regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (04/30/85)
>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. >Saumya Debray Yes, but. . . Your points are well taken, but just so far. A male image is associated with "fireman" and "postman" as much from experience as from language. But, let's say we get lots of women into these fields (as we have, in leaps and bounds in the recent past). Has that changed the "image"? And will it change the image if people who are worried about "sloppy grammar" do not allow the change to occur (in literature for children, for instance) based on some "purity of the language" argument? Why do we still have the words "fireman" and "postman" when women are now represented in these fields? The requests, and then demands, of women to be referred to in a neuter form (fireperson, mailperson) have been ridiculed by "grammarians" as well as politicians, and indian chiefs. Everybody who doesn't like something is quick to point out how "sloppy" it is, how "ambiguous". The neuter form of "they" is simply another "sloppy" method for reducing the sexual differentiation in language. A method that is being accepted by some and vigorously opposed by others, on many grounds. It is, moreover, a change that currently _follows_ a trend (the move of women into the heretofor male dominated workplace) rather than an attempt to "twiddle" with the language and create a new (inaccurate) image. No one is suggesting misleading small children, office managers, document readers, etc., by introducing inaccurate or obscure usages. Seems to me the effort is in recognition of a historic change to our society. Adrienne Regard
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (05/01/85)
> > Your points are well taken, but just so far. A male image is associated > with "fireman" and "postman" as much from experience as from language. But, > let's say we get lots of women into these fields (as we have, in leaps and > bounds in the recent past). Has that changed the "image"? And will it > change the image if people who are worried about "sloppy grammar" do not > allow the change to occur (in literature for children, for instance) based > on some "purity of the language" argument? Why do we still have the words > "fireman" and "postman" when women are now represented in these fields? > The requests, and then demands, of women to be referred to in a neuter form > (fireperson, mailperson) have been ridiculed by "grammarians" as well as > politicians, and indian chiefs. Everybody who doesn't like something is > quick to point out how "sloppy" it is, how "ambiguous". The neuter form of > "they" is simply another "sloppy" method for reducing the sexual > differentiation in language. A method that is being accepted by some and > vigorously opposed by others, on many grounds. > > Adrienne Regard I beg to (vigorously) disagree. There are much less awkward, and more descriptive expressions, such as "fire fighter", "letter carrier" or "police officer", which are the *real* expressions for "fireman", "postman" or "policeman". Such shorthand was acceptable when these ocupations were all male. Now that this is no longer the case, they will pretty much stop existing. "Fireperson" or other groaners *are* sloppy and ambiguous. I mean, should blacks start flaming about an expression like "the darkness of tyranny", and "demand" that the expression be made "color-blind"? Marcel Simon
lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (05/03/85)
> I beg to (vigorously) disagree. There are much less awkward, and more > descriptive > expressions, such as "fire fighter", "letter carrier" or "police officer", > which are the *real* expressions for "fireman", "postman" or "policeman". > Such shorthand was acceptable when these ocupations were all male. > Now that this is no longer the case, they will pretty much stop > existing. "Fireperson" or other groaners *are* sloppy and ambiguous. > I mean, should blacks start flaming about an expression like "the darkness > of tyranny", and "demand" that the expression be made "color-blind"? > > Marcel Simon I think it would be a very good idea for us to get rid of implicitly racist language which always associates black with evil and white with good. Really, what is wrong with darkness? -- Lucius Chiaraviglio seismo!tardis!lucius lucius@tardis.ARPA lucius@tardis.UUCP
debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (05/04/85)
>>"Fireperson" or other groaners *are* sloppy and ambiguous. >> I mean, should blacks start flaming about an expression like "the darkness >> of tyranny", and "demand" that the expression be made "color-blind"? >> >> Marcel Simon > > I think it would be a very good idea for us to get rid of implicitly > racist language which always associates black with evil and white with good. > Really, what is wrong with darkness? > > -- Lucius Chiaraviglio Okay, let's go the whole hog, then! You'd want to eliminate the association of "yellow" with cowardice, so as not to offend any hypersensitive samurai. And, of course, the words "adroit", "gauche" and "sinister" would have to go, to avoid any bias against southpaws, as would the equation of "right" with "correct". And that would be just the beginning! You know, your idea's not as novel as you might think it might be ... less ambitious versions have been tried by the likes of Comstock and Bowdler. -- 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
wetcw@pyuxa.UUCP (T C Wheeler) (05/06/85)
Associating darkness with evil has nothing to do with race. Consider that the Asians, most south sea islanders, the eskimos, the laplanders, and dozens of other cultures associated darkness with evil long before they ever even heard that a race of people with black skins existed. The association of black with evil has most to do with nightime and the terrors that existed in men's minds at the back of the caves they lived in 20,000 years ago. Black skinned people harboured the same fears for the darkness that fair skinned people did. The modern association is nothing more than a hobby horse dreamed up to give some sociologists a chance to present doctorial thesis'. T. C. Wheeler
lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (05/06/85)
_ > > I think it would be a very good idea for us to get rid of implicitly > > racist language which always associates black with evil and white with good. > > Really, what is wrong with darkness? > > > > -- Lucius Chiaraviglio > > Okay, let's go the whole hog, then! You'd want to eliminate the > association of "yellow" with cowardice, so as not to offend any > hypersensitive samurai. And, of course, the words "adroit", "gauche" > and "sinister" would have to go, to avoid any bias against southpaws, as > would the equation of "right" with "correct". And that would be just the > beginning! You're right. We do have to get rid of more than just that which I mentioned. "No! No! It's too gruesome! . . .But I'll do it!" (Buggs Bunny) -- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.ARPA | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins) (05/07/85)
> > I beg to (vigorously) disagree. There are much less awkward, and more descriptive > expressions, such as "fire fighter", "letter carrier" or "police officer", > which are the *real* expressions for "fireman", "postman" or "policeman". > Such shorthand was acceptable when these ocupations were all male. > Now that this is no longer the case, they will pretty much stop > existing. "Fireperson" or other groaners *are* sloppy and ambiguous. > I mean, should blacks start flaming about an expression like "the darkness > of tyranny", and "demand" that the expression be made "color-blind"? > > Marcel Simon I beg to disagree. "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer" were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous." Besides, what about "chairman"? There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent. Such as "human". (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed! :-) ) marie desjardins
lucius@tardis.UUCP (Lucius Chiaraviglio) (05/08/85)
> Associating darkness with evil has nothing to do with > race. Consider that the Asians, most south sea islanders, the > eskimos, the laplanders, and dozens of other cultures associated > darkness with evil long before they ever even heard that > a race of people with black skins existed. The association > of black with evil has most to do with nightime and the > terrors that existed in men's minds at the back of the > caves they lived in 20,000 years ago. Black skinned people > harboured the same fears for the darkness that fair skinned > people did. The modern association is nothing more than > a hobby horse dreamed up to give some sociologists a chance > to present doctorial thesis'. > T. C. Wheeler I don't doubt that that was the origin of the association of darkness with evil, but given today's world-spanning society it has got to go. Just because something originates a certain way doesn't mean it is going to stay that way. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio { seismo!tardis!lucius | lucius@tardis.ARPA | lucius@tardis.UUCP }
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (05/09/85)
> > > > I beg to (vigorously) disagree. There are much less awkward, and more descriptive > > expressions, such as "fire fighter", "letter carrier" or "police officer", > > which are the *real* expressions for "fireman", "postman" or "policeman". > > Such shorthand was acceptable when these ocupations were all male. > > Now that this is no longer the case, they will pretty much stop > > existing. "Fireperson" or other groaners *are* sloppy and ambiguous. > > > > Marcel Simon > > I beg to disagree. "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer" > were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is > sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous." > > marie desjardins "Firefighter" happens to be the official term used in the profession (I have a brother- and father-in-law who are volunteer versions of same). If someone thinks it's sloppy, that's their ( <- notice ) problem. Jeff Winslow
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) (05/09/85)
> 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" Beckerperoffspring cumbersome Beckerit finally! On the other hand, there *are* reasonable replacements for a lot of words that are objectionable (some or all of these have been suggested in others' postings): chairman => chair (actually an old form) postman => letter carrier (their official job title) draftsman => drafter Many of these seem awkward at first, but they quickly become "normal". Try for a while and see! -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146
beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (beth d. christy) (05/10/85)
From: desjardins@h-sc1.UUCP (marie desjardins), Message-ID: <327@h-sc1.UUCP>: >I beg to disagree. "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer" >were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is >sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous." Besides, what about "chairman"? >There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent. >Such as "human". (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed! :-) ) > > marie desjardins Worse even than "human": "woman". Which should go to "woperson". Which should further go to "woperoffspring", if we're gonna be thorough. (;-) -- --JB "The giant is awake."
mat@mtx5b.UUCP (Mark Terribile) (05/15/85)
>I beg to disagree. "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer" >were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is >sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous." Actully, ``firefighter'' and ``letter carrier'' are MORE precise terms than ``fireman'' and ``mailman''. The term fireman could refer to either a firefighter (who puts out fires) or to a fire tender (who maintains a fire). The term mailman could refer to a letter carrier or sorter or almost any other postal employee. If it is necessary to specify the gender (it rarely should be) the terms ``male'' and ``female'' can be added. -- from Mole End Mark Terribile (scrape .. dig ) mtx5b!mat ,.. .,, ,,, ..,***_*.