ellis (05/10/83)
As a male who occasionally contributes to the net, I felt several points of a recent article required comment: << I've been reading all these articles on sexism in the English language. What strikes me is that the most prolific writers on the subject are male. Why? I think you're all paranoid. I'm very suspicious of any man that makes a point of being non-sexist. >> Dear friend... In case you hadn't noticed, this net is composed largely a male contributors. In whose mind does this paranoia really reside ? If your suspicious nature places ugly thoughts into the minds of people whom you don't really know, doesn't that say more about you than those about whom you are writing ? Michael Ellis ..decwrl!flairvax!ellis
sam@phs.UUCP (04/07/84)
Re: sexism in language
There have been numerous studies which have shown that when one uses
the word "man" people (of all ages and both sexes) see "male". I
don't have any references at hand; I would suggest you begin with
Chaeris Kramerae's book "Men and Women Speaking". I recently
attended a seminar she gave here at Duke. In discussing the question
of the use of male pronouns as generic pronouns ("he" to mean "he or
she") she mentioned something which may be of interest to the "linguistic
purists" who object to "changing the language on a whim". Until
the early 1700s the generic pronoun in English was "they", used with
a plural verb. The change to "he" meaning "he or she" was the result
of an ACT OF (the all-male) PARLIAMENT!!! Maybe what we need is a
constitutional amendment to right this linguist wrong.
Incidentally, the women's college I attended did have some difficulty
with "freshmen" since there weren't any freshMEN on campus but calling
them freshwomen just invited bad jokes. They ended up using "freshers"
which took some getting used to but was greatly preferred over freshmen.
I myself like the British nomenclature of first-years, second-years,
third-years, fourth-years. As far as man-eating sharks, well, I think
that's unfair to the sharks. They're just dinner-eating sharks, after
all. :-)
Sherry Marts
!decvax!duke!phs!samjulian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/09/84)
[] Anyone who is *still* unpersuaded that some 'normal' english usage carries sexist overtones might be interested to read "The Implications of Sexually Stereotypic Language as seen through Pierce's Theory of Signs" Maryann Ayim, Trans. Charles S Pierce Society, Spring 1983.
tims@mako.UUCP (Tim Stoehr) (04/12/84)
Many words have multiple meanings. "Man" means either an adult male or the human species. Like other homonyms, one must judge by context which meaning applies. That is part of our language understanding abilities. Yes, undertones of maleness do come in, but I don't believe this is due to terminology, but rather it stems from the fact that we live in a male dominated world. I believe that if we were in a female dominated world with the same language and terminology, then the male undertones would be replaced by female undertones. Similarly, if you change the terminology in the world as it is today, the undertones of maleness would remain. In other words, these masculine undertones are not a product of our language, but of our society. Changing the language would be a very shallow and meaningless victory, although on the surface it might appear pleasing, it would not solve anything.
tll@druxu.UUCP (LaidigTL) (04/13/84)
> ... > Until > the early 1700s the generic pronoun in English was "they", used with > a plural verb. The change to "he" meaning "he or she" was the result > of an ACT OF (the all-male) PARLIAMENT!!! Maybe what we need is a > constitutional amendment to right this linguist wrong. > ... > > Sherry Marts > !decvax!duke!phs!sam This does not match my reading of Christopher Marlowe's "Doctor Faustus" (first published in 1604) nor Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" (from later in the 1600s). In both of these, I see a mix similar to more modern usage -- plural constructions are often used, but so are singular constructions with "he" used for an unknown person of either sex. Of course, both these writers were male. Tom Laidig AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver ...!ihnp4!druxu!tll
liberte@uiucdcs.UUCP (04/16/84)
#R:phs:-221900:uiucdcs:31600069:000:694
uiucdcs!liberte Apr 15 22:04:00 1984
I object to the male-biased pronouns and other nouns in English, and I object
louder to those who resist change. Change happens, more often than not,
because people want it to happen, even if it is change for the worse.
