cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (05/19/85)
Why not just let the word "man" refer to both male and female participants
in mankind? In job-related contexts, it could be viewed as a contraction of
the word "manager", as in the oil industry--a "landman" is a land manager,
and quite a few (feitsty Texan) women are proud to say, "yes, I am a landman"
and relish the discomfort they cause among those "men" whose only claim to
manhood is their biological apparatus. And why not just use "he", "him",
and "his" to refer to EVERYBODY? Face it--"person" is a wimpy word. No
man (male or female) wants to be merely a PERSON or a THEY or a HE/SHE.
Yuk-ola. And personally, I resent the nature of my private plumbing being
bandied about in mere pronouns and job descriptions. I'd like to
be able to say of my Secretary, "He's the best man for the job" whether
he's biologically male or female. All men should have a right
to wear whatever they look best in, and feel most comfortable in. Social
femininity or masculinity should be a matter of choice, not biology.
(And oh, what a choice! Do you know what a perverse thrill it is to start
wearing makeup after twenty-five years of being a tomboy? I feel more
like Ziggy Stardust or Ronnie Reagan or Dr. Frankenfurter in front of the
mirror than Helen Gurley Brown. I mean, face it, this femininity thing
is weird, but it's fun. I think all men should try it. It's a shame that
only biologically female men have the choice to act like girls and get away
with it!)
What are the advantages?
1. People filling traditionally feminine roles would be
called "men". A nurse does a job which places him in
life-or-death situations. Therefore, he should do his
duty like a man. A parent does a job which molds the
very minds and souls of men at their inception. Like-
wise he should do his duty like a man, not shrinking
from the grave responsibility before him, treating the
young life with the appropriate sensitivity and good
judgement. Does this phraseology change your perception
of traditionally feminine roles?
2. People filling traditionally masculine roles would be
called "men". It's a man's world (so? we're all good
men here, aren't we? I know I'm at least as good a man
as you! You want to prove me wrong? You want to fight?
You don't like the way I do my nails? Well, I don't like
the way you do yours! So there!) Does this change your
perception of traditionally masculine roles?
Are we not men?
Cheryl Stewartdesjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/21/85)
(excerpts from) Cheryl Stewart: > > Face it--"person" is a wimpy word. No > man (male or female) wants to be merely a PERSON or a THEY or a HE/SHE. > 1. People filling traditionally feminine roles would be > called "men". A nurse does a job which places him in > life-or-death situations. Therefore, he should do his > duty like a man. A parent does a job which molds the > very minds and souls of men at their inception. Like- > wise he should do his duty like a man, not shrinking > from the grave responsibility before him, treating the > young life with the appropriate sensitivity and good > judgement. Does this phraseology change your perception > of traditionally feminine roles? > > 2. People filling traditionally masculine roles would be > called "men". It's a man's world (so? we're all good > men here, aren't we? I know I'm at least as good a man > as you! You want to prove me wrong? You want to fight? > You don't like the way I do my nails? Well, I don't like > the way you do yours! So there!) Does this change your > perception of traditionally masculine roles? > > Are we not men? > No, we are NOT men. We are people. I very much resent the implication here: that "traditional" male qualities and roles are better than "traditional" female qualities and roles. I do NOT want to become more like a man, I just want the freedom to be whatever kind of PERSON I want to be. What IS this shit about "doing one's duty like a man"? (Of course, women never did their duty properly; the only way to do so would to become more manlike.) marie desjardins
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (05/23/85)
I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should
be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". The
psychology of this is phenomenally powerful...it does not demand that anyone
change his concept of "manhood" to one of "personhood", but rather that a female
of our species be considered part of mankind. It also acknowleges the fact
that it IS a "man's world", and it does not place any importance in radically
changing that man's world into a "persons world". It rather puts the burden on
individuals to live up to cerain standards of job performance, self-reliance,
and social dominance necessary to survive in an unchanged man's world.
If everyone were a "man",
it would be no longer possible to speak of "women's work" any more
than people can get away with referring to manual labor as "nigger's work".
It would just be too impolite, and asking for a stylletto heel right between
the eyes (or a nike in the nuts as the case may be).
Furthermore, the use
of the word "man" to refer to a human being of either sex would force men to
consider social, financial, intellectual, technical and scientific accomplish-
ments as something very, very different from simple biological endowments.
If you're the best man for the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter
what your plumbing, parentage or early social environment was like. The push
for THIS kind of change in the use of the language would have a different
connotation from the bleeding-hearded whine "but we're all people, aren't we?"
associated with mutilations like "to each his/her own". Rather, it says,
"Dammit, I'm as good a man as you, and what I do is just as important as what
you do, and if you have a dispute with me, you'd better prove it."
And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile than
than the drivel about rape and high-heel sneakers I've been reading about
in this newsgroup lately. Is the idea just too simple and effective a solution
to gender-connotation discrimination? What, will it put you professional
feminists out of business? Let's hear the yeas and nays. What do you think
of Glenda Jackson as the next Doctor Who? Jeanne Kirkpatrick for president?
Grace Jones the new 007? Or are you just waiting for these men to go soft and
make aerobic workout records like Jane Fonda. (He's gone soft, hasn't he? Used
to be something of a politician. Too bad.)
It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it?
Cheryl Stewart, BMOCstadlin@hou2h.UUCP (Art Stadlin) (05/23/85)
> From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) > > ...... > The push > for THIS kind of change in the use of the language would have a different > connotation from the bleeding-hearded whine "but we're all people, aren't we?" > associated with mutilations like "to each his/her own". > ...... > It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it? > > Cheryl Stewart, BMOC > I'll argue with you.... What's wrong with "to each their own?" Would you consider that to be a language mutilation? Consider these other examples of "them" and "their" as singular pronouns: "It's enough to drive anyone out of their senses." -- George Bernard Shaw "You do not have to understand someone in order to love them." -- Lawrence Durrell Other examples and interesting discussion may be found in "The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing" by Casey Miller & Kate Swift (Lippincott & Crowell, New York, 1980) -- \\\ \\\\ Art Stadlin \\\\\\________!{akgua,ihnp4,houxm}!hou2h!stadlin
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (05/23/85)
> > I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should > be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". The > psychology of this is phenomenally powerful...it does not demand that anyone > change his concept of "manhood" to one of "personhood", but rather that a female > of our species be considered part of mankind. It also acknowleges the fact > that it IS a "man's world", and it does not place any importance in radically > changing that man's world into a "persons world". > > Cheryl Stewart, BMOC I am not a man. My daughters are not, and never will be, men. I do not want "manhood" and "manliness" upheld as standards we could only meet by denying what we are.
