jon (07/07/82)
I would prefer to see Laura's decree (that 'man' is strictly neuter) take effect, than see 'chairperson,' 'fireperson,' etc. People who are currently refered to as 'men' could be refered to as 'males' without great difficulty. This change would preserve an important consideration: short words. No word is replaced with a longer one. (Of course, politicians are busily lengthening words all the time, but the I still think short words are better) Of course, the option that will succeed is one which is already taking place: replacement of -man words with something completely different. mailman = letter carrier fireman = firefighter stewardess = flight attendant waitress = server (this one I hate) Again, we see the addition of syllables in making the change, but at least the words aren't as ugly. Maybe once the terms are entrenched, natural linguist processes will shorten them firefighter --> fireter flight attendant --> hey, you! letter carrier --> computer
jj (07/08/82)
This is rabbit!jj again <oh no> Perhaps I should be a bit more specific. I particularly object to the word "chairperson" because it does not have the same meaning. The meaning of chairman is<or was, at least> the "hand" of the chair<meaning throne>. Fireman, as Jon (whoever you are) brings out, is a different case. It is sexist, besides, what does a fireman do anyhow? Set fires? Firefighter at least conveys the information in a more descriptive sense. I do object to making every sentence plural so that I can use their instead of his/hers, and so on. Perhaps someone will fill the need for the third person non-gender-specific pronoun. It just doesn't work. I'm not an IT. <Well, at least I don't think so....> Oh yes, for the two hate letters <only two, what luck!> : My q key is just fine, thank you. Since this is a language group, I would welcome some real discussion on how to eliminate the gender discrimination, without eliminating the information flow at the same time. Hope to see some real discussion. rabbit!jj <poof>
rhm (07/08/82)
How did we get into the mode that there is some implicit agreement that we all want to "eliminate the gender discrimination"? I have some pretty strongly held gender preferences - mebbe I should enjoy the company ov men as much and in the same way as women, but I don't - vive la difference. I would never introduce my mother to someone or even refer to her as my "parent-person" or any other sexless descriptor. I maintain that her gender is relevant in almost any context. There are a number of cases where the retention of gender specification is generally considered very important - e.g. policewoman vs. policeman. There are some situations that require (even by law) one or the other but not a policeperson. Is it really necessary to point out again (for the zillionth time) that the word "man" refers to both genders by common usage, by dictionary definition, and in fact by etymology. The word "woman" derives from an Old English word which roughly translates as "female person"; the Old English ancestor of "man" was exactly as ambiguous as the modern word, referring to "man" or "person".
kdh (07/09/82)
I am given to understand that someone **has** come up with "sex-less" pronouns. A book called "The Liberated Man", by Warren Farrell (published ~1974) proposes a set of non-sexist pronouns based on the letter "t" (as opposed to "h" and "sh"). Thus, "he" or "she" become "te" "his", "hers" "tis" (notice which it was based on) etc..... These have not, obviously, been widely accepted. (The first I heard of them was when I showed the recent flaming/discussion/debate to a collegue (female) (oops...) who was not yet up on netnews.) She (excuse me, "Te") had been exposed to them in a class called "The American Male", at Cornell, in '76. She commented that when she used them they typically were circled as typos until the person reading the paper got around to reading the appendix which explained them..... Kevin "I could care" Hunter houti!kdh
trb (07/12/82)
As I vaguely recall: Our US Government tried to label fishermen as "fishers" in some of its regulations and the fishermen and their wives got really upset and Uncle Sam backed off. Andy Tannenbaum Bell Labs Whippany, NJ (201) 386-6491
atbowler (07/13/82)
The Canadian Criminal Code uses the expression "male person" when gender is important. This seems to recognize that "man" often has a non-specific gender.