zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (01/01/70)
> to compound the error by embracing it as a "solution" to the deep and serious > problem of sexism in society is, in my opinion, far worse. What I oppose > here is not just the continued emasculation of the language, but the > notion that the singular 'they' will *by itself* have the slightest effect over > Marcel Simon > *** REPLACEMENTS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST *** Perhaps that is the problem. If a language is emasculated then it is / must be feminized so what marcek is objecting to is simply the trend for women to play larger and larger parts in many different areas of endeavor and if the language where changed so that no one could tell if it was a male or female being talked about then there would be one less way to discriminate with regard to sex and this would seemingly remove marcel's playtoy. Me OH MY!! What would this world come to if that happened. Jeanette L. Zobjeck wlcrjs! All opinions expressed are ihnp4!< >zubbie strictly my own unless ihlpa! someone else wants them too.
jdh@hou5g.UUCP (Julia Harper) (03/22/85)
<> to those who ask: What kind of bad attitudes could sexist language foster? Why use 3 words (he or she) when it's more comfortable and easier to use 1? It is not more comfortable for me to say or hear said "he" rather than "they" or "she or he" when referring to an unidentified person with whom I may perhaps wish to identify. It does not put me at ease to know that he is used in sentences all the time, causing listeners/readers to imagine a man as they take in whatever scenerio is being described. In fact, using the word "he" actively discourages me and others from imagining a woman as the central figure in the scene described. Using "he" fosters the bad attitude of assuming men always take active roles. This attitude has far reaching implications (such as fostering the attitude that women don't (don't want to or can't) take active roles). -- Julia Harper [ihnp4,ariel]!hou5g!jdh
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/23/85)
> > It is not more comfortable for me to say or hear said "he" rather than > "they" or "she or he" when referring to an unidentified person with whom > I may perhaps wish to identify. > > It does not put me at ease to know that he is used in sentences all the > time, causing listeners/readers to imagine a man as they take in whatever > scenerio is being described. In fact, using the word "he" actively > discourages me and others from imagining a woman as the central figure > in the scene described. Using "he" fosters the bad attitude of assuming > men always take active roles. This attitude has far reaching implications > (such as fostering the attitude that women don't (don't want to or can't) > take active roles). > > Julia Harper You may be right. In cases like that, correct the speaker. Write to the magazine. Flame the poster. Take action. Alternately, take action yourself. Point to that action. Point to your femaleness. My point is, do not neuter the language because you do not wish to correct a bad situation yourself. The above paragraph sounds a lot harsher than I intend it to. Let's try again. I don't think the language should be blamed for deficiencies in people's thinking. It is correct that sexism runs deep in American society. It is not correct that language modifications will do much to eradicate sexism. To approach the problem of sexism with pseudo solutions like a singular 'they' will not solve the problem. It will introduce confusion and ambiguity in communication. (I previously posted an article that detailed options to using gender specific pronouns in gender neutral situations.) Embracing silly causes like the singular 'they' will give ammunitions to the enemies of feminism, who may well jump on it as an example of the 'evils' likely to be perpetrated by the women's movement. Remember, the ERA was defeated in part because its enemies convinced many that it would bring about silly things, like coeds bathrooms... Let's not make those mistakes again. Marcel Simon
chris@pyuxc.UUCP (R. Hollenbeck) (03/25/85)
Recently, someone posted an article on the acceptability of using "they" in place of "he or she." If anyone has any similar articles, I'd appreciate copies. I'm a technical editor, and I'd like to gather enough evidence to support my dumping the cumbersome "he/she." Send via UNIX mail or to: R. C. Hollenbeck Bell Communications Research Room 3F-152 8 Corporate Place Piscataway, NJ 08854 Thanks.
regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (03/26/85)
Using "s/he" or the singular "they" IS taking action, Marcel. It is an alteration of the language to suit the needs of the people. Language is a symbolic method for organizing intelligence. It is _not_ true that we "think" without words. A language that lacks a lexicon for certain concepts has an incomplete notion of those concepts. To make concrete for ourselves, peers, children the notion that men and women are equal legally, economically, potentially, we need to create a word that expresses that concept explicitly. The singular "they", like the singular "you" is a formalization of the concept. Frankly, I am in favor of borrowing from another language a neuter pronoun (the Latin "on" doesn't quite work, since it is an English word in its own right) and using that. That makes the situation even more screamingly obvious, though, and many people object to such methods. The singular "they" captures the concept and is generally understood. From a purist point of view, it grates on the ear -- there I will agree with you. But we live in the real world, warts and all. "They" is on it's way, and you are going to be a very frustrated person if you insist on misunderstanding/correcting that usage.