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (05/23/85)
> > I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should > be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". The > psychology of this is phenomenally powerful...it does not demand that anyone > change his concept of "manhood" to one of "personhood", but rather that a female > of our species be considered part of mankind. It also acknowleges the fact >. > > > > > Furthermore, the use > of the word "man" to refer to a human being of either sex would force men to > consider social, financial, intellectual, technical and scientific accomplish- > ments as something very, very different from simple biological endowments. > If you're the best man for the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter > what your plumbing, parentage or early social environment was like. The push > > And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile than > than the drivel about rape and high-heel sneakers I've been reading about > in this newsgroup lately. Is the idea just too simple and effective a solution > > It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it? > > Cheryl Stewart, BMOC *** REPLACE YOUR VACANT THOUGHT WITH THE ABOVE!!!!! *** I really think you have hit the point much more squarely than any one else has done. I would gladly settle for man .... etc as general use words if they could really evelove into non-sexist terms. Right not this is not the case. Perhaps the idea of working for a non-gender-specific pronoun set is a bit off the real track but in today's society there really is no hope for anything better. I don'y think it is impossible to achieve just more than inordinately difficult. I belong to the HU*MAN* race ie MANkind but for the here and now I am a WOMAN and I'll be durned if I am going to sit still and be just one of the GUYS. In today's work environment this would be no better than reverting to the attiudes about women in work place which were dominant 30 years ago. Women have come to far to through down what has been done and start over. About the best I an imagine is a parallel effort to: a) achieve a neuter descriptor set of words and b) achieve recognition that women are part of MANkind. Jeanette Zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpa!zubbie ================================================================================ All opinions expressed belong soley to me. Everyone is entitled to their one stupid narrow-minded opinion. You only have to agree with the cook while you are in the kitchen ================================================================================
matt@oddjob.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (05/24/85)
The remainder is rotated because it's getting a bit flame-like. Feel free not to read it. Perhaps I should have just deleted part of the "Newsgroups" line? Va negvpyr <717@zghkb.HHPC> fzhtn@zghkb.HHPC (w.fzhtn) jevgrf: >> V jnf frevbhf. V ernyyl guvax gung gur trarevp grez sbe n crefba fubhyq >> or "zna", naq gung gur trarevp cebabhaf fubhyq or "ur", "uvz" naq "uvf". >> Gur cflpubybtl bs guvf vf curabzranyyl cbjreshy...vg qbrf abg qrznaq gung >> nalbar punatr uvf pbaprcg bs "znaubbq" gb bar bs "crefbaubbq", ohg engure >> gung n srznyr bs bhe fcrpvrf or pbafvqrerq cneg bs znaxvaq. >> >> Purely Fgrjneg, OZBP > >V nz abg n zna. Zl qnhtugref ner abg, naq arire jvyy or, zra. V qb abg >jnag "znaubbq" naq "znayvarff" hcuryq nf fgnaqneqf jr pbhyq bayl zrrg ol >qralvat jung jr ner. Svar. Xrrc lbhe qnhtugref vaqbbef juvyr zra yvxr Purely eha gur fubj. Gur rkvfgrapr bs "erny zra" bs obgu frkrf znxrf vg pyrne gung zrzoref bs obgu frkrf unir na rdhny evtug gb or "erny jvzcf". Vs zna vf abg gur bccbfvgr bs jbzna nal zber gura bguref bs lbhe traqre jvyy abg unir gb qrsraq gurzfryirf ntnvafg vqragvsvpngvba jvgu lbh guebhtu gur bhgqngrq genafvgvivgl " jvzcl == ha-znayl == jbznayl ". _____________________________________________________ Zngg Havirefvgl penjsbeq@nay-zpf.necn Penjsbeq bs Puvpntb vuac4!bqqwbo!zngg
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/25/85)
From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart), Message-ID: <742@oddjob.UUCP>: >I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should >be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". Oh my goddess, she *was* serious. >The psychology of this is phenomenally powerful...it does not demand that >anyone change his concept of "manhood" to one of "personhood", but rather >that a female of our species be considered part of mankind. It also >acknowleges the fact that it IS a "man's world", and it does not place >any importance in radically changing that man's world into a "persons >world". It rather puts the burden on individuals to live up to cerain >standards of job performance, self-reliance, and social dominance >necessary to survive in an unchanged man's world. If everyone were a >"man", it would be no longer possible to speak of "women's work" any more >than people can get away with referring to manual labor as "nigger's >work". It would just be too impolite, and asking for a stylletto heel >right between the eyes (or a nike in the nuts as the case may be). > >Furthermore, the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being of either >sex would force men to consider social, financial, intellectual, >technical and scientific accomplishments as something very, very >different from simple biological endowments. If you're the best man for >the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter what your plumbing, >parentage or early social environment was like. The push for THIS kind >of change in the use of the language would have a different connotation >from the bleeding-hearded whine "but we're all people, aren't we?" >associated with mutilations like "to each his/her own". Rather, it says, >"Dammit, I'm as good a man as you, and what I do is just as important as >what you do, and if you have a dispute with me, you'd better prove it." Gibberish. Knee-jerk, unintelligible gibberish. >And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile >than than the drivel about rape and high-heel sneakers I've been reading >about in this newsgroup lately. Cheryl, dearest, the "good idea, new idea" you're proposing is *no change at all* in our language. How the h*ll is not making any change at all going to influence people's pre/misconceptions? (Well, technically, it's changing *back* to the language that had us brainwashed before, but the progress we've made is still new enough to be non-standard.) >Is the idea just too simple and effective a solution to gender-connotation >discrimination? It's simple alright. But effective?!?! Stand around and do absolutely nothing, and everyone will undergo a "phenomonally powerful" mind shift. You're looney-tunes. >It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it? It makes too *little* sense to argue with. > Cheryl Stewart, BMOC aka Eliza II -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (05/25/85)
In article <742@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: > I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person > should be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" > and "his". The psychology of this is phenomenally powerful... > > If everyone were a "man", it would be no longer possible to speak of > "women's work" any more than people can get away with referring to > manual labor as "nigger's work"... > > Furthermore, the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being of > either sex would force men to consider social, financial, intellectual, > technical and scientific accomplish- ments as something very, very > different from simple biological endowments. If you're the best man > for the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter what your > plumbing, parentage or early social environment was like... > > And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile > than than the drivel about rape and high-heel sneakers I've been > reading about in this newsgroup lately. It may be new idea, but I'm not sure it's a good one. If we really want to do away with the prejudices, choosing "man" as the generic probably won't do it. There are just too many people in our society who have specific sexual and genderal associations with the word. Perhaps, if it were to really to be used equally for about three generations (or more), then it would work, but how do you get there from here? Your example of "nigger's work" illustrates my point. It is socially unacceptable in many circles - but *not* all - to use a phrase like that. Acceptable or not, many people still *think* that way. Things just haven't changed very much. Seems to me, still, that a new word is needed. It's certainly a better topic than high-heeled sneakers. The rape issue is an important one (so is the shoes one, for that matter) but the current discussion has degenerated too far. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
rob@osiris.UUCP (Robert St. Amant) (05/25/85)
> > > > I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should > > be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". > > . . . > > Cheryl Stewart, BMOC > > I am not a man. My daughters are not, and never will be, men. I do not > want "manhood" and "manliness" upheld as standards we could only meet by > denying what we are. Of course, this is the problem. The connotations that accompany the words can't be just hacked off and ignored. I think there _ought_ to be gender- free singular words to replace "he" and "man," but so far there aren't. In the meantime, I'm not going to say "To each his or her own," and "Someone lost their pencil," because it's either awkward or it sounds wrong. Prose in advertising can be worded awkwardly--who cares? But that kind of writing isn't appropriate everywhere. Has anyone come up with a substitution for "he" better than "s/he" or "they?" Or has the language stopped evolving? I remember reading a short story in which the author used the term "dight," which she found in Middle English, because she thought the language needed a nonvulgar transitive verb meaning "to fuck." Not too successful, but imaginative, at least. Rob St. Amant
cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) (05/26/85)
