ge (04/27/83)
Both Saumya Debray (sbcs!debray) and A.T. (the Extra-Linguistical) seem
to agree that
...sexism is not in the language, which is but a vehicle
to communicate one's thoughts with (sic). Sexism is in the minds of
people. If we want to root out sexism, we should go and try to
change those thoughts, those attitudes, rather than try to castrate
the language.
Let assume for the moment that sexism is not in the language. Let us
instead merely accept the fact that many women (and many men as well)
BELIEVE that sexism is in the language. Moreover, let us accept the
fact that these women and men have clearly stated that they are
offended by certain ways of referring to females (and sometimes males)
and by the use of certain "generic" nouns and pronouns.
If the above assumptions are correct, then it is irrelevant whether
sexism is in the language or not. Like it or not, your use of the
language is political. It cannot help showing respect or disrespect
for the views of many women and men.
Let me take as a small example my co-recreational volleyball team.
When we first began playing together three years ago, our coach
referred to the female players as "girls." They protested that they
wanted to be called "women." It doesn't matter if they are too young
to be called "women." It doesn't matter if the A.T.'s in the world call
such niceties "syntactic sugar." What matters is what those women wish
to be called.
Another example. The respectful words used to refer to Afro-Americans
have changed several times during this century. The words comprising
the name "NAACP" show that the word "Colored" was recently a respectful
term. Later, this word was replaced by "Negro," which in turn was
replaced by "Black" in the speech of many Americans. Does it matter
that the term "Black" might be "syntactic sugar" because many Blacks
are not black? Does it matter that "Negro" might be somehow more
accurate anthropologically? It does not: if you do not use words such
as "Black" or "Afro-American," you are making a negative political
statement whether you wish to or not.
Debray claims to "...have some feeling for the English language." ALL
that he has a (conscious) feeling for is syntax. People who truely
understand their language know more than syntax and good style. They
also understand such things as its tones, its dialects and its political
uses.
-George Entenman
ge@unc
P.S. My coach now says "women" when referring to all of the women on the
team, but he uses "girl" when saying such things as "We need a girl to
set the ball." No one complains.trb (04/28/83)
I was going to ignore his article, but I was a little too riled by it
(George Entenman - unc!ge in net.nlang and net.women) to let it slide.
Fasten your shoulder harnesses, netnews isn't pretty, at least not this
bit. I'm a little irritable lately, please bear with me and be a
little extra tolerant of my style...
I have nothing against George stating his points, I am against him
lashing out at me and I'm against him paraphrasing me if he doesn't
take the care to preserve my intent. For example, from his article:
Let me take as a small example my co-recreational volleyball
team. When we first began playing together three years ago,
our coach referred to the female players as "girls." They
protested that they wanted to be called "women." It doesn't
matter if they are too young to be called "women." It doesn't
matter if the A.T.'s in the world call such niceties "syntactic
sugar." What matters is what those women wish to be called.
If he meant "idiots," then why did he say "A.T.'s in the world?"
I won't even bother asking what "co-recreational" means. I never
called such niceties "syntactic sugar." I said:
Another thought - language reform is just a lot of syntactic
sugar. It doesn't change people's attitudes. You might be
able to change the way I express myself, but to change the way
I think is a whole nother matter. In fact, if you did force me
to conform to your ridiculous standards, I'd be more hateful of
your ideals, not less.
The "syntactic sugar" business was part of a greater entity. I
had a particular instance of language reform in mind, that was, using
language reform in counterpoint with attitude reform. The
juxtaposition was important, and George didn't carry it into his
paraphrase. He just abused my phrase to support his own point, while
poking at me.
There was a time in the recent past when people used racial slurs as
part of common English speech. Until recently, when something looked
fishy, someone would say "There's a nigger in the woodpile somewhere."
I've heard ignorant people say (to my face) "I was Jewed out of my
money" when they felt that they'd been had. When we played handball in
New York City, we'd call a ball that hit a crack and took a bad bounce
a "Hindu." Most people who use these expressions have no real
impressions of real Blacks, Jews or Hindus. They come from ignorance
rather than hatred. And the solution is not simply to threaten or
cajole them until they stop using the expressions, but rather to talk
sense about what's going on when they use the offensive expressions.
The main difference between my sentiment, which was primarily about
gratuitous nitpicking, and George's inaccurate paraphrase was that I was
talking about a situation where there was no easy and acceptable answer
(what are you going to use instead of he?) where George was talking
about a situation where there was an easy answer (what are you going to
use instead of Nigger?)
<<<<<
Sidelight- I call Blacks Black, that's accepted. At one time it was
considered derogatory to call Blacks Black. There's no logical reason
that "Black" is acceptable. It certainly isn't acceptable to call
Asians Yellow, or to call American Indians Redskins. Btw, I don't like
the term Native Americans for American Indians, I'm a native American
(born in NYC). I realize that American Indians isn't right either.
>>>>>
I don't like it when some stranger goes around using my name in phrases
like "it doesn't matter if the A.T.'s in the world..." because it's
demeaning. Go ahead and attack my point of view, fine. Just don't
be nasty to me personally.
George's final piece de resistance is this:
Debray claims to "...have some feeling for the English
language." ALL that he has a (conscious) feeling for is
syntax. People who truely understand their language know more
than syntax and good style. They also understand such things
as its tones, its dialects and its political uses.
Who is George to talking about what Debray truly understands? What I
inferred from the above paragraph is that George figures that Debray is
foreign and probably doesn't have enough experience to know. Some
nerve.
Oh, George had a P.S.-
P.S. My coach now says "women" when referring to all of the
women on the team, but he uses "girl" when saying such things
as "We need a girl to set the ball." No one complains.
The intention of this paragraph eluded me.
I understand that this note may be construed as being nasty to unc!ge.
I tried my best to address his points, and I realize that the odds are
that he isn't really a bad person. Writing honest incisive netnews
isn't easy, specially when I have bugs up my ass.
Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491