dyer@vaxuum.DEC (This did not happen to/Pablo Picasso) (08/24/85)
Saying It Nicely________________________________________________________________ > What I have repeatedly tried to point out in this forum, is that some "mascu- > line" behavior patterns are less than desirable in the context of society. I basically agree, though I'd put it slightly different: The sexist attitudes that hold so-called "masculine" traits as (1) innately male, and (2) more valuable than the so-called "feminine" traits has thrown our society into a dangerous state of imbalance. Every human has the capacity for all of these traits, and to restrict one's experience to a certain constellation of traits that one's society deems appropriate for one's sex is to miss out on one's full potential. But that's not what I'm writing this article for. The above-quoted sentence was written by a netter whose articles have been perceived by many as anti-male. It is my opinion that these perceptions are derived from the fact that said articles would say things like "men do <something>," or "men are <something>." The use of the word "men" is ambiguous. Does it mean *some* men or does it mean *all* men? The ambiguity is likely to lead to somebody being offended on grounds of sexism. I suggest that those who write to this newsgroup refrain from making statements like "men {do|are} <something>." Refer, instead, to "some men" (or, if applicable, "most men"). If you're not talking about men, but rather "mascu- linity," write about that, not about men. Men like themselves, working hard to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem, would appreciate it very much. <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not :::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.
sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) (08/29/85)
> The above-quoted sentence was written by a netter whose articles have > been perceived by many as anti-male. It is my opinion that these perceptions > are derived from the fact that said articles would say things like "men do > <something>," or "men are <something>." > The use of the word "men" is ambiguous. Does it mean *some* men or > does it mean *all* men? The ambiguity is likely to lead to somebody being > offended on grounds of sexism. As previous discussions here have indicated, the terms "man", "he", and "his" are simultaneously representative of both men and women. They are also simultaneously representative of both the whole collection and any subgroup thereof. We women, who have repeatedly asked in various net.forums for the usage of pronouns which were non-gender specific, have been repeatedly told by "men" that there is no need, that "men" is sufficient to refer to all cases of people. The term "men" is just as ambiguous about gender as it is about number. Why don't you support solving it's gender ambiguity? I take it you've also ignored my articles which I periodically post in response to articles like yours above, where I've indicated that in ANY case of dealing with stereotypes such as "men" or "masculine" which accounts for any (near)majority group of approximately HALF the entire population, that there OBVIOUSLY have to me MANY exceptions to the stereotype. If I ever said "all men", I don't recall having done so. Therefore, you may presume that rather than talking of half the population in toto, I'm referring to the generic average stereotypical representative. Women are Female. Men are Male. (<stereotype> is <characteristic>) Men populate the earth. (Gender ambiguous) I might as well take this opportunity to point out that the only reason I find it acceptable to tolerate the use of the gender unspecific generic term "men" or "he" to include the set of women, is that women are a superset of men: All "men" are capable of being computer programmers. Only "women" are capable of bearing children or suckling them. That is, a "woman" is "womb" + "man" (abbreviated from wombman to woman), and a "she" is superset of "he" (the child nurturing addition to the generic). Language constrains the concepts presentable AND THINKABLE: NEWSPEAK for all... Sunny -- {ucbvax,decvax,ihnp4}!sun!sunny (Ms. Sunny Kirsten)
norman@lasspvax.UUCP (Norman Ramsey) (08/31/85)
David Brin, in his _Startide_Rising_, created (?) the following usage:
people are "men"
male people are "mels"
female people are "fems"
doplhins are "fen" (one dolphin is a "fin")
Not beautiful, perhaps, but it works... so some people *are* doing something
about it.