>>I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should >>be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". > >Oh my goddess, she *was* serious. > >>The psychology of this is phenomenally powerful...it does not demand that >>anyone change his concept of "manhood" to one of "personhood", but rather >>that a female of our species be considered part of mankind. It also >>acknowleges the fact that it IS a "man's world", and it does not place >>any importance in radically changing that man's world into a "persons >>world". It rather puts the burden on individuals to live up to cerain >>standards of job performance, self-reliance, and social dominance >>necessary to survive in an unchanged man's world. If everyone were a >>"man", it would be no longer possible to speak of "women's work" any more >>Furthermore, the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being of either >>sex would force men to consider social, financial, intellectual, >>technical and scientific accomplishments as something very, very >>different from simple biological endowments. If you're the best man for >>the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter what your plumbing, >>parentage or early social environment was like. The push for THIS kind >>of change in the use of the language would have a different connotation >>from the bleeding-hearded whine "but we're all people, aren't we?" >>associated with mutilations like "to each his/her own". Rather, it says, >>"Dammit, I'm as good a man as you, and what I do is just as important as >>what you do, and if you have a dispute with me, you'd better prove it." > >Gibberish. Knee-jerk, unintelligible gibberish. > >>And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile >>than than the drivel about rape and high-heel sneakers I've been reading >>about in this newsgroup lately. > >Cheryl, dearest, the "good idea, new idea" you're proposing is *no change >at all* in our language. How the h*ll is not making any change at all >going to influence people's pre/misconceptions? (Well, technically, it's >changing *back* to the language that had us brainwashed before, but the >progress we've made is still new enough to be non-standard.) > >>Is the idea just too simple and effective a solution to gender-connotation > >It's simple alright. But effective?!?! Stand around and do absolutely >nothing, and everyone will undergo a "phenomonally powerful" mind shift. >You're looney-tunes. > >>It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it? > >It makes too *little* sense to argue with. > >> Cheryl Stewart, BMOC > >aka Eliza II > >-- > >--JB "The giant is awake." > Your first mistake, beth, JB, giant, or whatever it is you call yourself, was to stoop to a snide, name-calling tack. If you want to discuss this topic man-to-man, grow up. You can save your childish backbiting for sorority-house meetings or wherever it is that kind of thing is deemed acceptable. Your second mistake, beth@sphinx, was to completely misunderstand my proposal. I proposed that grownup females be referred to as men. This constitutes a significant departure from the current use of the English language. You claimed that I proposed that no change be made. Clearly, simple logic escapes you. I'd say you have a lot to learn. Cheryl Stewart "A question in your nerves is lit yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy and assure you not to quit to keep it in your mind and not forget it is not he or she or them or it that you belong to" -Bob Dylan
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/26/85)
From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart), Message-ID: <749@oddjob.UUCP>: >Your second mistake, beth@sphinx, was to completely misunderstand my >proposal. I proposed that grownup females be referred to as men. This >constitutes a significant departure from the current use of the English >language. You claimed that I proposed that no change be made. Clearly, >simple logic escapes you. I'd say you have a lot to learn. > > Cheryl Stewart Apparently I *do* have a lot to learn. When you said >I really think that the generic term for a person should >be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". , I thought you meant that you thought that the generic term for a person should be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". This has always been the case. There are, however, *specific* terms like "woman", "she", "her" and "hers" that are used in *specific* cases. "Man", "he", "him" and "his" have always been used as the *generic* terms. If you wanted to change the *specific* terms you might have referred to them properly. (By the way, that was probably my *first* mistake. I doubt I would have responded so "childishly" if I had understood what the hell you were talking so rabidly about.) Now that we've gotten past the misunderstanding: It would in fact be nice if we didn't polarize people into separate groups. I'm not going to jump on your bandwagon, however, for a couple of reasons. The first, and least logical, is your choice of replacement words. I simply don't *want* to be called a man (neither do I want to discuss this "man-to-man" :-). I'm willing to meet folks halfway (person does *not* strike me as wimpy), but something in me rebels at suddenly calling everyone "men". It seem to be saying that "man" is a more appropriate word than "woman", and that appropriateness could only be based on the meanings of words. And I just don't agree with that. A more logical reason is the extreme difficulty in implementing it. One could not abolish *all* gender-specific words, as there are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes (e.g. explaining sex, menstru- ation, etc. to children). And if any gender-specific words are present, people would have to have already achieved the goal (i.e., not distin- guishing in their thoughts between men and women) before they would use the language properly. The shift in language usage would then be an effect, not a cause, of the attitude shift. Of course, the same could be said of gender-neutral pronouns. I suppose the point is get a few folks to undergo the shift and then use the language in a way that would induce others to too. Hmmmm. I wish there was a gender-neutral set of words already. I really don't like picking one or the other. Just out of curiousity, would you also like to abolish the distinction between blacks and whites, <citizen of country> and foreigner, <member of religion> and <other>? I suppose those aren't as pervasive in the language (ie, there's not a seperate pronoun for "Hispanic's"). Yet the prejudices are often as great. Hmmmm again. Well, now that I understand what you're talking about, it is indeed thought provoking. My apologies for responding initially with such foolhardy abandon. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (05/27/85)
In article <742@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: >I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should >be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". >...It rather puts the burden on >individuals to live up to cerain standards of job performance, self-reliance, >and social dominance necessary to survive in an unchanged man's world. If (1) an "unchanged man's world" is the objective, and (2) women's unequal success in that world can be largely attributed to failure to live up to "certain standards" that their male counterparts set, then your idea makes some sense. But what if the "man's world" could stand a few changes? And what about the fact that women who currently meet job performance standards are still paid less than their male counterparts? -- Richard Mateosian {cbosgd,fortune,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
pauls@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Sweazey) (05/28/85)
By far the best "sexist language" solution I have ever heard. tektronix!tekecs!pauls
pauls@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Sweazey) (05/28/85)
> No, we are NOT men. We are people. I very much resent the implication > here: that "traditional" male qualities and roles are better than > "traditional" female qualities and roles. I do NOT want to become more > like a man, I just want the freedom to be whatever kind of PERSON I > want to be. What IS this shit about "doing one's duty like a man"? > (Of course, women never did their duty properly; the only way to do > so would to become more manlike.) > > marie desjardins The point is that the above "implication" disappears. "Man" no longer implies "male". It implies "human". It would be just as reasonable to eliminate the word "man" from the language and use "woman" to refer to any member of the human race. The advantage of using "man" is that we may keep all the old phrases such as, "All men are created equal". To be manly is no longer to be macho, but to be humanly, humane, compasionate. tektronix!tekecs!pauls
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (05/28/85)
From: rob@osiris.UUCP (Robert St. Amant), Message-ID: <348@osiris.UUCP>: >Has anyone come up with a substitution for "he" better than "s/he" or >"they?" Or has the language stopped evolving? I remember reading >a short story in which the author used the term "dight," which she found >in Middle English, because she thought the language needed a nonvulgar >transitive verb meaning "to fuck." Not too successful, but imaginative, >at least. > > Rob St. Amant In _The_Cook_and_the_Carpenter (copyright 1973) June Arnold (the carpenter) used 'na'. 'Nan' was the possesive, and 'naself' was used as well. As a preface to the book, the following appeared: Since the differences between men and women are so obvious to all, so impossible to confuse whether we are speaking of learned behavior or inherent characteristics, ordinary conversation or furious passion, work or intimate relationships, the author understands that it is no longer necessary to distinguish between men and women in this novel. I have therefore used one pronoun for both, trusting the reader to know which is which. I must confess that, even tho I'm a raging feminist, and even tho I assumed from the above statement that the author was as well, I nevertheless was occasionally somewhat confused as to which was which. Perhaps that's good evidence in support of Cheryl's idea (although I'll take 'na' over 'man' any day). -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (05/28/85)
I suggest you all read William Safire's column for Sunday, May 26th in the Times.
