mjs (07/17/82)
Personally, I find that those who object to the tradition of using the male gender as non-specific react even more violently to the use of `it' and other specifically neuter words. After a few `it's, most folks find that they (male or female) prefer to be refered to as non-specific males. In fact, several females I know are of the conviction that `guys' is also neuter! I have no particular preference, except that I have little interest in changing my grammatical habits. All through grammar, junior high, and high schools, I was taught that use of the male pronoun was `correct' to refer to either a mixed group or an unspecified group. Is there anyone on the net that wasn't taught this rule? Ok, maybe I'm lazy. I'm willing to abide by whatever a true authority dictates, however. Why is there not an American Academy -- the equivalent of the French authority on the French language? <Flame Off> Marty Shannon, Jr. BTL MH 5E-103 201-582-3199
jj (07/18/82)
Well, yes. I was taught that one always used the male pronoun in the indefinite reference. I was also taught that one never said: "Do you know" in written English, one said: "Does one know?" Furthermore, one of my English teacher's favorite statements, used often and loudly, was "A guy is a ROPE! Are you a rope?" Of course, it was the same school system that taught me that the word "man" comes from the latin. We, or at least all who read this newsgroup, know better than THAT now.
ecn-pa.alexande (07/19/82)
Personally, I find that those who object to the tradition of using the
male gender as non-specific react even more violently to the use of
`it' and other specifically neuter words.
Of course, people object to the use of 'it' and other neuter words as applied
to themselves. Humans have a great aversion to being classed as objects, or
to be denied their humanity in other ways. 'It' is not a human word, it is an
object word.
Also, the use of the male gender terms for neuter gender is, of course,
considered correct by the vast majority of grammarians. The problem is that
there are many sets of rules that apply to most common situations, and
language is one thing that touches on almost all fronts. As an example of
the applicability of various sets of rules to a single situation, it is
grammatically correct to say to someone, "You are a dirty, foul-smelling pig,
and deserve to be hung upside down until you die", but this could hardly be
approved according to the rules of courtesy. Also, it is grammatically
correct to say "George McGovern was elected President of the United States in
1972", but this is contrary to fact.
I view the controversy over non-sexist language in a similar vein. It is
perhaps grammatically correct to say, "The chairperson may be either a man or
a woman. His duties include...", but this runs contrary to the goal of
non-sexist language. The goal here is not to eliminate the use of gender-
specific words, or to phase out all reference to gender in situations where
such reference is called for, it is only to allow the speaker to keep the
question of gender open in those situations where no specific gender is called
for, and to thus help the listener avoid forming pre-conceived notions of the
gender of the person referred to. This, I believe, can have a real influence
on the way that people think, and perhaps can allow children to grow up
without falling into the trap of thinking of certain occupations, offices, or
professions as limited to one sex or the other when either can clearly fill
these. If, after all, one continually refers to the "ChairMAN of the Board,"
one finds it hard to escape the eventual identification of that person as a
man, even if the speaker did not intend to convey any gender specific
information. On the other hand, if one hears of the "Chairit of the Board,"
one finds it even more difficult to avoid the picture of some inhuman monster
sitting at the head of the council table with a very large gavel in hand.
This is the very reason, in fact, why many people have suggested the need for
a new type of pronoun that would not be ambiguous as to whether it referred to
males or to all people. If such a thing already existed, undoubtedly those of
us who support the use of such things would readily use it, but no such word
exists. This leaves only three possibilities: 1) use awkward, but commonly
acceptable grammatical constructions such as "he or she"; 2) use
constructions that are currently considered incorrect (e.g. "them") and hope
that they will eventually be considered correct; or 3) create a new class of
words that will convey no gender-specific information. I currently use a
combination of the first two, but I consider the third to be the optimal
solution in the long run.
Alan Alexander-Manifold
Purdue University
pur-ee!ecn.pa!alexandesmann (07/21/82)
Hear, hear! Alan Alexander-Manifold has written the
clearest, least emotional answer to the whole question
of non-sexist language. Thank you for saying it so well.
S. Mann ihuxv!smanntrb (07/21/82)
I am not convinced that my changing my syntax from "he" to "heesh," "s/he," or "sheit" is going to let the next generation of children grow up unencumbered by the psychological slantings of their elder's feelings of bigotry and hatred. I am also not convinced that it is such a wonderful idea to apply pressure to another person or group of people in order to get them to act in the way that you find most palatable. Ideally, "equal rights for all" is wonderful, but legislators always lazily bow to pressures and it becomes "all men are created equal" or "equal rights regardless of sex." Seems to me that short people or fat people or ugly people as a group have a lot more need for legislated equality than women as a group. The thought of using neuter forms in my speech makes the hair on my neck crawl, because it makes what I say sound so ridiculous. I dare say (and I'm sure someone out there will find this hard to swallow) that if it bothers you when I use the male article (when a neuter one would sound unnatural) then there is some other, deeper problem with the way you feel I treat women, or, more likely, you feel there is some problem with the way men treat women (or women treat men). Having me say "person" instead of "man" will be no victory. This doesn't seem to be a problem of natural language as much as it seems to be a problem of social friction. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491