--
Norman Ramsey
ARPA: norman@lasspvax -- or -- norman%lasspvax@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
UUCP: {ihnp4,allegra,...}!cornell!lasspvax!norman
BITNET: (in desperation only) ZSYJARTJ at CORNELLA
US Mail: Dept Physics, Clark Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853
Telephone: (607)-256-3944 (work) (607)-272-7750 (home)greenber@timeinc.UUCP (Ross M. Greenberg) (09/02/85)
In article <2722@sun.uucp> sunny@sun.uucp (Ms. Sunny Kirsten) writes: > >As previous discussions here have indicated, the terms "man", "he", and "his" >are simultaneously representative of both men and women. They are also >simultaneously representative of both the whole collection and any subgroup >thereof. PLEASE! Let's not start *that* discussion again? > >I might as well take this opportunity to point out that the only reason I >find it acceptable to tolerate the use of the gender unspecific generic term >"men" or "he" to include the set of women, is that women are a superset >of men: No.....no sexism in Sunny! No little smiley guy. Maybe she's kidding? Nope. Doesn't look that way: > >All "men" are capable of being computer programmers. >Only "women" are capable of bearing children or suckling them. > Why, she's right! And only men can fertilize the women. Golly, does that make us *almost* as good as women? Well, I guess it depends how you define women: >That is, a "woman" is "womb" + "man" (abbreviated from wombman to woman), >and a "she" is superset of "he" (the child nurturing addition to the generic). And I always thought "women" was a contraction of "woe to man"! :-) > >Language constrains the concepts presentable AND THINKABLE: What planet did you come from? Certainly not Earth..... -- ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ross M. Greenberg @ Time Inc, New York --------->{vax135 | ihnp4}!timeinc!greenber<--------- I highly doubt that Time Inc. would make me their spokesperson. --- "You must never run from something immortal. It attracts their attention." -- The Last Unicorn
dyer@tau.DEC (09/03/85)
Re: Saying It Nicely___________________________________________________________ >> [It is possible to perceive as sexist articles which say] things like "men >> do <something>," or "men are <something>." >> The use of the word "men" is ambiguous. Does it mean *some* men or >> does it mean *all* men? The ambiguity is likely to lead to somebody being >> offended on grounds of sexism. >> > As previous discussions here have indicated, the terms "man", "he", and > "his" are simultaneously representative of both men and women. They are > also simultaneously representative of both the whole collection and any sub- > group thereof. . . . The term "men" is just as ambiguous about gender as it > is about number. Why don't you support solving [its] gender ambiguity? Excuse me, but why do you say I don't support that? The subject has come up many times in this newsgroup (almost always leading into a rathole), and every time it has, I've set forth my objections to the sexism implicit in the male term and the generic term being the same. (The most recent example is my article "Nomenclature - Gay/Homosexual/Lesbian", posted to both net.motss and net.women.) At any rate, your argument is meaningless. You seem to be saying that I shouldn't complain about the use of "men" to refer to "some men" without my complaining about the use of "men" to refer to "men and women." Two problems: (1) as I just said, I *do* complain about the latter usage of the term; and (2) the argument itself is completely _ad_hominum_ and irrelevant to the subject of my original article. (So let's not get into the nonsexist generics issue. It just isn't relevant to this subject and it often leads into a rathole, and this newsgroup is stuck in too many of them right now.) (For those of you who can't resist posting about that subject anyway, START A NEW NOTE! Again, it is com- pletely irrelevant to this subject.) I am well aware that the term "men" can have two meanings: "some men" or "all men." In fact, I said that in my article. My point is that because it is so ambiguous, it would behoove us to be more precise about what we write. If we mean "some men," let's write "some men;" if we mean "all men," let's write "all men." By the way, there is at least one other way of interpreting the term "men." People say that men {are|do} something and mean that all men are *sup- posed* to {be|do} that something, but some of them {aren't|don't}. > . . . I've indicated that in ANY case of dealing with stereotypes such as > "men" or "masculine" which accounts for any (near)majority group of approx- > imately HALF the entire population, that there OBVIOUSLY [has] to [be] MANY > exceptions to the stereotype. When one uses ambiguous terms, nothing is obvious. There is no short- age of bigots who will say "{men|women} {are|do} this," and mean it for *all* {men|women}. Some bigots, confronted with evidence in conflict with their pre- judices, opt for the "all are *supposed* to {be|do} this, but there are always exceptions" approach. > If I ever said "all men", I don't recall having done so. If I ever said that you said "all men," I don't recall having done so. > Therefore, you may presume that rather than talking of half the population in > toto, I'm referring to the generic average stereotypical representative. If you wish, I'll presume that. But that's not going to stop other netters - especially newcomers - from misinterpreting ambiguous prose. But who, pray tell, is the "generic average stereotypical represent- ative?" I'll repeat my plea: Let's be more precise with our terms and we can avoid having our articles misunderstood as sexist (or, even worse, have such a misunderstanding serve as reinforcement for others' sexism). <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :: Jym Dyer :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer :: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::