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/28/85)
> >>I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should > >>be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". > > Your first mistake, beth, JB, giant, or whatever it is you call yourself, was > to stoop to a snide, name-calling tack. If you want to discuss this topic > man-to-man, grow up. You can save your childish backbiting for sorority-house ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ > meetings or wherever it is that kind of thing is deemed acceptable. Your second > mistake, beth@sphinx, was to completely misunderstand my proposal. I proposed > that grownup females be referred to as men. This constitutes a significant > departure from the current use of the English language. You claimed that > I proposed that no change be made. Clearly, simple logic escapes you. I'd say > you have a lot to learn. > > Cheryl Stewart > AHA, now we come to the crux of it! women are men until they misbehave at which point they are women (or girls) again. Being female is an immature state and being male is a mature one. You are not proposing to stay with the status quo, you are actually proposing we go back to the way things were 100 years ago. Well, Cheryl, no deal. It's been tried before and it didn't work. I feel sorry for you that you were born in the wrong century, but there are probably enough men around you who wished they were still there that you can probably live happily ever after. Point #2 (there was no point #1, but then again, has anybody ever seen a page numbered 1?). Your proposal doesn't make sense. Women are not men. Change in maturity is not accompanied by a change in sex, and it is not necessarily accompanied by a change in gender, or if it is, it isn't necessarily in the direction you are suggesting. Gender identity and maturity have NOTHING to do with each other and it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that they do. If you really would like to be considered a man, I suggest you change your sex. I will stay with mine, thank you. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (05/28/85)
>I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should >be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". In your proposal you reflect the traditional belief that "male" values are somehow more "mature" than female values. This is a very stereotypical belief that men in "traditional" societies have. If you had hung around enough women in such societies, you would have found out that there is a balancing stereotypical belief that most women adhere to: the belief that women are more mature than men. This belief accompanied by the belief that "girls mature faster than boys" is not entirely stupid either. Certainly, the traditional sex roles are such that a lot more maturity is demanded from women than it is from men. Men's traditional role is to deal with the outside world, bringing home the bacon and spanking the kids if they misbehave. Women's traditional role is to do everything else, taking care of the economics involved in running a household, raising children, in other words, figuring out a fair and flexible distribution of all sorts of scarce resources (money, time, affection, attention, etc...) not easy tasks. Therefore maturity is in the mouth of the definer. By equating maturity with a certain gender, you are ignoring other very valid definitions of maturity. You are denying the efforts that women have made to cope, the common sense philosophies that women have developed in the evolution of humankind, in other words the history of all our contributions. What we need now is not a solution that negates our contributions, but a solution that integrates it. Please let's not start a discussion on whether women or men are more mature. This article is not a claim of women's superiority but a counter-balance to Cheryl's suggestion of equating maturity with manliness. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/29/85)
>> No, we are NOT men. We are people.. -- Marie > >The point is that the above "implication" disappears. "Man" no longer >implies "male". It implies "human". It would be just as reasonable to >eliminate the word "man" from the language and use "woman" to refer to any >member of the human race. -- Paul Sweazey Is that so? Let's look at the two proposals more deeply... MALE FEMALE GENERIC 1) man woman person 2) ??? woman man Proposal (1) involves no new words, and does not require anybody to change their meanings in words. Since all words retain their conventional meanings, it is effective IMMEDIATELY, since the meaning of expressions like `repairperson' is understood, if somewhat awkward, to all hearers, whether pro or con. Furthermore, the change is already happening, right now, and it is happening gradually and naturally. Those who dislike the newer language are free do as they wish. Proposal (2) requires that people stop using `man' in all expressions like `men's room' and create another word. BUT WHICH WORD? AND HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO GET PEOPLE TO USE IT???? Will we hire Orwellian language cops? Furthermore, there will be a l o n g period where many will retain the older usage. During that period, those who lag behind in their still use `man' to mean `male'. People will grossly misunderstand each other. And that is to defeat the entire purpose of language. -michael
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (05/29/85)
>In article <742@oddjob.UUCP> cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart) writes: >> I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person >> should be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" >> and "his". The psychology of this is phenomenally powerful... >> >> If everyone were a "man", it would be no longer possible to speak of >> "women's work" any more than people can get away with referring to >> manual labor as "nigger's work"... >> >> Furthermore, the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being of >> either sex would force men to consider social, financial, intellectual, >> technical and scientific accomplish- ments as something very, very >> different from simple biological endowments. If you're the best man >> for the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter what your >> plumbing, parentage or early social environment was like... In article <mtxinu.388> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: >It may be new idea, but I'm not sure it's a good one. If we really >want to do away with the prejudices, choosing "man" as the generic >probably won't do it. There are just too many people in our society >who have specific sexual and genderal associations with the word. >Perhaps, if it were to really to be used equally for about three >generations (or more), then it would work, but how do you get there >from here? The idea is not new. Many years ago, the word "man" referred only to adult WHITE males. Adult black males were called "boy." Instead of coming up with a new word that would include blacks, we altered the meaning of the word "man" to refer to adult black males, as well as whites. Maybe we should alter the word again to cover ALL adults. It worked before. It should work again. :-), of course. Frank Silbermann
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (05/31/85)
>--JB Life is just a bowl.
"Life is just a chair of bowlies." [illustrated]
--
Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (05/31/85)
--- >I was serious. I really think that the generic term for a person should >be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his" I think there is a lot of merit to Cheryl's idea in that women, instead of being second-class citizens, are included in the terminology of the higher-status men. They are promoted to first class. It is difficult terminology to accept, though, as I think of myself as a woman and I enjoy being a woman. I think it would be a useful exercise or device to use in certain group meetings or role-playing execises or discussions. The difficulty, of course, is that the way Cheryl has defined it, only current male values of good qualities would be considered good qualities. She says: >It also acknowleges the fact that it IS a "man's world", and it does >not place any importance in radically changing that man's world into a >"persons world". Under that scheme, the valuable traits of women are still second-class. We could perform our duties as parents "like men" but I think it would be better if all parents became more "womanly" than "manly" (using traditional definitions of the words). For that matter, the whole world, including the world of business might improve a little if some of the kinder values of women were lauded. It seems that Cheryl has no intention of putting her own proposal into effect: >If you want to discuss this topic man-to-man, grow up. >You can save your childish backbiting for sorority-house >meetings or wherever it is that kind of thing is deemed acceptable. as she obviously does not treat the woman she is addressing, as a "man". The woman cannot talk man-to-man because she is not "grown up". She is only suitable for a "sorority house". This is exactly the same as men calling each other "woman" as an insult. It is NOT bringing adult women "manhood" it is the same old thing -- valuing men and de-valuing women. The choice of words, by Cheryl, for her insult shows that even SHE believes this. A female "man" can never be a "real man" because she is female and never allowed to forget it. I don't care about the semantics, ultimately. If women and men were accorded the same respect and opportunities we could all be called men (then I assume the word "woman" would go away and we would use female man and male man when it was necessary to distinguish), women or wombats. That's not so important, to me. I WOULD like to see the valuable aspects of the women's world gain respect. Meanwhile, I'm just going to go about, as I usally do, racking my brains for sentence constructions that don't imply all people are male and using the dreaded "s/he" construction when I'm really stuck. The world doesn't seem to be ready to have female men. --Judy McMullan
donn@utah-gr.UUCP (Donn Seeley) (06/01/85)
