex of the subject.
and end with
1986 _Financial Times_ 15 April 8/4 It was most important ... that
schools could intervene in and modify the education of a child
regardless of race, gender or class background.
It looks to me as if Donna's been talking about the sense 3b and Geoff
about sense 3. There's a good deal of overlap between the two; the
potential for confusion is obvious.
Markus,
who wouldn't have got involved if he didn't have the COED on his desk,
and is now bowing out.
--
a.u.e FAQ and resources: http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~laker/aue/
Remove the 'skip this bit' bit of my email address to reply.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John Goodwin) crafted the following words:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 17:11:43 -0700, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
>Kahn) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 May 1998 23:01:35 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>>Goodwin) wrote in pertinent part:
>>
>
>>Ah, then you can admit that perhaps women perceive things differently
>>from their different vantage point -- and that, when we say "he" is
>>exclusionary, no matter how often anyone calls it "generic," perhaps
>>it *is* exclusionary.
>
>When any one woman says she finds it exclusionary, I, of course,
>believe that *she* finds it exclusionary.
>
>When five women say that all women find it exclusionary, and ten women
>tell me that they are sufficiently intelligent to think round it, I
>have no option but to believe that the first five are exaggerating.
In other words, because *some* people of your experience claim they no *longer*
have a problem with exclusionary language, that makes the language OK?
What about younger girls, who aren't old enough, mature enough, thus unable to
reason this through?
All people experience this biased language, whether they consciously know it or
not. As I have repeatedly said, I have read the results of the study that
proved this. The possibility that some people may *think* that they have
learned to ignore the effects of biased language doesn't offset the fact that
tests prove that the language is biased and creates uneven mental images in ALL
people (boys, girls, men, women) tested.
Please stop parading your few friends as "proof". There are a lot of idiots who
find an old pane of glass that is bigger at the bottom than at the top and think
that this is "proof" that glass is a liquid and flows (slowly). Go find the
study and read up on it. The proof is out there.
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
See ye here, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John Goodwin) crafted the following words:
>I maintain, that from my own experience, and that of women with whom I
>have discussed the matter, that most people do not feel excluded by
>the use of he as a gender non-specific pronoun (even if in an ideal
>language, we would have a true gender non-specific pronoun).
I maintain that most people do not CONSCIOUSLY experience this exclusionary
reaction, but ALL people to experience it, and tests have proven it.
>My opponents have side stepped that argument by talking about the
>image one conjures up when the terms he/she are used.
>
>I do not dispute that fact, but, I maintain that it will not cause an
>intelligent person to feel excluded. They will look far deeper than an
>initial impression.
You overlook the effects of language on the young, on the way they see society
(mental images) and how this effects them as they are growing up, before they
are old enough, wise enough, to "learn" to think around exclusionary language.
>Thus the only real argument is about the degree of exclusion felt by
>(mainly) women as a result of the use of gender specific pronouns.
No, it's really about the bias created in mental pictures of young people (boys
and girls) and how this shapes them as they are growing to imagine a world full
of men and boys, void of women and girls, because so much of what they read and
hear uses "he" to indicate all persons who aren't "known".
In that environment, the language creates a big bias.
>I can only really consider common sense, and the opinions of the many
>women with whom I have discussed this subject.
Are you saying that when a study proves something to be opposite of what your
"common sense" says that you must be right and the study wrong? Are you saying
the conscious statements from a few friends means more than studies that look
into the unconscious mental pictures that language creates in us?
>And the almost all disagree with the assertion that such usage has in
>any way made them feel "excluded".
Just because they claim that they have become educated enough to learn to avoid
personally feeling excluded doesn't mean that A) they don't still unconsciously
create biased mental images because of the language used all around them
everyday, or that B) this doesn't happen even more to younger people who haven't
had the opportunity to be taught to try to ignore this effect of our language.
Mark Baker
In article <35859e54....@news.concentric.net>,
cauce....@vo.cnchost.com writes:
>>have discussed the matter, that most people do not feel excluded by
>>the use of he as a gender non-specific pronoun (even if in an ideal
>>language, we would have a true gender non-specific pronoun).
>
> I maintain that most people do not CONSCIOUSLY experience this exclusionary
> reaction, but ALL people to experience it, and tests have proven it.
While I don't doubt that they do, do you think they would if he was used in
a gender-neutral way more often? The tests have been on people who, although
they may have come across gender-neutral he before, almost certainly don't
use or regularly talk to people who do.