ps@celerity.UUCP (Pat Shanahan) (03/27/85)
> ... To approach the problem of > sexism with pseudo solutions like a singular 'they' will not solve the > problem. It will introduce confusion and ambiguity in communication. > ... > > Marcel Simon Marcel - Thou art lacking in consideration for the history of English, if thou thinkest that replacing a singular pronoun and its corresponding verb forms will seriously damage the language. I disagree with thee. If I had written this in conventional modern English, you would have had no way of knowing that this sentence is intended to be directed to readers in general, even though the first sentence was addressed to an individual. The switch between singular and plural pronouns expresses this perfectly. Note that people are so used to the use of second person plural verbs that my use of second person singular verb forms in this article is archaic. The only reason for using the plural in addressing an individual is one of politeness - the plural was considered more respectful. -- ps (Pat Shanahan) uucp : {decvax!ucbvax || ihnp4 || philabs}!sdcsvax!celerity!ps arpa : sdcsvax!celerity!ps@nosc
srm@nsc.UUCP (Richard Mateosian) (03/27/85)
In article <276@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) writes: >It is correct that sexism runs deep in American society. It is not >correct that language modifications will do much to eradicate sexism. Neither of us knows for sure, but I think that you're wrong. However, I, like you, am conservative about language change, so I've walked a narrow line on the subject. When I was writing Inside BASIC Games, one of the first things my editor did was to change a generic "he" to "he/she". I wasn't willing to accept that, but I recognized that something needed to be done. The solution I found was to write all of the descriptions of how to play the games in the second person. It worked quite well. In fact, one reviewer, a woman, said "I felt like the author was sitting beside me because of his easygoing personal style." Amusingly, there almost was one generic "he" in the book. In describing what had happened on a "screen" in which the following appeared: Name: JOHN I wrote "the player indicates that his/her name is JOHN". Alas, my editor changed "his/her" to "his" (same editor), but I later recast the description to eliminate the "his". -- Richard Mateosian {allegra,cbosgd,decwrl,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!srm nsc!srm@decwrl.ARPA
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (03/29/85)
> > ... To approach the problem of > > sexism with pseudo solutions like a singular 'they' will not solve the > > problem. It will introduce confusion and ambiguity in communication. > > Marcel - Thou art lacking in consideration for the history of English... > If I had written this in conventional modern English, you would have had no > way of knowing that this sentence is intended to be directed to readers in > general, even though the first sentence was addressed to an individual. The > switch between singular and plural pronouns expresses this perfectly. Note > that people are so used to the use of second person plural verbs that my use > of second person singular verb forms in this article is archaic. > > The only reason for using the plural in addressing an individual is one of > politeness - the plural was considered more respectful. > -- > (Pat Shanahan) I suspect that the "grass roots" aspect of the singular 'they' movemment comes from confusion over whether expressions like 'each other', 'someone', etc, as in "if someone wants to do something then they should be allowed to do so," are singular or plural. I don't think such expressions result from specific attempts at gender neutrality in the general vernacular. They are simply bad grammar. For people, like usenetters, who should know better, to compound the error by embracing it as a "solution" to the deep and serious problem of sexism in society is, in my opinion, far worse. What I oppose here is not just the continued emasculation of the language, but the notion that the singular 'they' will *by itself* have the slightest effect over people's attitudes. After all, should blacks and asians consider racist expressions like "he harbors dark thoughts" or "she is yellow with jealousy (or cowardice)"? Should there be a movement to ban these expressions from the language or replace them with something suitably color- and meaning-less? Would such a movement, even if successful, have the slightest effect on racist attitudes? Marcel Simon "Ce qui se concoit bien s'enonce clairement Et les mots pour le dire arrivent aisement" Boileau
thau@h-sc1.UUCP (robert thau) (03/30/85)
> I suspect that the "grass roots" aspect of the singular 'they' movemment comes > from confusion over whether expressions like 'each other', 'someone', etc, > as in "if someone wants to do something then they should be allowed to do so," > are singular or plural. I don't think such expressions result from specific > attempts at gender neutrality in the general vernacular. > They are simply bad grammar. For people, like usenetters, who should know better, > to compound the error by embracing it as a "solution" to the deep and serious > problem of sexism in society is, in my opinion, far worse. What I oppose > here is not just the continued emasculation of the language, but the > notion that the singular 'they' will *by itself* have the slightest effect > over people's attitudes. Marcel, do you offer devotions to your outdated grammar books every night? There is no English Academy, (and even if there were, Americans would ignore it) which is one reason French is nowadays importing words from English, rather than the other way around. Conventional grammar is just that, a convention, and if conventions have to change to fit the times, so be it. Shakespeare did very well with multiple negatives (up to quintuple), the second person singular, and so forth; none of this is considered "correct" today, although we still recognize that Shakespeare wrote quite beautifully. "They" is evolving into a gender-neutral pronoun, perhaps in just the way you suggest. What's wrong with that? A gender-neutral pronoun does not necessarily make the language less forceful, less succinct, or less beautiful in the hands of a competent writer. (Why on earth did you find it necessary to use the word "emasculate"?) Usage of "they" might not be endorsed by all the style books yet, so wait 20 years. You'll feel a lot better. Trust me. Your friendly neighborhood scratched record Robert Thau rst@tardis.ARPA h-sc1%thau@harvard.ARPA