This little article seems to have generated an amazing amount of misunderstanding... From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) Is that so? Let's look at the two proposals more deeply... MALE FEMALE GENERIC 1) man woman person 2) ??? woman man I fear you have mislabeled Cheryl Stewart's categories -- I think she really intended to propose: MALE FEMALE GENERIC 1) man woman person 2) male man female man man (or equivalently) 3) male woman female woman woman When Cheryl was discussing aphorisms about 'men', she seemed to be arguing that alternative 2 is better than 3 because it doesn't involve rewriting a lot of books. I didn't gather that she was disparaging femininity or encouraging male stereotypes (except perhaps in jest) -- in fact a change that removed gender distinctions among nouns and pronouns (NOT adjectives, mind you) would break many stereotypes. All sayings that previously applied to 'men' would apply to both male and female men, while the sayings that applied to 'women' would have to change to refer to men instead, because 'women' would no longer be a word, and then the sayings would apply to both genders. It still amuses me that Americans seem to find it difficult to imagine a language that doesn't implicitly make gender distinctions... The Malay language works pretty much as Cheryl's revised English would -- 'orang' is the word used where 'person' and so-called 'generic "man"' are used in current English; 'man' and 'woman' are usually translated as 'orang laki-laki' and 'orang perempuan', literally 'male human being' and 'female human being'. No pronouns distinguish gender. Malay speakers don't seem to suffer from any deficit by not distinguishing gender in the way English does; the claim that lack of gender distinction leads to vague speech would get a laugh from a Malay. (A Malay would want to know how English speakers get along without distinguishing between first person inclusive and exclusive plurals -- English is just impossibly vague, don't you agree?) I picked Malay because I'm familiar with it, but I'm sure that vast numbers of non-Indo-European languages are similar to it with respect to gender. I've heard of at least one interesting use of gender distinctions that is similar to what Cheryl proposes. I'm told that in Samuel R. Delany's recent novel, STARS IN MY POCKET LIKE GRAINS OF SAND, 'gender' distinctions in pronouns (and nouns?) are subverted to represent distinctions in familiarity or intimacy. You use 'he' to refer to someone you know distantly, and 'she' to refer to someone you are a close friend or lover to, regardless of the actual sex of the person. (I may have the pronouns backwards, although it really doesn't matter as far as the discussion goes.) This is supposed to represent the usage of a future language which doesn't have pronouns which directly correspond to pronouns in current English. There already exist languages which distinguish intimacy in pronouns but not gender, so this strikes me as being an entirely reasonable pattern for English, although it probably takes some getting used to. Where are your imaginations, people? Cheers should go to Cheryl for showing some original thought. This message should not be construed as indicating that I take a position on the issue of the usefulness of applied linguistics :-), Donn Seeley Ex-Linguist (Linguist X?) donn@utah-cs.arpa 40 46' 6"N 111 50' 34"W (801) 581-5668 decvax!utah-cs!donn
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (06/02/85)
>>Your first mistake, beth, JB, giant, or whatever it is you call yourself, was >>to stoop to a snide, name-calling tack. If you want to discuss this topic >>man-to-man, grow up. You can save your childish backbiting for sorority-house > ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^ > >>meetings or wherever it is that kind of thing is deemed acceptable. Your second >>mistake, beth@sphinx, was to completely misunderstand my proposal. I proposed >>that grownup females be referred to as men. This constitutes a significant >>departure from the current use of the English language. You claimed that >>I proposed that no change be made. Clearly, simple logic escapes you. I'd say >> you have a lot to learn. >> >> Cheryl Stewart > > AHA, now we come to the crux of it! women are men until they misbehave at > which point they are women (or girls) again. Being female is an immature > state and being male is a mature one. You are not proposing to stay with > the status quo, you are actually proposing we go back to the way things > were 100 years ago. Well, Cheryl, no deal. It's been tried before and it > didn't work. I feel sorry for you that you were born in the wrong century, > but there are probably enough men around you who wished they were still > there that you can probably live happily ever after. I'm sure Cheryl can speak for herself, but I can't resist... Nice try, Sophie, but it won't wash. Cheryl's use of "man-to-man" is only consistent with her proposal; "childish" does not refer to either sex, and "sorority" would remain in the language as an association of a certain type of men. Nowhere does Cheryl imply that misbehaving men are to be called women. Why did you think she did? wanna fight? :-) Jeff Winslow
mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (06/03/85)
(A book with gender-neutral language constructs...) > >In _The_Cook_and_the_Carpenter (copyright 1973) June Arnold (the carpenter) >used 'na'. 'Nan' was the possesive, and 'naself' was used as well.... > >I must confess that, even tho I'm a raging feminist, and even tho I assumed >from the above statement that the author was as well, I nevertheless was >occasionally somewhat confused as to which was which.... > >--JB Life is just a bowl. The author has purposefully removed the gender-specific language constructs, and if she (inferred from name) had done as well as she intended, you would finish the book not knowing the sex of some of the characters. So you should be confused as to their respective sexes. But you can only be confused if you are trying to figure it out. The message that I read from this is that the gender-neutral constructs will not convey the information about sex because that information is not seen as important. This would be the big change in society resulting from a gender-neutral pronoun: the sex of the person under of discussion would be included only if it was important to the discussion (meaning rarely.) Of course, sex remains a part of self-image, but wouldn't it be refreshing to be thought of as human first and as one sex or the other sometime later? --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{ihnp4,trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-CS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU "Brevity is Wit; Politics is Obscenity; Relativity is Maddening."
pauls@tekecs.UUCP (Paul Sweazey) (06/03/85)
> >> No, we are NOT men. We are people.. -- Marie > > > >The point is that the above "implication" disappears. "Man" no longer > >implies "male". It implies "human". It would be just as reasonable to > >eliminate the word "man" from the language and use "woman" to refer to any > >member of the human race. -- Paul Sweazey > > Is that so? Let's look at the two proposals more deeply... > > MALE FEMALE GENERIC > > 1) man woman person > 2) ??? woman man What is being proposed is more like... MALE FEMALE GENERIC 1) man woman person 3) male female man 4) male female woman Number 4 doesn't preserve and universalize phrases like, "All men are created equal", but is otherwise just as acceptable. Think of #3 as similar to the way a group of females sometimes refer to themselves as "guys". > AND HOW DO YOU PROPOSE TO GET PEOPLE TO USE IT???? I don't myself believe there is any chance of the proposal being put into practice. Males won't want to share "man" and females will feel it denies their unique identity. I just believe the idea is elegant. Paul Sweazey
chabot@miles.DEC (High Anxiety Workstations) (06/05/85)
Cheryl Stewart > Your first mistake, beth, JB, giant, or whatever it is you call yourself, was > to stoop to a snide, name-calling tack. If you want to discuss this topic > man-to-man, grow up. You can save your childish backbiting for sorority-house > meetings or wherever it is that kind of thing is deemed acceptable. Gee, Cheryl, why "sorority"? Why not "fraternity"? Are sororities somehow inherently childish? But not fraternities? Or what? Why the deliberate use of a female organization, hmm? After all, I thought you thought the default or rather ideal was male. It's also a mistake to retaliate in kind (psst: I mean name-calling). It's always a mistake to post to net.flame! :-) L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa PS: I agree with Beth--why don't you come up with a really new idea instead of declaring the status quo new? ---lsc
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/07/85)
>I am not a man. My daughters are not, and never will be, men. I do not >want "manhood" and "manliness" upheld as standards we could only meet by >denying what we are. So, whoever said your choice of generic pronouns affects standards of "man- hood" to be held up for your daughters to meet, denying what they are? -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr."
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/07/85)
This infernal situation is hopeless. B'gorry, I hereby withdraw from the
ENGLISH language, which you people in your functional illiteracy have
corrupted in an attempt to make it a weapon of politics. Hereafter, I
will write all my comments in SPANISH.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr."jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/07/85)
Si yo me digo <<El trabajo de negros>>, no significa nada mal. Y porque?
Porque las feministas putas y liberalies no han denegrado el lenguaje
Espanol como han coruptido el lenguaje Ingles.
Considerase las poemas collectado en el <<Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal>>.
Las poemas de anos y anos todos vayan <<down the drain>> en unos dos anos,
cuando les introduyen un nuevo <<Lutheran Hymnal>> sin lenguaje sexista.
Canto los canciones, y cada vez, me hallo <<tongue tied>> cuando les dicen
Pleased as us, with us to dwell,
Jesus, our Immanuel
y no
Pleased as man, with man to dwell,
Jesus our Immanuel
Y eso no tiene problemas metricales!! Ay, no puedo RECORDAR las poemas
nuevas con esas problemas, son tan malo.
Es como hacen los comunistas cuando les entran una paiz, y, !por dios!,
eso es que es, totalitarianismo de los mismos que opuyen la ayuda a los
contras del Salvador. Hipocritos todos!
Es muy triste, es todo.
Vaya con Dios.