(This is purely a theoretical point; I don't use gender-neutral he, have no
intention of doing so, and would recommend others not to).
JNugent231
>JNugent231 wrote in message
>>>Note: I am assuming JNugent is a male.
>>Why do you assume that? Do you often make such >assumptions?
>Why do you not answer the points raised in my posting? Do you often
>avoid the real issue?
Please answer the first question first. I have made no assumptions whatever
about you (and if I did I wouldn't publish them). And what is the real issue
anyway? That some people feel they have the right to tamper with language for
reasons of their own?
Emma
Mark Baker wrote:
Neither "he" nor "she" can be gender neutral, because they are masculine and
feminine.
JNugent231
>From: Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>Neither "he" nor "she" can be gender neutral, because they are masculine and
>feminine.
Try telling that to a Frenchman (or woman). And then reflect.
"La table"; "le fenętre". Does anyone think that tables and windows are male or
female? So what's the problem? Are we less intelligent than the French?
Speak for yourself in answer to that last question....
P&DSchultz
JNugent231 wrote:
>
> >From: Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>
> >Neither "he" nor "she" can be gender neutral, because they are masculine and
> >feminine.
>
> Try telling that to a Frenchman (or woman). And then reflect.
>
> female? So what's the problem? Are we less intelligent than the French?
I think we are approximately as intelligent, but that has nothing to
do with it. The point is that French has grammatical gender, and
English doesn't. That's why the French words you mention have nothing
to do with sex, but English "he" and "she" definitely do.
//P. Schultz
Geoff Cutter
On Mon, 25 May 1998 11:29:00 GMT, lakerSki...@tcp.co.uk (Markus Laker)
wrote:
>tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
>> Geoff Cutter <gcu...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> [about "gender" meaning "sex"]
>>
>> > Being 170 years old or older is not a good reason for adopting it.
>>
>> I didn't say you had to adopt it.
Sorry, I thought your mentioning it was equivalent to advocating it. Silly
me!
>>My feeling is that, in light of the
>> evidence, you should refrain from sneering at the usage, which you said
>> you go out of your way to do. But that's just my opinion and you'll do
>> whatever you like.
Pardon? Which post of mine says I would go out of my way?
regds Geoff Monday, 1998-05-25
gcu...@melbpc.org.au (address expires end Mar 99)
PS sorry for using the quoted post.
Maria Conlon
John Goodwin wrote in message:
>Maria Conlon wrote:
>
[snip]
>>I cannot find any statement that women/girls feel excluded because
>>they are "not an exact match with the main character in the book,"
>>as you lead off with.
>Geoff implied that, and Emma did not correct the implication.
Ah...Geoff implied it, and Emma hasn't denied it, so John is justified
in assuming it's true. Now I see. However, what Geoff said was:
"It seems to me that you and others have been taught to feel
excluded whereas you should have been taught to feel included. I think
your teachers have done us all a disservice."
It takes a bit of stretching to interpret this as an implication of
"teaching you the idea that you are excluded because you are not
an exact match with the main character in the book," which is what you
did.
[snip]
>I was only commenting on those women who claim they are >"excluded"
from a piece of literature because it is written from a male
>perspective.
Maybe I missed a posting or two. I don't recall any woman saying (or
even implying) that. What I *do* recall is women talking about the
feeling of exclusion when "he" is used in the generic sense. The
sentiment is that "he" means "he" -- and excludes "she." That is not
the same as objecting to a book because it is written from a male
perspective.
[snip more of John's posting about what Geoff implied and Emma did not
deny even though she had the opportunity. Emma, if she wishes, can
respond as to whether John read her "mindset" (John's word) correctly
from her response to him.]
>>...and then ended your post with such an absolutely ridiculous
>>comment.
The comment: "It's good however that *you* had such good teachers that
you were taught that you should feel excluded if you were not a close
match with the hero(ine) of the book. It will save you from reading
all those silly books about people who are different from youself."
>Of course it was ridiculous. Can you not recognise satire when you
>see it?
Apparently not. Perhaps satire which is based on a false premise is
not recognized quite so easily as the real thing.
Aaron J. Dinkin
In article <199805252200...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231) wrote:
> >From: Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
>
> >Neither "he" nor "she" can be gender neutral, because they are masculine and
> >feminine.