jss@brunix.UUCP (Judith Schrier) (04/03/85)
OK, we are all computer-oriented people, to some extent, or what are we doing here? Permit me to quote a couple of well-known computer scientists: "We must recognize the strong and undeniable influence that our language exerts on our way of thinking, and in fact defines and delimits the abstract space in which we can formulate -- give form to -- our thoughts." N. Wirth, 1974 "Language is the vehicle by which we express our thoughts, and the relation between those thoughts and our language is a subtle and involuted one. The nature of language actually shapes and models the way we think. W. A. Wulf, 1977 Both quoted in Ghezzi and Jazayeri's "Programming Language Concepts", 1982, Wiley, p. 13. judith brunix!jss
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (04/09/85)
> OK, we are all computer-oriented people, to some extent, or what are we > doing here? Permit me to quote a couple of well-known computer scientists: > > "We must recognize the strong and undeniable influence that our language > exerts on our way of thinking, and in fact defines and delimits the > abstract space in which we can formulate -- give form to -- our thoughts." > N. Wirth, 1974 > > "Language is the vehicle by which we express our thoughts, and the > relation between those thoughts and our language is a subtle and > involuted one. The nature of language actually shapes and models the > way we think. > W. A. Wulf, 1977 > > Both quoted in Ghezzi and Jazayeri's "Programming Language Concepts", > 1982, Wiley, p. 13. > Oh, if we're all computer science types, and if a computer scientist says it's so, then we'll believe it? Give me a break. I think the most compelling reasons for altering one's usage (something I'm not wild about) come from the individual experiences that I have read about (on the net, for instance) and not from the *opinions* of people who happen to be well-known computer scientists, or well-known anything else. This exercise in anarchic populism brought to you by... Jeff Winslow
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (04/12/85)
> > OK, we are all computer-oriented people, to some extent, or what are we > > doing here? Permit me to quote a couple of well-known computer scientists: > > > Oh, if we're all computer science types, and if a computer scientist says it's > so, then we'll believe it? Give me a break. > > I think the most compelling reasons for altering one's usage (something I'm > not wild about) come from the individual experiences that I have read about > (on the net, for instance) and not from the *opinions* of people who happen > to be well-known computer scientists, or well-known anything else. > > This exercise in anarchic populism brought to you by... > Jeff Winslow You're right about what the compelling reasons are for altering usage, but before jumping on the report of those "opinions" you seem to disdain so much, consider what the original posting was really about. Rather than suggest that we should automatically believe these suggestions because they were made by computer scientists, I suspect that the original poster (whose name wasn't in Jeff's quote and I dnd't see the original posting) was saying was that here are comments on the subject from people whose thinking we may have considered in other areas and may thereby respect. It's also the case that these comments were *not* related to the particular question of sexist language (and the relationship of women to language in general) but to the *general* relationship of language to the way people think, which, in my mind at least, makes for an even stronger case. Why, also, do you challenge them as *opinions*? I don't know the particulars of these quotes, but there is a strong similarity between the study of formal (e.g., programming) languages and natural languages. There are many prominent researchers who have done fundamental research in both fields. Noam Chomsky leaps to mind as a prime example. These quotes may be derived from, and certainly agree with my limited knowledge of, studies of natural language. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (04/13/85)
Marcel Simon: > If you'll recall, this entire discussion started when someone posted an article > lauding the decision by some group to use the singular 'they' to indicate gender > neutrality. The author praised this as a "small victory" in the fight > against sexist language. Nancy Parsons: Again, Marcel, this is not so. I repeat: the "small victory" was that a group of conservative Christians with "traditional," unsensitive attitudes became sesitive to the point of not only recognizing the effect of language on their attitudes, but of being willing to change their language. I would have celebrated if they had chosen to use a "generic she," a "plural it," or any outrageous thing!!! You may want to celebrate language. I don't. I want to celebrate feminist consciousness in those forms that I detect are indicative of positive growth. > ...It may > be that sexism in language contributes subliminally to the reinforcement > of sexist attitudes. However, I feel that a good dose of consciousness raising > is worth far more than a book full of the singular 'they'. You don't think that relearning habits of speech raises one's consciousness of the prevalence of sexist bias in one's culture? Nancy Parsons AT&T ISL
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/16/85)
> Nancy Parsons: > Again, Marcel, this is not so. I repeat: the "small victory" was that a > group of conservative Christians with "traditional," unsensitive attitudes > became sesitive to the point of not only recognizing the effect of language > on their attitudes, but of being willing to change their language. I would > have celebrated if they had chosen to use a "generic she," a "plural it," > or any outrageous thing!!! > Sorry for the misunderstanding. I guess all my multiline postings missed the point entirely. Oops! Never mind, folks > You don't think that relearning habits of speech raises one's consciousness > of the prevalence of sexist bias in one's culture? > I now understand that your original posting cheered the raised consciousness of a conservative group, leading to the changed language habit. I still feel that consciousness raising should come first, followed by some conscious action, such as a changed language habit. Marcel Simon