Language usually changes because people change it little by little,
by using "incorrect" usage or making up words or never using words.
Anyway, I use "they" instead of "he or she" without qualms except for
"proper" prose in which I take pains to avoid either. I always felt that
"they" is more natural. It is good to know thet that's the way it was.
Daniel LaLiberte, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Computer Science
{moderation in all things - including moderation}julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/16/84)
--------------- Many words have multiple meanings. "Man" means either an adult male or the human species. Like other homonyms, one must judge by context which meaning applies. That is part of our language understanding abilities. Yes, undertones of maleness do come in, but I don't believe this is due to terminology, but rather it stems from the fact that we live in a male dominated world. I believe that if we were in a female dominated world with the same language and terminology, then the male undertones would be replaced by female undertones. Similarly, if you change the terminology in the world as it is today, the undertones of maleness would remain. In other words, these masculine undertones are not a product of our language, but of our society. Changing the language would be a very shallow and meaningless victory, although on the surface it might appear pleasing, it would not solve anything. ------------------ I cannot fully agree with you there. The word man is what some philosophers and linguists call "pseudo-generic" because it is used for two different classes, one of which is a proper subset of the other. Doubtless the fact that "man" etc are used in this way can be traced back to male domination in society, and doubtless some tendency to male dominance may continue after the language has moved on, but neither is a justification for continuing with a usage which is at best potentially misleading. Since there are many contexts for the word "man" etc in which the wider or the narrower meaning could legitimately be taken, the effect is inevitably to infect the wider meaning with traces of the narrower (male) meaning. Julian Davies uwo!julian
johans@mprvaxa.UUCP (David Johanson) (04/18/84)
<for those line eaters.....> has anyone ever heard of the "huwomen" species??? I agree that this idea of sexism in language is only due to improper interpretation of the implications used. when someone askes you a question regarding MANKIND, do you really think of only the males in this world?? My wife tells me that this 'silly subject must have been started by a women' but I suppose if this line of thought continues for several more years we may lose the words 'woMEN' 'feMALE' etc.. (is it really hotter in hell???.....)
cdanderson@watarts.UUCP (04/23/84)
I, for one (and a male at that), do believe that language has a
very great affect on how we visualize the world. I know that when I read
the sentence "The Chairman of the Board..." or "Man's role in Nature..."
I do think of mature MALES!
That this does affect most people in this fashion was shown in
a psychology run by a friend of mine. People (of both genders) were asked
to read a sentence like the following "The Chairman said..." and then to
hit a button when they were finished the sentence. This was followed by
the same procedure using a sentence such as "Mary Smith, the Chairman said..."
The response time for the second variation was statistically significantly
longer than the former, taking into account possible differences in the
length of the sentences. The reason, as offered by the participants, was that
they had to rethink their mental image of the Chairman.
Another reason why I think that it is time for the language to change
is that when appelations exist for the role
held by a man vs. a womyn, the latter's becomes that day's
pejorative label, the "semantic derogation of woman" (Thorne & Henley, ed.;
LANGUAGE AND SEX; 1975; pp. 64-75).
For example:
bachelor vs. spinster or old-maid
geezer or codger vs. hen, heifer, warhorse, crone, hag, or frump
warlock vs. witch
Baron vs. Dame (though Baronet, "et" forms also denigrate, also used)
Master vs. Madam, Miss or Mistress
To fend off those thinking of accusing me with Orwell's News-Speak or the
thought police, he was talking about reducing words or phrases so that they
restricted what it was possible to think about. Bringing in new words to ade-
quetly reflect the new reality (of wimmin's growing independence) is to increase
the mindscape.
Ah yes, back on the "pejoration of women". Have you noticed words which
make the female title the same as that of
the male's with the addition of "ette", thereby adding a sense of fluff or frivolity to
the position/person?
While there are many good books which deal with this issue (I'm currently
working on a paper entitled "The Language of Sexism" so have come across some)
Thorne & Henley's LANGUAGE & SEX; 68 Middle Road, Rowley, