ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (05/14/85)
>> There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent. >> Such as "human". (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed! :-) ) > >No flame here, but you're right. We once had a great time evolving >a friend's name: > > Beckerman sexist - "man" > Beckerperson sexist - "son" > Beckerperchild ageist - "child" .... Groan!! NO! She was not right! {Frankly, I think she was kidding...} Advocates of non-sexist language who say such foolish things are behaving as stupidly as their worst critics suggest. Or would you suggest, as your critics believe you propose, that every word containing -man- -men- -son- be deleted from the vocabulary? Why is `man' in a word like `repairman', etc. considered sexist? Because it REALLY DOES CONTAIN the word MAN. You can tell, because it has the prefix `repair', and its plural is `repairmen'. `Human' is not such a word. There is no such prefix as `hu-'; furthermore its plural is not `humen'. Apparently, it needs to be stated again -- human derives from Latin `homo', NOT English `man'. And please, leave `person' exactly as is -- it cannot possibly be derived from per+son. For the zillionth time, this word comes from Latin `persona', meaning `mask' -- `sona' is related to `sound' (NOT `son') and combines with `per' to mean `that thru which one voice emanates'. Roman masks originally doubled as voice amplifiers... Furthermore, I believe that `person' and `human' are totally free from masculine associations. Check out the list below: a person's life a human's life personal humanism personage humane personality humanity impersonal Contrast the total lack of sex identification in the above with the decidedly masculine connotations of: a man's life manly manlike mannish If you are opposed to sexist language, please note that `perchild' and and its ilk the are the tools of your opponents used to ridicule your viewpoint. -michael
eric@parallel.uucp (Eric Griswold) (05/15/85)
In article <244@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > > If you are opposed to sexist language, please note that `perchild' and > and its ilk the are the tools of your opponents used to ridicule > your viewpoint. > >-michael Not only that, but the whole notion of abolishing sexist (or racist, or ageist or..) language has rather strange overtones of Orwell. Granted, enriching our language so that we can avoid gender reference if we care to is a good idea, but not at the sacrifice of losing useful aspects of our language. As an example, I've had the term 'young man' thrown at me in a negative manner more times than I care to recall. When somebody actually used it recently to pick me out of a group of older people, I almost got angry because of the associations I have with the term. Then I realized that it was the best term to use. I understand that this does not solve the problem of the female professional being called a "whatever-man" against her liking, for the description is indeed erroneous. I've read several books where the feminine was used as the generic. Although it seemed a bit forced, it was hardly offensive. In short, words or phrases of this nature are undesirable based on context, not on etymology. Let's all work on issues like equal pay and equal opportunities based on merit and leave the details of how we say it to follow. -- ``````` Eric Griswold `` Parallel Computers, Inc. .`````` ` `` ucbvax!sun!parallel!eric ` ``````` ihnp4!hplabs!pesnta!parallel!eric `. ` ``````` The opinions expressed herein are a bit on the silly side and thus couldn't possibly be the opinions of my employer.
chabot@miles.DEC (Bits is bits) (05/15/85)
What is this, a lack of humor among some of the male participants here? I thought the Beckerperchild etc derivation entertaining. As the article said: "We once had a great time evolving a friend's name." "Great time" to me also means the evolvers thought it amusing. If playing with words is "behaving ... stupidly", well, I guess a lot of writers should consider themselves idiots. :-) If I can't take myself not-so-seriously sometimes, what business do I have taking anything else lightly? L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot chabot%amber.dec@decwrl.arpa
ran@ho95b.UUCP (RANeinast) (05/17/85)
>>> There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent. >>> Such as "human". (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed! :-) ) >> >>No flame here, but you're right. We once had a great time evolving >>a friend's name: >> >> Beckerman sexist - "man" >> Beckerperson sexist - "son" >> Beckerperchild ageist - "child" .... > Groan!! NO! She was not right! {Frankly, I think she was kidding...} > Why is `man' in a word like `repairman', etc. considered sexist? Because > it REALLY DOES CONTAIN the word MAN. You can tell, because it has the > prefix `repair', and its plural is `repairmen'. `Human' is not such > a word. There is no such prefix as `hu-'; furthermore its plural is > not `humen'. Apparently, it needs to be stated again -- human derives > from Latin `homo', NOT English `man'. > > And please, leave `person' exactly as is -- it cannot possibly > be derived from per+son. For the zillionth time, this word comes from > Latin `persona', meaning `mask' -- `sona' is related to `sound' (NOT > `son') and combines with `per' to mean `that thru which one voice > emanates'. Roman masks originally doubled as voice amplifiers... > Uh, oh. Then we'd better get rid of the word "woman". It comes almost directly from "wife (of) man", as if that's all that counts. More seriously, I usually gauge these things by the image they confer in my mind. "RepairMAN" seems sexist because I subconsiously think of a man. Even though "woman" is derived as above, due to the evolution of the language, it doesn't mean that anymore. That's not the case with "repairman". -- ". . . and shun the frumious Bandersnatch." Robert Neinast (ihnp4!ho95b!ran) AT&T-Bell Labs
daemon@decwrl.UUCP (The devil himself) (05/18/85)
Re: Perchild and other Stupidity________________________________________________ > If you are opposed to sexist language, please note that `perchild' and and > [sic] its ilk the are the tools of your opponents used to ridicule your > viewpoint. I used to feel that way, but the way I see it now, there are so many more important things to spend my time being concerned about. (For example, there are still people out there who think there is a correlation between wear- ing "provocative" clothing and being a rape victim. There is, in fact, abso- lutely no correlation.) I recognize that some so-called witty critics (jerks like George Will and Billy Buckley come immediately to mind) have used ridiculous constructs like "perchild" to ridicule the goal of nonsexist language; but most of the people I meet who do these things in jest are just plain folks trying to have a few laughs in a changing world. When I hear somebody saying or see somebody writing these things, I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and not see them as "opponents" unless and until they prove otherwise (as Messrs. Will and Buckley have). I will note, however, that I've heard just about every one of these stupid constructs already; that like most jokes, their humor decreases with repetion; and that they weren't \all/ that funny to begin with. Now can we please talk about something else? <_Jym_> :::::::::::::::: Jym Dyer ::::' :: `:::: Dracut, Massachusetts ::' :: `:: :: :: :: DYER%VAXUUM.DEC@DECWRL.ARPA :: .::::. :: {allegra|decvax|ihnp4|ucbvax}!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-vaxuum!dyer ::..:' :: `:..:: ::::. :: .:::: Statements made in this article are my own; they might not :::::::::::::::: reflect the views of |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| Equipment Corporation.