zubbie@wlcrjs.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (04/16/85)
In article <846@druxo.UUCP> nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) writes: > > >You don't think that relearning habits of speech raises one's consciousness >of the prevalence of sexist bias in one's culture? > >Nancy Parsons >AT&T ISL Not only does the awareness increase but the wish to make changes becomes stronger, at least for those who are concerned with moving away from sexist society into something healthier. I Marcel Simon's case I am beginning to believe that he would rather have a situation ongoing which of itself would distract from the relearning process and so add a generation or two before any real progress could be made. I think too that this suits a great many men ( and some women I have met ) beacuse they are possed of a fear that when sexist ideas are finally shown for the waste which these ideas are then the world will somehow be less available for the easy picking the stereotyping of the sexes makes it for men. I'm not saying the world is a bed of roses but re-iterating a concept I stated earlier. ------For any given individual or group of individuals who operate regularily under a handicap (natural or manufactured) and find a way to succede towards the goals which they have chosen , then that same individual or group of individuals removed suddenly from the restraint by that handicap will show the superiority which enabled them to be a success while so hindered. =============================================================================== From the mostly vacant environment of Jeanette L. Zobjeck (ihnp4!wlcrjs!zubbie) All opinions expressed may not even be my own. =============================================================================== wlcrjs! ihnp4!< >zubbie ihlpa! Jeanette L. Zobjeck
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (04/18/85)
> Jeannette Zobjeck: > Not only does the awareness increase but the wish to make changes becomes > stronger, at least for those who are concerned with moving away from > sexist society into something healthier. I Marcel Simon's case I am > beginning to believe that he would rather have a situation ongoing > which of itself would distract from the relearning process and so add > a generation or two before any real progress could be made. I think too > that this suits a great many men ( and some women I have met ) beacuse > they are possed of a fear that when sexist ideas are finally shown for > the waste which these ideas are then the world will somehow be less > available for the easy picking the stereotyping of the sexes makes > it for men. Oh I get it. I don't like the singular they, therefore it follows that I "would rather have a situation ongoing which ... would distract from the relearning process and so add a generation or two before real progress could be made." Nice piece of logic, Zobjeck. Why don't you come right out and wonder if I've stopped beating my wife or something, while you are at it? Marcel Simon
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/21/85)
The entire he/she/they/one debate can be divided into two parts.
(1) Using non-gender specific terms vs. gender specific terms where actual
gender is unknown.
There are those who claim that 'he' is the gender neutral pronoun in the
English language. They are, in a grammatical sense, correct. The problem
comes with the people. When the term 'he' is used, a *male* image is
thought of, regardless of the fact that the term was supposed to be neutral.
Yes, this *is* bad English, but it is also fact. The word 'he' is supposed
to be a neuter pronoun, but it *isn't* nor is it ever likely to be. Thus
defending this usage in the terms of grammatical correctness is just whining
in the face of facts about how we actually use the language. They can
complain as long as they wish, it doesn't change the facts.
Given the realization of how the language is actually used, it becomes
fairly obvious that this is going to have an effect on the people who use
it. Specifically, the language is pushing forward the idea that women
play an almost totally insignificant part in our society outside of a few
restricted roles. More importantly, the language re-inforces the idea
that this set of roles is expected and accepted by society at large.
Unless one postualtes that people are for the most part completely
uninfluenced by the language that they use (a completely foolish postulate,
in my opinion), it then comes down to the fact that the present day
language *is* making it harder for society to accept women as equals.
Thus accepting the use of 'he' as the neuter pronoun becomes tacit
support for the re-inforcement of the ideas stated above.
Continued use of 'he' indicates either the user...
(1) believes that people imagine a 'neuter' person when
the word 'he' is used.
or (2) believes that the users of a language are totally uninfluenced
by the language that they use.
or (3) believes that maintaining the 'purity' of the English language
is more important than the ill-effects on society the language
promotes.
or (4) Can't be bothered to change the language construct used, despite
the fact that they know the influence it has.
Those that espouse none of the above conditions must have no choice but
to change.
(2) As for the use of one/they debate.
The use of one is grammatically correct, but has fallen into such disuse
that it sounds pretentious and stilted. Since I usually sound pretentious
and stilted, I tend to use the 'one' construct. However it doesn't help
in a conversation if the person you are talking to breaks up in laughter,
(as has occurred when the constructs became too stilted in an effort to
avoid a gender-specific pronoun.)
The use of the 'they' construct is now used often enough that it sounds
'natural' to most listeners (tough luck, Marcel). Hence, most will probably
opt for the grammaticaly incorrect but natural sounding 'they' construct
rather than the grammatically correct but stilted 'one' construct.