--
Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos
UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer
US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC;
2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642
"Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr."beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (06/11/85)
From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos), Message-ID: <1041@peora.UUCP>: >Si yo me digo <<El trabajo de negros>>, no significa nada mal. Y porque? >Porque las feministas putas y liberalies no han denegrado el lenguaje >Espanol como han coruptido el lenguaje Ingles. So "changing the language" has gotten translated to "corrupting the language". How long you been studying Espanol, boy? Habla Ingles? "Changing" ain't the same as "corrupting". >Considerase las poemas collectado en el <<Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal>>. >Las poemas de anos y anos todos vayan <<down the drain>> en unos dos anos, >cuando les introduyen un nuevo <<Lutheran Hymnal>> sin lenguaje sexista. >Canto los canciones, y cada vez, me hallo <<tongue tied>> cuando les dicen > > Pleased as us, with us to dwell, > Jesus, our Immanuel > >y no > > Pleased as man, with man to dwell, > Jesus our Immanuel I'm sorry you can't force the words through your (apparently "functionally illiterate") lips, but as you point out: >Y eso no tiene problemas metricales!! So what's the problem? >Es como hacen los comunistas cuando les entran una paiz, y, !por dios!, >eso es que es, totalitarianismo de los mismos que opuyen la ayuda a los >contras del Salvador. Hipocritos todos! "Communists". Right. We're all a buncha pinko fagettes who want to see English used in such a way as to *accurately* reflect the circumstances that are being described (e.g. not specifying male when it's neither necessary nor clear that a male is being referenced). >Es muy triste, es todo. You sure are, son. > "Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr." No comprendo eso. ?Como se dice en Ingles? (?O en Esapanol <<for that matter>>?) >Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos -- --JB Life is just a bowl.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/11/85)
You're right, it has no metrical problems. That is because, frankly, I can never REMEMBER the words to the poems that have been changed; it is sufficiently disconcerting to suddenly encounter a line in a 200-year-old poem that is not as you remember it (and, I think, not as the poet would ever have written it) that it is just not memorable. Well, then, let's get back to your complaints about communism. What you are trying to do is effect social change by changing the language. The goal here, regardless of what you may say, is not to "eliminate" biases from the language; because the semantics of the language are externally imposed. When I read "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" (and we'll look at that in a few minutes in more detail), I read "people" where you read "male-type-people". It would appear the bias is yours, for seeing "males" where the words say "men". What you want to do, rather, is what you have done by changing the poems. You have disconcerted people, shaken them up, and made them look at you. But what you have done is not necessarily what you intended. True, you have managed to catch the attention of the fairly large subset of people who are always willing to do something new in order to show their social status, and gain the approval of others; but you have sumultaneously offended those who are closest to the language. And this is no way to effect change; if you are going to effect a change, it should hold up under ANY scrutiny, no matter how thorough. Change that breaks down under close scrutiny is superficial and false; and that is exactly what your attempts to change the language are. And, as I pointed out, the method you are using is an old one. You will recall that George Orwell pointed out this method-of-totalitarianism as being a prevalent one in 1948, in his book _1984_. One of the ways to effect a major ideological change is to undermine people's sense of stability. This is the technique used in "brainwashing"; this is also the technique you are proposing here. Ironically, I do advocate in some sense the principles you are trying to advocate yourself. Many people who know me are somewhat amused at the fact that I generally avoid using any word for female people at all, and when I do, generally say "female type person." As for the use of the word "man" to denote both men and women; when I was young, I always felt it was somewhat unjust, that women had a word all to themselves, whereas men were without their own identifying word. But I say "advocate in some sense," equally ironically, largely as a result of the idea behind the phrase in the subject line of this message. Prior to the revival of draft registration, I was a considerably stronger advocate of the principles of feminism than I am now. However, I noted with an extreme degree of irritation how many congressMEN made the blatantly sexist remark, "obviously no one feels women should have to go into combat;" and even more, I noted that no women I knew challenged this statement. They generally agreed with it. If you are only going to advocate a principle as long as it does not remotely endanger you, as long as it only gives you good things, then I will not support you at all. I have come to perceive that, to a large number of people, the principles of the feminist movement are simply a means of advancing women's already privileged state in the world, by eliminating some of the remaining tradeoffs. When I perceive that the majority of women continue to fall back on their privileges and their traditional social roles whenever it does not inconvenience them, I find it difficult to conscientiously support their cause. I have long supported the rights of women; but have found that it more often than not only lead to adversity. So in the end, you must defend yourself, and I will defend poetry. The problem with the poetry is that "man" is a word with one syllable, whereas "person" has two. Consequently, you cannot simply replace "man" with "person" in well-written poetry or prose. Both poetry and prose are metrical, and it is this metrical property that makes good writing appealing. I have seen firsthand attempts to appease those who object to the use of "him" and "man". The example I gave is in the Lutheran Hymnal, which, led by the Missouri Synod, was modified and reissued recently. They simultaneously did away with some writings and music centuries old; and modified many hymns. You must remember that many of the hymns were originally poems; and though some of them are not particularly good poetry, nevertheless the people that wrote them went to great pains to write them just so. It is unjust to change them, because the poems are in no way at fault. In the example I gave, which unfortunately is metrical after the change (and thus is not a good example), "Pleased as man, with Man to dwell" (a verse from the christmas carol "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing") does not in any sense suggest that the person referred to was pleased to be male, or to be dwelling with male people. Considering that the culture in which he lived considered women as "cattle" (read the OT law if you do not believe this), he had an unusual view of women, and treated them as people. Thus in this example, at least, we see that your claim that the words are "sexist" are unjustified. But they were changed, nevertheless. It is unfortunate that in today's society, so few people have an appreciation for the metrical properties of poetry; modern poetry is often not even prose. (Yet, I myself have written poetry like this sometimes.) But even the modern poetry is often metrical; consider Taeoum's poem, There's a stillness in the wind tonight, A still smooth cold that whispers the edge Of vast expanses of sea into the night. * * * which is certainly metrical. Try replacing the word "cold" with "coolness" and you will see the effect of substituting words of a different metrical length into the poem. It just doesn't work. And this is my complaint. I wish I had time to write more, but the lunch hour is over. Oh... to answer your question: >>Es muy triste, es todo. > >You sure are, son. > >> "Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr." > >No comprendo eso. ?Como se dice en Ingles? >(?O en Esapanol <<for that matter>>?) I'm no sexist, nor humanist either. The line, when ROT13 decrypted, says >> "My SO is a killer whale." PS - I'm not your son. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/13/85)
Maybe some of you people would like to know what this charming poster is trying to tell us without having the guts to use a language everybody can understand. So here goes: > Si yo me digo <<El trabajo de negros>>, no significa nada mal. Y porque? > Porque las feministas putas y liberalies no han denegrado el lenguaje > Espanol como han coruptido el lenguaje Ingles. "If I say 'nigger's work', it doesn't harm anybody. Why? because the feminist sluts and liberals have not denigrated spanish as they have corrupted english" (Just you wait, they're working on it!) > > Considerase las poemas collectado en el <<Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal>>. > Las poemas de anos y anos todos vayan <<down the drain>> en unos dos anos, > cuando les introduyen un nuevo <<Lutheran Hymnal>> sin lenguaje sexista. > Canto los canciones, y cada vez, me hallo <<tongue tied>> cuando les dicen > > Pleased as us, with us to dwell, > Jesus, our Immanuel > > y no > > Pleased as man, with man to dwell, > Jesus our Immanuel "Consider the poems collected in the Lutheran Service Book and Hymnal. These poems that have been used for years and years all go down the drain in a few years when they will be introducing a new non-sexist hymnal. I sing the songs, and each time, I become tongue tied when they say ..... instead of ......" > > Y eso no tiene problemas metricales!! Ay, no puedo RECORDAR las poemas > nuevas con esas problemas, son tan malo. > "And these don't have problems with the metric system!!! I can't even remember the new poems with these problems, as they are so bad" > Es como hacen los comunistas cuando les entran una paiz, y, !por dios!, > eso es que es, totalitarianismo de los mismos que opuyen la ayuda a los > contras del Salvador. Hipocritos todos! > > Es muy triste, es todo. > > Vaya con Dios. "It's what the communists do when they come into a new country, and this is what it is, the same kind of ttotalitarianism from those who support aid to the contras of el Salvador. All hypocrits!" "It's all very sad Go with God" > -- > Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos I'll let someone else comment on this if they think it worthwhile. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