>
> Try telling that to a Frenchman (or woman). And then reflect.
>
> "La table"; "le fenętre". Does anyone think that tables and windows are male
> or female? So what's the problem? Are we less intelligent than the French?
What on earth is the meaning of this remark? "Gender" is a grammatical
category, independent in French of the referent's sex. In English, however,
the question is more complex because grammatical gender _does_ depend on
the referent's sex. Emma's comment (which is, incidentally, merely a point
of semantics and does not really bear on this discussion) is certainly
true: the English pronouns "he" and "she" (and, incidentally, "it") are
marked for gender. The equivalent French pronouns are also marked for
gender (I assume; I don't know French). Nu?
-Aaron J. Dinkin
Dr. Whom
Justin B Rye
John Goodwin <J...@opticon.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I recently read a book called "Sophie's World", in which the lead
> character was a young Norwegian girl.
What, "Ignorance And Superstition For Beginners"? The translation I've
got not only uses "generic he" and "mankind" throughout, but credits
Marx with the slogan "Workingmen of all countries, unite!"
Incidentally, when Sophie runs into "Winnie-the-Pooh" he is wearing the
Disnified red sweater.
JBR - not really @SPAMTRAP
Ankh kak! (Ancient Egyptian blessing)
Ross Howard
On Mon, 25 May 1998 08:51:10 -0700, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
Kahn) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 09:31:29 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote:
>>I would perceive a legal secretary as being more highly qualified than
>>an AA.
>
>Another misperception on your part, I would guess.
Not in the UK. In British law firms, administrative assistants are
there to make sure that the staple guns have enough staples and that
the photocopier is working; legal secretaries make sure that contracts
have properly set-out clauses and that the lawyers are working.
Truly Donovan
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:59:38 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>wrote:
>
>>Too bad that some of us find a great many commas (or the lack thereof)
>>significant in interpreting the content and are thus mislead by
>>writers who think that it is simply a matter of taste.
>
>Could yo run that one past us again, I don't understand what you are
>saying.
I didn't think you would. If you don't know the difference between the
two following sentences, you won't understand what I am talking about.
Bring me the book which is on the table.
Bring me the book, which is on the table.
--
Truly Donovan
reply to truly at lunemere dot com
James Martin
jnuge...@aol.com (JNugent231) writes:
>Please leave politics out of our beautiful language.
Do you really believe that language and politics are parallel lines that
never intersect? Usage has political connotations, like it or not. The
very fact that you speak one language or another can be (more than likely
is) the result of political manovering (in the largest sense of the word
"politics").
james
James Martin
>>> material. Nevertheless, it remains true that references to anything
>>> -male- are considered sexist while the most blatant pro-female
>>> sexism is considered acceptable, and is in fact the norm for most
>>> of the feminist posters here.
>> The comma between "acceptable" and "and" is at
>>best inadvisable.
>Why? The comma is there to indicate a pause, and I doubt that many
>people would read the part of the sentence after sexist, without a
>pause before the and.
You don't use commas to join compound elements in sentences. You use them
with a conjunction to join two independent clauses together. There are
otehr other uses, of course, but I'm sticking with your example.
>I have been informed by people younger than myself that I am wrong,
>but their only "authority" for that assertion was that they had been
>taught another rule. I have never (yet) been given a logical reason
>why one should make the reader guess where a pause might be
>beneficial.
Don't insult your reader. That comma before the "and" tells me that I can
expect a subject to follow it (e.g." I went to the store, and I bought
bread" vs. "I went to the store and bought bread").
As to logic, who every said grammar was logical? Some of it is logical
and some of it is not.
james
James Martin
>>>>The purpose of punctuation is to aid reading and understanding, not to
>>>>show how well you can follow a set of rules.
Do you have the same attitude toward spelling? Fragmentary "sentences"?
Whatever gets in the way of communication can be considered a rhetorical
error. Putting commas in places they don't go (anymore) can lead to
confusion.
james
Reinhold Aman
Emma, my dear, I was not picking on your typos, of which there are
quite a few in your feminist outpourings. In AUE we have specialists
who pick on obvious typos, particularly our anal-retentive "Moron," a
fellow female feminist. (Forgive me for using the sexist "fellow" in
this context.)
What I alerted you to, my dear, was your illiterate spelling of the
common contractions above. If one makes the same error over and over
again, it's not a typo but shows one's lacking command of the language.