However, most importantly, the use of either one is such an incredibly
subjective decision that I can't see why there is an argument brewing here.
While Mr. Simon can mourn the passing of a grammatically correct
structure in favour of another construct, the main issue, the use
of gender-specific pronouns or not, is already resolved between the two
groups.
(I am assuming that the two sides have been Marcel Simon supporting the
use of the 'one' construct versus a host of others supporting the 'they'
construct. Do enlighten me if I am wrong.)
Tom West
Serve The Computer, The Computer Is Your Friend.
{ allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!wested@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (04/23/85)
> But I would guess that programming languages are so much simpler that no > conclusions regarding the relationship of natural languages to thought > processes can be drawn from their study. And that is why I don't place > much stock in someone's opinion on the subject *just because they are a > well-known computer scientist*. (There - proper use of singular they!) > But I would be happy to read informed, non-technical articles to the > contrary, if anyone would care to reference or excerpt them. > > Jeff Winslow I'll check with my linguist friends for something reasonable in that literature, and I'll check for some in the computer science literature. (When I get a chance - I'm off for another whirlwind install-systems-and- visit-customers trip.) It may be true that programming languages are much simpler than natural languages - in both syntax and semantics - but they're not really that different in the way they affect people. > PS. Why does the name of the original poster matter? I thought we were > dealing in ideas, not personalities (with a few notable exceptions > who shall remain blissfully nameless). In some sense it doesn't, but since we're discussing ideas that have been put forth by individuals, they should receive credit for those ideas. Context, i.e. what else that individual might have said on the subject, can be relevant, too. Personality isn't an issue at all. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 739 Allston Way, Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (04/25/85)
Tom West: > There are those who claim that 'he' is the gender neutral pronoun in the > English language. They are, in a grammatical sense, correct. The problem > comes with the people. When the term 'he' is used, a *male* image is > thought of, regardless of the fact that the term was supposed to be neutral. > [...] Specifically, the language is pushing forward the idea that women > play an almost totally insignificant part in our society outside of a few > restricted roles. More importantly, the language re-inforces the idea > that this set of roles is expected and accepted by society at large. This is an example of the fairly sloppy post hoc egro propter hoc reasoning that seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent these days. As Tom points out, studies have shown that "when the term 'he' is used, a *male* image is thought of". So far, this merely establishes a correlation between the two events. How one can infer, from this correlation, that there's some sort of causal connection between the two isn't clear to me. It reminds me of an article in net.flame a while back, suggesting that portable radios should be banned because of the correlation between high incidence of ghetto blasters and high crime rates in big cities. Let me give a few examples. The chances are that if I mention "fireman" to you, you'll think of a male; let me suggest that this is due _not_ to the fact that there's a "-man" suffix, but because practically all the firemen you've ever seen have been males. Similarly, when I say "cheerleader", the chances are you'll think of a young female ... let me suggest, again, that this is because almost all the cheerleaders you've seen have been young females. Note that there's nothing in the word that suggests that a cheerleader couldn't be a middle-aged male: it's your experience of the world that biases your perception of the word. What's going on is some sort of inductive inference ... if you saw enough middle-aged male cheerleaders, I dare say this bias would change. Similarly, not having known of very many young black female presidents of the USA, when I say "President of the United States", you'll probably think of a middle-aged white male. On the other hand, if I say "Prime Minister", I would suspect you wouldn't have a pronounced bias towards either sex, since there have been quite a few female prime ministers (Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher come to mind). Again, take the word "chef": most people I know associate this with males wearing funny white hats. It's not obvious to me how gender-specificity might have been built into this word. The point I'm trying to make is that even when some sort of correlation has been established between a word and some sort of mental image conjured up by that word, it _does not_ follow that there's a causal link between them. I've tried to show, using a few examples, that a strong case can be made for experiential generalization being the cause of the particular mental image - I'm sure you can find many other such examples. Now until you can demonstrate a convincing causal relationship between the use of "he" and the conjuring up of a mental "male" image, I'll view your attempts to change my world-view by changing my language as an attempt to treat the symptom rather than the disease (Sapir-Whorf and George Orwell notwithstanding!). And if you can't demonstrate such a causal relationship, well, that's a pretty serious flaw in your argument, isn't it? I'd suggest that you try to get more women into the work force, fighting fires and delivering mail: that, I think, would be more effective in changing the "male" image associated with "fireman" and "postman" than any amount of linguistic twiddling. The reason for this long article is that I resent being labelled as one who is "just whining in the face of facts about how we actually use the language" when it's not at all clear what these so-called "facts about how we actually use the language", and the causal relationships between them, actually are. Maybe this comes as a surprise, but correct grammar _is_ important to some of us - not because of some esoteric dogma, but because sloppy grammar makes for awkward language. The defence rests. -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