lonetto@phri.UUCP (Michael Lonetto) (06/13/85)
> You sure are, son. > > > "Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr." > > No comprendo eso. ?Como se dice en Ingles? > (?O en Esapanol <<for that matter>>?) > > >Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos > --JB Life is just a bowl. Try ROT13. -- Michael Lonetto PHRI NYC (allegra!phri!lonetto) "Some win, Some lose, Some refuse to play"
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (06/13/85)
>{J. Eric Roskos} >What you are trying to do is effect social change by changing the language. To date, it has been mostly the opponents of the suggested language change who say that. The topic came up in the first place because those who are sympathetic to the feminist cause feel unnatural using certain existing English constructs. To some of us, the older language seems to imply something different from the idea we wish to say. This makes sense when you consider that the existing language evolved to handle the problems of a world that is now changing. Please note the major reasons for the suggested language: 1. Language in certain critical cases {laws, jobs ads} should clearly and unambiguously say what is meant. 2. Those who feel uncomfortable with the old language feel the need for an alternative. 3. Young speakers exposed to the new language might avoid whatever ill effects, if any, are implicit in the old language. The last point is apparently debatable, though I believe it because I subjectively feel the `sexism' in the old language. If you do not, do as you wish. I hope the new language will gradually and naturally take over, just as all language change occurs. >The goal here, regardless of what you may say, is not to "eliminate" > biases from the language;... You haven't the slightest idea what the goal is. You sound as if you've only confused the arguments of the new language's detractors with those of the supporters. The goal is unambiguous language for those who are interested. Period. >... because the semantics of the language are externally imposed. I do not believe that statement is 100% true. You do. That's why we have different opinions. If your statement were true, then marketing people would not spend so long devising nonsense names for products that suggest certain images, for example. The words we use have intermeshing connotations determined partly by what similar/identical words mean, partly by arbitrary authority. The problem with man=human is that there is no way to distinguish it from man=male. Likewise generic he. Regardless of the intent of the speaker. >When I read "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their >country" (and we'll look at that in a few minutes in more detail), I read >"people" where you read "male-type-people". It would appear the bias is >yours, for seeing "males" where the words say "men". Then keep using `man' however you wish and leave us alone! Again, the problem with `man' is that there is NO WAY to determine which of its two uses {male only, human being} is implied. A famous example: All men are created equal As originally stated, it did NOT refer to women. Yet some people thought it did. Hypocritical, huh? Another example: Repairman wanted. Applicant must demonstrate his ability... Such ads DO appear, sometimes in cases where the employer does not intend to discriminate. And there have been studies that show such ads tend to discourage qualified women applicants. Of course, if the employer does discriminate, they may as well use the male-sounding language. Who cares in that case? >What you want to do, rather, is what you have done by changing the poems. TOTALLY BOGUS!! Nobody has suggested that existing literature be rewritten. Except for, perhaps, ambiguous laws that are important to the feminist movement. Shakespeare in its original form is read in schools today; similarly the King James Bible is still commonly read, in spite of language changes that occurred long ago. I fail to see why the acceptance of the new language would be any different. YOU are the only turkey I know who talks of rewriting poetry! >You have disconcerted people, shaken them up, and made them look at you. It's the DETRACTORS of the newer language who have been suggesting outlandish things about the new language. I can only infer that you have an ulterior motive for spreading such lies. >And, as I pointed out, the method you are using is an old one. You will >recall that George Orwell pointed out this method-of-totalitarianism... If you insist on flaming in net.women, at least flame at what has been proposed, rather than what is in your imagination. -michael
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/14/85)
Dear Sophie, Your translation of Spanish is atrocious! here, let me properly translate it for you. But first let me reference you to the original article, in which I said I would write my next in Spanish by dint of withdrawing from the English Language awhile to one where I could speak the language without being attacked for it. >> Si yo me digo <<El trabajo de negros>>, no significa nada mal. > "If I say 'nigger's work', it doesn't harm anybody. Now, this is a very serious mistranslation. What it actually says is, "If I say `the work of the blacks,' it doesn't mean anything bad." This was a reference to the fact that `negro' in Spanish means `black', and was an example of semantics being externally imposed by the perceptions of the reader. >> Y eso no tiene problemas metricales!! >"And these don't have problems with the metric system!!! Ha! ha! You must have me confused with a steel worker from detroit, who thinks the metric system is "communist". (I saw it on the news.) No, what this says is, "There are no metrical problems with this." Referring to the fact that the scansion of the original and revised poems is the same in this case. >> eso es que es, totalitarianismo de los mismos que opuyen la ayuda a los >what it is, the same kind of ttotalitarianism from those who support aid Again, you got this backwards. This says "those who oppose aid". (I didn't mean this statement about contras seriously, I must add. Actually I threw it in because "El Salvador" means "The Savior" in Spanish, and thus was sort of the reverse of all the quoted English phrases that appeared throughout the article. Well, I have a strange sense of humor; I just find suddenly-recognizable native-language phrases in a foreign language paragraph somewhat humorous.) Now, this article doesn't have a whole lot of meaningful semantic content; it is just your joe-average net.flame posting, which unfortunately leaked into net.women (I forgot you would be here, Sophie!) due to the cross-posting fanatics among us. If you want a COGENT argument, read my other article, which was posted only to net.women. Leave the incoherent writing to net.flame (where they say hostile things about you if you make too much sense). And remember the saying of Walter Crawford Kelley, "Don't take life too serious. It ain't nohows permanent." -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/17/85)
Unfortunately, I just don't have time to read net.women regularly, and thus can only respond to your comments on my posting cursorily. I have no objections to your making changes to the English language through conventional means. The usage you are describing is a colloquial usage; and that is fine. Good colloquial usages eventually migrate into the language in a permanent sense. > YOU are the only turkey I know who talks of rewriting poetry! Now, if you were not so emotionally biased as your use of the word "turkey" indicates you are, you might have read my argument more thorougly, and seen that what I am complaining about is a SPECIFIC instance in which a large book of poetry (Lutheran hymns) were all changed so that every instance of sexist language was retroactively changed. This is what I am objecting to. As I also pointed out in my posting, I myself carefully avoid using "sexist" language in contexts where I feel it has significance. > If you insist on flaming in net.women, at least flame at what has > been proposed, rather than what is in your imagination. I must also object to this on two accounts. The first is your patently straw-man argument that my reasoning was based on my "imagination", something it clearly was not, something you should have known if you read the article in an unbiased manner. The second is that my posting was not a "flame"; I posted a "flame" in net.flame, and then, because of attacks from people such as Sophie, who resorted to tactics such as name-calling, posted a more cogent discussion of the problems of sexist language in here. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/17/85)
> Dear Sophie, > > Your translation of Spanish is atrocious! here, let me properly translate > it for you. But first let me reference you to the original article, in > which I said I would write my next in Spanish by dint of withdrawing from > the English Language awhile to one where I could speak the language without > being attacked for it. > Serves you right! if you are going to write in a language that other people don't understand, you will be misunderstood! it was your idea in the first place. I could have made up the entire thing if I had wanted to and a lot of people wouldn't have known the difference. You took that risk, just be thankful I didn't. > >> Si yo me digo <<El trabajo de negros>>, no significa nada mal. > > "If I say 'nigger's work', it doesn't harm anybody. > > Now, this is a very serious mistranslation. What it actually says is, > > "If I say `the work of the blacks,' it doesn't mean anything bad." > As far as I know "the work of the blacks" is not an english expression unlike "nigger's work" which is (I think.... hmmmm maybe I am confusing it with french: "travail de negres" certainly used to be a common expression until black people started objecting. Maybe the only reason you can still get away with such an expression in spanish is that there aren't enough black spaniards around to complain). Whether the spanish litterally means "nigger's work" or "work of the blacks", it is still a pretty derogatory expression. > This was a reference to the fact that `negro' in Spanish means `black', and > was an example of semantics being externally imposed by the perceptions > of the reader. > Oh, no! you can't get away with that so easily. "el trabajo de negros" alias "nigger's work" alias "travail de negres" has very simple semantics no matter what the perceptions of the reader are. They all mean "shit work that only slaves or lowly creatures like blacks" would do. You can rant and rave all you want about the beauty of the colour black, but there's no ambiguity about the meaning and implications of this statement at all. > >> Y eso no tiene problemas metricales!! > >"And these don't have problems with the metric system!!! > > Ha! ha! You must have me confused with a steel worker from detroit, who > thinks the metric system is "communist". (I saw it on the news.) > > No, what this says is, "There are no metrical problems with this." > Referring to the fact that the scansion of the original and revised > poems is the same in this case. > I don't give a **** about your metricals or metrics or whatever they are. What I did care about, and translated properly, was your appellation for feminists: "puta". This means "whore" in spanish. If you don't want to be attacked for your language, then don't use offensive language. > Now, this article doesn't have a whole lot of meaningful semantic content; > it is just your joe-average net.flame posting, which unfortunately leaked > into net.women (I forgot you would be here, Sophie!) due to the > cross-posting fanatics among us. > If you are going to insult people, you should make sure that you either do it in an appropriate newsgroup (not net.women if you are going to call feminists whores) or if that is too difficult, then you can at least do it in a language that people you are insulting can understand. if you didn't mean to insult people, then you should have made it clear by speaking a language they could have understood. -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
sophie@mnetor.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (06/18/85)
> The second is that my posting was not a "flame"; I posted a "flame" in > net.flame, and then, because of attacks from people such as Sophie, who > resorted to tactics such as name-calling, posted a more cogent discussion of > the problems of sexist language in here. > -- > Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos Oh, I see, you didn't resort to "name-calling" yourself. Hmmm, I guess I must have dreamt about the "putas feministas"; -- Sophie Quigley {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|linus|watmath}!utzoo!mnetor!sophie
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (06/20/85)
I thought you were gonna post everything en espanol, son. Does the fact that people can still read it bother you, or what? [> = jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos), Message-ID: <1054@peora.UUCP>] >What you are trying to do is effect social change by changing the language. >The goal here, regardless of what you may say, is not to "eliminate" >biases from the language; because the semantics of the language are >externally imposed. When I read "Now is the time for all good men to >come to the aid of their country" (and we'll look at that in a few >minutes in more detail), I read "people" where you read "male-type-people". >It would appear the bias is yours, for seeing "males" where the words say >"men". OK, so in "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country", "men" means "people". Now, do you mind if I accompany you to the men's room? "Aw, come on", you say, "everybody knows that 'men' means 'male people' there." Great. So now you've got this word that sometimes means "people" and sometimes means "male people". And how do tell when it means one over the other? Well, you just know. So now you can only convey your meaning to people who *already know* your meaning. Well, son, what the Hell good is that? If you've got a word that always and only means "people" (namely "people"), why the hell don't you use it? 'Cause you're stubborn, that's why. There's *no* other reason for using an even remotely potentially ambiguous word when you've got one that's crystal clear. When you're not talking about male people, don't talk about male people. >And, as I pointed out, the method you are using is an old one. You will >recall that George Orwell pointed out this method-of-totalitarianism >as being a prevalent one in 1948, in his book _1984_. One of the ways to >effect a major ideological change is to undermine people's sense of >stability. This is the technique used in "brainwashing"; this is also the >technique you are proposing here. The technique I'm proposing here is "accuracy", not "brainwashing". And it isn't old enough...yet. >But I say "advocate in some sense," equally ironically, largely as a result >of the idea behind the phrase in the subject line of this message. Prior to >the revival of draft registration, I was a considerably stronger advocate of >the principles of feminism than I am now. However, I noted with an extreme >degree of irritation how many congressMEN made the blatantly sexist remark, >"obviously no one feels women should have to go into combat;" and even more, >I noted that no women I knew challenged this statement. They generally >agreed with it. Well, you didn't meet me soon enough. If there has to be a draft I don't see any reason why women shouldn't participate in it. And if people have to go into combat, *and* if women can meet the physical demands, I'm not at all sure why women are exempt from it. >If you are only going to advocate a principle as long as it does not >remotely endanger you, as long as it only gives you good things, then I >will not support you at all. I don't, and I wouldn't support anyone who did either. >I have come to perceive that, to a large >number of people, the principles of the feminist movement are simply a means >of advancing women's already privileged state in the world, by eliminating >some of the remaining tradeoffs. "already privileged state". Right. I'll mention that to the rape/wife abuse victims. And to the financially well-off waitresses and secretaries. And to women who spend all day doing that "privileged" "women's work", only to be told to do some more of it by their husbands who "have worked all day" and couldn't trouble themselves to do a damn other thing. *Everybody* knows how priviliged they all are. That must be why they get so much respect. Most of the rest is about poetry. I'll worry about legal books and religious texts that, by defintion, try to influence the way people think about each other. You worry about poetry. >I wish I had time to write more, but the lunch hour is over. Thank goddess for short lunch hours. We filled our disk structures here. >PS - I'm not your son. P.S. I'm not a man. >Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos -- --JB All we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history.
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (06/21/85)
Good heavens, Beth, now you have gone and written a ton of comments on my comments, and I just happened to run across them here while waiting for the electrical storm to pass. Well, I agree with everything you've written just fine. Except the part about "privileged state," of course. What about "women's prerogative"? What about the fact that, in awkward social situations, women can fall back on the fact that it is a man's "responsibility" to "take the initiative", and do? No, I've encountered these excuses too many times, being as I am a basically shy person. But, you see, I agree with most of what you said. I wish you wouldn't be so hostile about it. This here puzzles me a little, though...: > And if people have to go into combat, *and* if women can meet the physical > demands, I'm not at all sure why women are exempt from it. Of course women can meet the physical demands. What about women athletes? They have to meet substantial physical demands. > I thought you were gonna post everything en espanol, son. Does the fact > that people can still read it bother you, or what? Well, it's an honor that you remembered my name! No, I knew they would be able to read it, I would have posted it in Slovak if I had wanted nobody to understand it. Well, Beth, you don't always argue in a manner completely objective, but at least you stand by your principles, and I don't have anything else I disagree with you on any more, since > Most of the rest is about poetry. I'll worry about legal books and > religious texts that, by defintion, try to influence the way people > think about each other. You worry about poetry. That's almost as big an honor as when the Mayor of Orlando appointed Lemuel Kay Minister of Fountains. :-) Oh, but one other thing... > Thank goddess for short lunch hours. We filled our disk structures here. Given that "goodness" does not imply any sex, whereas "godess" does, I would suggest that you have perpetrated a sexist remark in the belief that "two wrongs make a right," but it just isn't so. Of course, you could have meant a blasphemous phrase instead, but it only has one syllable instead of two, and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, anyway... Good bye, now, Beth... -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 Bar ol bar / Gur pbyq rgpurq cyngr / Unf cevagrq gur jnez fgnef bhg.
zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (06/21/85)
> > Well, it's an honor that you remembered my name! No, I knew they would > be able to read it, I would have posted it in Slovak if I had wanted nobody > to understand it. > > Well, Beth, you don't always argue in a manner completely objective, but at > -- > Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos > Zobjeck is Slovanian/Polish so someone here would be able to have articles in "Slovak" tansliterated. jeanette l. zobjeck ihnp4!ihlpl!zubbie
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (06/24/85)
In article <704@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >> ... However, I noted with an extreme >>degree of irritation how many congressMEN made the blatantly sexist remark, >>"obviously no one feels women should have to go into combat;" and even more, >>I noted that no women I knew challenged this statement. They generally >>agreed with it. > >Well, you didn't meet me soon enough. If there has to be a draft I don't >see any reason why women shouldn't participate in it. And if people have to >go into combat, *and* if women can meet the physical demands, I'm not at all >sure why women are exempt from it. I agree that women should'nt be drafted into the armed forces. That's *one* of the reasons I support the ERA. Equality works both ways. I don't think men should be drafted, either. On the other hand, if men *are* going to be drafted, then women should be, too. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatned by a woman of equality."