No one should describe herself as "educated" and write the way you do.
You see, my dear, people who write sloppily generally think sloppily.
Your arguments and discussions may be logical and persuasive, but they
lose much of their validity when marred by primitive grammatical errors.
So, Emma, be a good girl and start spelling the contractions "isn't,
don't, can't, doesn't, weren't, haven't" the correct way I have shown
them here for your benefit.
> Sap.
Twat.
--
Reinhold Aman
Editor
Santa Rosa, CA 95402-6123, USA
http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/
Lars Eighner
In our last episode <35849c32....@news.concentric.net>,
the lovely and talented cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
|All people experience this biased language, whether they consciously
|know it or not. As I have repeatedly said, I have read the results of
|the study that proved this.
Your study does not prove that the language is biased. It tends
to show that bias exists, which is hardly news, and that responses
in studies can be biased with ease.
|The possibility that some people may *think* that they have
|learned to ignore the effects of biased language doesn't offset the
|fact that tests prove that the language is biased and creates
|uneven mental images in ALL people (boys, girls, men, women) tested.
Even if your test showed what it was supposed to show, it does not
show that the language is the source of the problem. Why would
any new word not acquire the baggage that the existing word has?
You have been asked this before, so I repeat it to be sure
you are not missing it: Why would a new pronoun not acquire
the same baggage that the existing one has? Since you
are proposing an extensive effort to alter the language which
will require resources that could be expended some way that
might be more productive and since efforts to alter language
for political purposes have a low chance of success, it is altogether
reasonable to ask that question. After "ses" is adopted and
becomes corrupted, what will the next pronoun of the day be?
And the one after that?
A similar test could be constructed to show that it is possible
to influence whether people understand "you" to be singular
or to be plural. Why should we not be just as distressed that
it is possible for people to think "you" means two persons
when it means just one person? Think of all the
awkward moments: "When I invited you over, I didn't really
mean both of you." Such a misunderstanding makes the correction
"Well actually the boss is a she" seem a relatively minor
transaction.
You can't stop people from assuming that doctors are male and
nurses are female with a new pronoun because the assumption is
not in the language; it is in the people who are using the language.
Your better pronoun cannot succeed without better people to
use it. The tail won't wag the dog.
You have told us what you think your new pronoun should mean. Haven't
you noticed the prescriptivists wringing their hands over "transpire,"
and "anticipate," and countless other words which cannot be controlled
by fiat. A new-pronouner proposes, usage disposes.
--
Lars Eighner 700 Hearn #101 Austin TX 78703 eig...@io.com
(512) 474-1920 (FAX answers 6th ring) http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner.html
Please visit my web bookstore: http://www.io.com/%7Eeighner/bookstor.html
* "Freedom defined is freedom denied." -The Illuminatus
John Goodwin
On Mon, 25 May 1998 11:13:41 +0100, Emma <po...@globalnet.co.uk>
wrote:
>
>
>John Goodwin wrote:
>
snip
>> >Where I live, all the secretaries have been magically transformed into
>> >administrative assistants. It came as a bit of a shock to some people
>> >who had gone around thinking, "Well, if this new career doesn't pan
>> >out, I can always fall back on my secretarial skills," and then
>> >discovered that there were no more secretarial jobs to be had.
>> >
snip
>> No, much easier to give them a bright shiny new name. Cheaper and much
>> less hassle.
>
>And why not? It's worked for other things. When Windscale (Nuclear power
>station in the UK) was causing environmental problems, they changed it's
>name to Sellafield, and now it's OK and nice and clean and healthy.
And strangely enough, I still refer to it as Windscale.
JG
John Goodwin
On 25 May 1998 12:29:37 EDT, cauce....@vo.cnchost.com wrote:
>>When five women say that all women find it exclusionary, and ten women
>>tell me that they are sufficiently intelligent to think round it, I
>>have no option but to believe that the first five are exaggerating.
>
>In other words, because *some* people of your experience claim they no *longer*
>have a problem with exclusionary language, that makes the language OK?
You seem to have very poor comprehension skills. I'll try to show you
false reasoning.
If someone hits you in the face five times, and you say she hit you
ten times, you would be exaggerating, but it would not make the five
hits you suffered acceptable.
>What about younger girls, who aren't old enough, mature enough, thus unable to
>reason this through?
