regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (07/11/85)
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) >Polly writes: >I once had to use a textbook where the genders were simply alternated, >sometimes within the same sentence. The effect was _very_ distracting. >Having to deal with a subject that changes sex three times in one sentence >slows the reading and information absorption process enormously (at least >it did for me), probably because it's so unexpected and unusual. Now, the funny thing about this posting is that part and parcel of this discussion is that we are looking for a pronoun that doesn't leave an impression of sex. Polly indicates that the changing use of the pronoun was distracting because it changed "sex" three times. What does that do to the stance that the pronoun "he" already stands for everybody (and not just male people)? Seems to me it helps support the claim that the use of a gender specific pronoun encourages a sense of sexuality in the object of that pronoun, and that "he" is a gender specific pronoun, not a neuter one. Polly is usually satisfied by not publicizing a stand on one side or another of an issue, but it seems to me those of you out there who do take a stand can't ignore these factors.
crs@lanl.ARPA (07/12/85)
> The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) > >Polly writes: > >I once had to use a textbook where the genders were simply alternated, > >sometimes within the same sentence. The effect was _very_ distracting. > >Having to deal with a subject that changes sex three times in one sentence > >slows the reading and information absorption process enormously (at least > >it did for me), probably because it's so unexpected and unusual. > > Now, the funny thing about this posting is that part and parcel of this > discussion is that we are looking for a pronoun that doesn't leave an > impression of sex. Polly indicates that the changing use of the pronoun > was distracting because it changed "sex" three times. > > What does that do to the stance that the pronoun "he" already stands for > everybody (and not just male people)? But when "he" is alternated with "she" (which *is* gender/sex specific) the (artificial) contrast produced *suggests* the nongeneric meaning of "he" where, if used normally, the context suggests the generic meaning or, at worst, suggests nothing and leaves the selection to the judgment of the reader. At least it does for me. > Seems to me it helps support the > claim that the use of a gender specific pronoun encourages a sense of > sexuality in the object of that pronoun, and that "he" is a gender specific > pronoun, not a neuter one. Polly is usually satisfied by not publicizing a > stand on one side or another of an issue, but it seems to me those of you > out there who do take a stand can't ignore these factors. See above. -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa
mjv@ihu1e.UUCP (Vlach) (07/24/85)
> > What does that do to the stance that the pronoun "he" already stands for > > everybody (and not just male people)? [much deleted] I know that he is often used in a generic sense, but since he means a male person in many cases, I always thought it was sort of obnoxious. I don't feel like the average "he", that's for sure. I sometimes use "one" for a non-specific gendered third person. That's something I picked up from French, where it is used a great deal. Side note: In the book "Oh! Pascal", the authors explained that since most books used he for the third person, they were using she to make it more even. I thought it was a nice gesture. It was used consistantly throughout the book and was no problem in reading. I hope this 3rd person business can be fixed up. I was frequently chastised in English classes for not having my antecedents agree, because once I had said "someone" I couldn't bring myself to call them a HIM or HE unless this were the case, so I used they or them all the time. To think being a feminist can ruin your grammar. :-) Marcia Bear, somewhere in this known universe