regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) (05/06/85)
>> 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 > "fireman" was the specific word used by Saumya Debray in his/er (their?) posting. It was to this use of a gender-specific word that I was replying. Incidentally, such gender-specific words still exist, and are used widely to indicate both men and women at work at specific jobs, under the argument (I would guess) that "man" includes "woman", except when it doesn't. Actually, probably nobody much argues about it unless they are backed into a corner -- the words are used out of habit, and a low consciousness of certain issues. I'm not sure that "fire fighter" is better, or less of a groaner, than "fireperson", but I wouldn't argue about it. Fire fighter is perfectly acceptable to me.