What about them? I was only saying that to include everyone in your
assertion (of exclusion) is erroneous.
>All people experience this biased language, whether they consciously know it or
>not.
I've already agreed with that statement.
In this thread.
Several times.
> As I have repeatedly said
So there's really no need to say it again is there?
Let's snip it.
>Please stop parading your few friends as "proof".
I'm not using them as proof of anything. I'm merely saying that the
existence of a sizable group on intelligent women who do not think as
you do, disproves your assertion that all women think what you say
they think.
Snip of irrelevant babbling about panes of glass.
>Go find the
>study and read up on it. The proof is out there.
I don't need to, because I fully agree with its findings.
In fact, I have a feeling that I have read a precis of the survey in
question, although I couldn't put a name to it.
As an aside, it is normal, and a courtesy to your readers, to make a
specific citation when using some source as a backup for your
argument.
Unless someone happens to have seen it, they have no idea when, where
or by whom it was done.
It could have been carried out over several years, with a sample of
thousands, by a respected university department.
It could have been carried out in an afternoon as an end of term
project by some schoolchildren on a sample of 10.
It could be a figment of your imagination.
Certainly, "Go and find the study" is unhelpful at best, and could be
considered downright rude.
JG
John Goodwin
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 09:31:29 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote:
>>>
>>In the case you mention, you got the substance as well as the title,
>>so your employer was not just making a cynical gesture.
>>
>>I am, however surprised that you accepted the new title.
>
>I requested it.
Figures.
snip
>Incidentally, I didn't have "extra" responsibilities; I had *changed*
>responsibilities. I've been in situations where the men were
>considered the professionals and I was the "office girl" with extra
>capabilities. No thanks.
Unfortunately there are still places where the AA *is* the "office
girl".
Without extra info, you may have moved yourself into that catagory
when anyone whose perception of AA comes from experiencing such a
situation.
>
>>I would perceive a legal secretary as being more highly qualified than
>>an AA.
>
>Another misperception on your part, I would guess.
I don't see where guesswork comes in. I just told you that I would
misperceive such a title.
There is a good reason for such misperception.
As another poster pointed out, there are many companies where they
simply changed the job titles. So there are probably a lot of people
who think that AA is a direct, slot in replacement for secretary.
Secretaries who can call themselves Legal, or Medical, are (I assume
by most people), deemed to be better qualified that a bog standard
secretary.
I hope most people can clearly see where confusion might arise.
JG
John Goodwin
On Mon, 25 May 1998 08:59:07 -0700, spam...@merriewood.com (Mimi
Kahn) wrote:
>On Mon, 25 May 1998 09:31:31 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>DISHONESTY ALERT.
>>
>>This poster...
>
>He means me.
They could see that. Your name was at the top of the post just as it
is here.
You edited it out for some reason.
>>has removed the newsgroup alt.feminism from the Newsgroups
>>header line, without making any mention of so doing in the text.
>>
>>She then uses the modified Newsgroups line as part of her argument.
>>
>>The post to which she is replying has the Newsgroups line:
>>
>>alt.usage.english,alt.feminism
>
>I don't subscribe to alt.feminism; I subscribe to alt.usage.english.
>My response had no relevance to alt.feminism, and I don't see the
>point of unnecessary cross-posting.
Then isn't it odd, that you only removed it from the posting where you
started talking about the relevance of the newsgroup.
Good God woman, if you want to be dishonest, you need to use some
intelligence about it.
Even the other post you made to this thread today still has
alt.feminism on the Newsgroups line.
You may think that I'm stupid, but give the other readers credit for
some intelligence.
>And I see no point in stating the obvious; anyone can read the
>Newsgroups: header and see where something has been posted.
Not when you have removed it from your post, which is what you did.
>If you wish to call me a liar because of this, feel free; it doesn't
>strengthen your argument, and I've been called far worse in this
>newsgroup.
I'm not calling you anything, but when someone uses deceitful means to
try to score points in an argument, I will certainly point that out.
And if that person is foolish enough to dig herself in even deeper
with a clumsy attempt to defend her deceit, I'll point that out as
well.
snip
>>
>>If you check the beginning of the thread you will find that it was not
>>about generic he, it was about the claim that women feel excluded if
>>the main character in a book is male.
>
>It is the nature of threads to meander, and this one certainly did.
Yes, because you've been trying to make out that my comments on
exclusion were in fact made about gender non specific use of he/she in
general.