west@utcsri.UUCP (Thomas L. West) (04/28/85)
Tom West: >> There are those who claim that 'he' is the gender neutral pronoun in the >> English language. They are, in a grammatical sense, correct. The problem >> comes with the people. When the term 'he' is used, a *male* image is >> thought of, regardless of the fact that the term was supposed to be neutral. Saumya Debray: >This is an example of the fairly sloppy post hoc egro propter hoc reasoning >that seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent these days. As Tom points >out, studies have shown that "when the term 'he' is used, a *male* image >is thought of". So far, this merely establishes a correlation between the >two events. How one can infer, from this correlation, that there's some >sort of causal connection between the two isn't clear to me. It reminds me >of an article in net.flame a while back, suggesting that portable >radios should be banned because of the correlation between high incidence >of ghetto blasters and high crime rates in big cities. I also pointed out that when a neutral term was used, people tended to have a non-gender specific image or one the same sex as theirs. While you are quite right about the fact that the job will often conjure up images of the person in accordance with the typical worker, it seems a little bit unusual that the standard image conjured up for *all* jobs would be male (as happens when 'he' is used). When somebody talks about a generic teacher as 'he', do you think female despite the fact that the profession is not terribly male dominated? Personally, I will usually conjure up a female image if dealing primary school teacher, because they do constitute the majority of primary school teachers... UNTIL A 'HE' IS USED. Yes, use of the word 'he' *is* responsible for a much of the fact that we conjure up male images for non-gender specific jobs, *regardless* of what the actual true ratios are. Also, if you can actually say (with a straight face) that the use of the 'he' construct over a non-gender specific equivelent has *NO* effect on the developing youngster (specifically the female) then I appreciate that we have found the basis case for our disagreement. However, I really don't see how such could possibly *not* have an effect. Remember, that unless the profession is *TOTALLY* female dominated, the image evoked is male when 'he' is used. (And that is really only because a generic nurse or some such completely female dominated professional is probably termed as 'her' if the gender is unknown). Used "properly" as a non-gender specific term, the word 'he' will evoke a male image in each and every non-gender specific pronoun reference for the entire developmental period of every english speaking adult. I can't imagine how *anyone* could say that this would not have an effect on society! If you can not, then you fall into one of the other two categories of (1) not caring enough about the effect to change. (2) considering the preservation of the language in its present form more important than the effect on our society. Choose. The offense never rests. Tom West (The offensive never rest either...) { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsri!west
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (04/30/85)
> Tom West: > > > There are those who claim that 'he' is the gender neutral pronoun in the > > English language. They are, in a grammatical sense, correct. The problem > > comes with the people. When the term 'he' is used, a *male* image is > > thought of, regardless of the fact that the term was supposed to be neutral. > > This is an example of the fairly sloppy post hoc egro propter hoc reasoning > that seems to be becoming increasingly prevalent these days. As Tom points > out, studies have shown that "when the term 'he' is used, a *male* image > is thought of". So far, this merely establishes a correlation between the > two events. How one can infer, from this correlation, that there's some > sort of causal connection between the two isn't clear to me. I postulate the following theory: The use of the word 'he' as the gender neutral pronoun came into use because the male was considered more 'typical' of the species, not to mention more important. Now, whether or not you agree with this attitude, if this theory is correct, then that IS why you use that pronoun. I think that there is something wrong with this, and it should be changed. If you don't agree with this theory, I would like to see any alternatives you may have. marie desjardins
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (05/01/85)