Fortunately I had already made my position on that very clear. And I
doubt that any considerate person would disagree with it.
snip
>>Or just maybe they were telling me the truth, and you find that truth
>>unpalatable because it does not fit in with your agenda.
>
>Tell me what my agenda is.
Wouldn't it make more sense for *you* to tell *all* of us what your
agenda is?
>>I doubt that your assertion is correct anyway, because it tended to be
>>the more articulate and assertive (in a positive sense), who claimed
>>not to feel excluded.
>
>Sorry, but I consider myself as articulate and assertive as the next
>person -- but nothing will convince me that the pronoun "he" refers to
>*me*.
No one is saying that it does.
Just that if you use your intelligence there is no need to feel
excluded by its use.
I could still follow the instructions in a fifties cookery book, even
though I was continualy refered to as she.
JG
John Goodwin
On Tue, 26 May 1998 04:52:15 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 May 1998 23:05:27 GMT, J...@opticon.demon.co.uk (John
>Goodwin) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 May 1998 22:59:38 GMT, tru...@ibm.net (Truly Donovan)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Too bad that some of us find a great many commas (or the lack thereof)
>>>significant in interpreting the content and are thus mislead by
>>>writers who think that it is simply a matter of taste.
>>
>>Could yo run that one past us again, I don't understand what you are
>>saying.
>
>I didn't think you would. If you don't know the difference between the
>two following sentences, you won't understand what I am talking about.
>
>Bring me the book which is on the table.
>Bring me the book, which is on the table.
>
You misunderstood what I could not interpret.
I understood the quoted sentence fully, and without difficulty.
Consider the following exchange and see if you can grasp what B meant.
A: I believe that all should be treated equally.
B: Round here we call that liberal thinking, and knowing that you
practice such thinking is invaluable when deciding whether or not you
are acceptable to us.
B's response is perfectly clear and unambiguous, but is unusable to
someone who wants to know whether or not B approves of the notion that
all should be treated equally.
JG
Donna Richoux
Geoff Cutter <gcu...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> >tr...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
> >>My feeling is that, in light of the
> >> evidence, you should refrain from sneering at the usage, which you said
> >> you go out of your way to do. But that's just my opinion and you'll do
> >> whatever you like.
> Pardon? Which post of mine says I would go out of my way?
It is I who must beg your pardon. I assumed you were the same guy who
said:
>Whenever I see a box that says
>Gender []male []female
>I write in, buy a dictionary.
But tracing it back, I see that that was Rich <pay...@earthlink.net>.
It's getting hard to tell the players without a scorecard around here.
Apologetically yours --- Donna Richoux
Donna Richoux
j. lyle <jl...@ezinfo.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> Yes, this use of "gender" is much older--it well precedes the days when
> grammarians went to work trying to set down a set of rules and terms for
> the English language. From the OED:
>
> C. 1460 Towneley Myst, xxx.161 Primus demon. Has thou oght writen there
> of the femynyn gendere?
[snip]
Hmmm. I guess what I was actually hoping for was not how far before 1828
the term was used, but how long after. When it it go obsolete, it if
did, to be supposedly reinvented by feminists? Actually, I am certain it
was revived (used?) by social scientists, and then used by feminists. Do
you have citations for the 1800s and 1900s?
Thanks --- Donna Richoux
John Goodwin
On Tue, 26 May 1998 04:17:34 -0500, eig...@io.com (Lars Eighner)
wrote:
>In our last episode <35849c32....@news.concentric.net>,
>the lovely and talented cauce....@vo.cnchost.com
>broadcast on alt.usage.english:
>
>|All people experience this biased language, whether they consciously
This aspect is very clearly illustrated (and also illustrates the
assinine thought processes involved), by the way educationalists
change the term the use to refer to people of low intelligence.
They devise a new euphemism, and, when everybody has learned what it
means, they think up another.
At a school where a friend teaches, one poor child's parents
complained after she arrived home distraught having heard that she was
ESL, confusing it with ESN
{Of course I would not depreciate the move from an inherently
offensive term.}
The latest such nonsense is, apparently, that some teachers have been
told not to mark incorrect work with a cross, because of the "baggage"
that carries.
Instead they have been instructed to use a small circle.
(I don't doubt someone will pipe up to explain why this is a jolly
good idea - I can hardly wait).
JG