> I postulate the following theory: The use of the word 'he' as the gender > neutral pronoun came into use because the male was considered more 'typical' > of the species, not to mention more important. > marie desjardins An intriguing hypothesis, unfortunately marred by a couple of flaws: - In German, the word "sie" stands for both "she" and "they". Perhaps German males were considered atypical of the species? Or less important? (Funny, I'd never thought of the Prussian officer class in that light!) - In many Arabian- and Sanskrit-based languages, there _is_ no gender- specific pronoun (Bengali, for example, has one third-person singular pronoun, which is gender-neutral). Believe me, these societies consider their males to be more important! -- Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet
jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) (05/01/85)
> I postulate the following theory: The use of the word 'he' as the gender > neutral pronoun came into use because the male was considered more 'typical' > of the species, not to mention more important. > marie desjardins Too true. The "standard" or "default" sex is male, and we tend to assume that the protagonist in any situation is male, even if it's impossible: "There was a bee in the living room, but I chased him out." "Chased _her_ out. Unless it's a drone, it was a female bee." [Nevertheless, wouldn't it have sounded strange to be zoologically correct?] My three-year-old niece was buiding an unlikely structure with her blocks. "It's a house for Mr Brown" she said. I said "How about Mrs Brown?" (not wanting to confuse the poor kid with "Ms" at so tender an age). "No, _Mr_ Brown", she insisted. She already knows who does anything worth doing in this world, which isn't surprising if you look at books for small children. It's not that the characters are all depicted in "sexist" roles, just that anything that's done, good or bad, is done by males. Sad, sad, sad. John Purbrick ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!mit-hermes!jpexg
bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang) (05/06/85)
Everyone in this corner of the net seems to be so serious, but I'd like to inject something hopefully of a lighter content How many of you have access to Mtv? I do, and they are showing now a new Tom Petty vedio that interests me. Ol' Tom plays a punky Mad Hatter in this Alice-in -Wonderland type vedio where they mistreat poor Alice in various comical ways, and in the end she becomes a sort of live cake and people cut slices out of her and stand around eating. It's a total farce, and taken that way, I like the vedio, but I can see how some people might be offended by it. Has anybody else seen it? Please direct flames to ...galbp!MCP -- ---------- "No, you stupid computer, do what I mean, not what I type!" ...akgua!galbp!bing
smann@iham1.UUCP (Sherry Mann) (05/08/85)
> > I postulate the following theory: The use of the word 'he' as the gender > > neutral pronoun came into use because the male was considered more 'typical' > > of the species, not to mention more important. > > > marie desjardins > > An intriguing hypothesis, unfortunately marred by a couple of flaws: > > - In German, the word "sie" stands for both "she" and "they". Perhaps > German males were considered atypical of the species? Or less > important? (Funny, I'd never thought of the Prussian officer class > in that light!) > > - In many Arabian- and Sanskrit-based languages, there _is_ no gender- > specific pronoun (Bengali, for example, has one third-person singular > pronoun, which is gender-neutral). Believe me, these societies consider > their males to be more important! > -- > Saumya Debray > SUNY at Stony Brook > > uucp: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax} !sbcs!debray > arpa: debray%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa > CSNet: debray@sbcs.csnet *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL) (05/09/85)
In article <2382@mit-hermes.ARPA> jpexg@mit-hermes.ARPA (John Purbrick) writes: >> I postulate the following theory: The use of the word 'he' as the gender >> neutral pronoun came into use because the male was considered more 'typical' >> of the species, not to mention more important. >> marie desjardins >Too true. The "standard" or "default" sex is male, and we tend to assume that >the protagonist in any situation is male, even if it's impossible: Not always. Imagine When a secretary answers the phone, he should ... or After a nurse gaves the shot, he should ... where the sex of the person being described is unknown. If you are like everyone I've ever tried this out on, these will sound funny. In fact, the default gender is assumed to male unless the expected gender for the description is female. This must make it pretty hard for male nurses and scretaries. Almost as hard, in fact, as it probably is for female truck drivers, fire fighters, police officers, ... Ken Arnold
wong@rtech.ARPA (J. Wong) (05/09/85)
> - In German, the word "sie" stands for both "she" and "they". > Saumya Debray Sorry, but the distinction between "she" and "they" is quite clear in German. The ending of the verb always disambiguates. For example, "Sie ist ..." --> "She is ..." "Sie sind ..." --> "They are ..." -- J. Wong ucbvax!mtxinu!rtech!wong **************************************************************** You start a conversation, you can't even finish it. You're talking alot, but you're not saying anything. When I have nothing to say, my lips are sealed. Say something once, why say it again. - David Byrne
gts@dmcnh.UUCP (Guy The Schafer) (05/13/85)
Replacing 'man' with 'person' is great in theory but every newspaper or tele- news I've seen uses chairman when referring to a man and chairperson when referring to a woman. If you don't believe it, read and listen for yourself. It is quite humorous, actually. +-------------------------------------+ | USENET: decvax!ittvax!sii!dmcnh!gts | | USMail: 14-F Hampshire Drive | | Nashua, NH 03063 | | NEBell: (603) 880-2069 | +-------------------------------------+ COMING SOON: A quote from John Irving.
nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA) (05/15/85)
> the default gender is assumed to male unless the expected gender for > the description is female. This must make it pretty hard for male nurses > and scretaries. Almost as hard, in fact, as it probably is for female > truck drivers, fire fighters, police officers, ... Not quite...men have greater "permission" from society to do what pleases them, even when it goes against societal norms. Nancy Parsons
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/15/85)
From: nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA), Message-ID: <857@druxo.UUCP>: >> the default gender is assumed to male unless the expected gender for >> the description is female. This must make it pretty hard for male nurses >> and scretaries. Almost as hard, in fact, as it probably is for female >> truck drivers, fire fighters, police officers, ... > >Not quite...men have greater "permission" from society to do what pleases >them, even when it goes against societal norms. > >Nancy Parsons I'm not sure I agree with Nancy here. I think there are *tremendous* pressures against males doing pretty much anything that's "typically female". Women are free to wear clothes designed for men as well as those designed for women. Men, on the other hand, simply cannot wear a skirt and sandals to the office on a hot summer day. And I imagine there are really serious pressures on male nurses and secretaries. I'm trying to imagine what a male secretary would put up with when some fellow asks him what he does over a beer in a bar. Pretty grim, I bet. And I'd imagine a male nurse would have a rough time dealing not only with doctors and patients, but even with other nurses. And look at the "Kelly Girl"-type organizations. (Note both the exclu- sion of men and the degradation of women in the title - charming, eh?) They're putting EEO in their ads, but I doubt men are accepted by clients as readily as women are. I think some of this is related to what was mentioned in an earlier posting, i.e., that it's healthy for men to want to be men and it's healthy for women to want to be men too. People can understand why a woman would want to adopt typically male roles, but it's hard to imagine why a man would want to be adopt typically female roles. There's also a practical issue here. (Stereo)Typically female jobs pay a helluva lot less than (stereo)typically male jobs. It *is* kind of hard to understand why men would prefer them (with the poss- ible exception of homemaker - that one is at least quite rewarding). Anyway, I think there's a *very* pervasive pressure against men "relinquishing their masculinity", and, stronger sex tho they may be (:-), I doubt many could withstand it. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/16/85)
>>Not quite...men have greater "permission" from society to do what pleases >>them, even when it goes against societal norms. >>Nancy Parsons >...I think there are *tremendous* pressures against males doing pretty much > anything that's "typically female". Women are free to wear clothes designed > for men as well as those designed for women. Men, on the other hand, simply > cannot wear a skirt and sandals to the office on a hot summer day. And I > imagine there are really serious pressures on male nurses and secretaries. > I'm trying to imagine what a male secretary would put up with when some > fellow asks him what he does over a beer in a bar. Pretty grim, I bet. Where I used to work, every day during National Secretaries' Week a flower would appear on each secretaries desk. One of the VPs was Judy S. and her secretary Greg looked real cute next to the flower! As to what you say: ``I'm an assistant to the Vice President for ...''. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.
zubbie@ihlpa.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck) (05/21/85)
> From: nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA), Message-ID: <857@druxo.UUCP>: > >> the default gender is assumed to male unless the expected gender for > >> the description is female. This must make it pretty hard for male nurses > >> and scretaries. Almost as hard, in fact, as it probably is for female > >> truck drivers, fire fighters, police officers, ... > > > >Not quite...men have greater "permission" from society to do what pleases > >them, even when it goes against societal norms. > > > >Nancy Parsons > > I'm not sure I agree with Nancy here. I think there are *tremendous* > pressures against males doing pretty much anything that's "typically > female". Women are free to wear clothes designed for men as well as > those designed for women. Men, on the other hand, simply cannot wear > a skirt and sandals to the office on a hot summer day. And I imagine > there are really serious pressures on male nurses and secretaries. >....................... > > I think some of this is related to what was mentioned in an earlier > posting, i.e., that it's healthy for men to want to be men and it's > healthy for women to want to be men too. People can understand why a > woman would want to adopt typically male roles, but it's hard to > imagine why a man would want to be adopt typically female roles. > There's also a practical issue here. (Stereo)Typically female jobs > pay a helluva lot less than (stereo)typically male jobs. It *is* > kind of hard to understand why men would prefer them (with the poss- > ible exception of homemaker - that one is at least quite rewarding). > > Anyway, I think there's a *very* pervasive pressure against men > "relinquishing their masculinity", and, stronger sex tho they may be > (:-), I doubt many could withstand it. > > -- > > --JB "The giant is awake." > > Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis? *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** About 10 years ago I came across a situation which even more strongly points up this inability of even intelligent groups to deal with those individuals who would *cross the line * so to speak. An individual ( we can call him fizbie ) who was well liked and respected by all his fellow workers (mostly men at that time as it was a rather technical environment) and recognized as extremely able and knowledgeable decided to change his sex to female. (I'm not going to go into that part of it except to say it was only new news to the people he worked with) Obviously fizbie expected some flack but he (now she) had pretty well managed to get the cranial appendage on straight. The two noteable reactions at the time were: 1) From males there was a general disbelief that someone as smart as fisbie would want to become a member of a second class class of workers (fisbie stayed on the same job however slowly management tried to steer her into the more clerical and less demanding (mentally) aspects of the job) since there "Just wasn't much place for women in that line of work". 2) From the few females already in that line of work and from the other females in surrounding workspace a new friendship and respect was developed for this individual who had previously been just *one of the guys* to someone who really had the courage to stand up for what they believed in. Fizbie's main accomplishment before being driven out of her job by discrimination and perhaps sabotage was to train 18 women into the men only world they worked in . Today all 18 of those women have risen into one type of management position or another while the males (some of which fisbie also trained) are still plugging along just as they had been when OLE FISBIE was just *one of the guys*. If I could locate fisbie today I imagine she would be doing as well although maybe not because she always seemed to be ready to champion unfashionable causes. Jeanette L. Zobjeck ihnp4!ilhpa!zubbie ================================================================================Any opinions expressed in this heyar posting belongs to me pardner AN DOONNNNN YYYOUU FERGIT IT!!!!!! ================================================================================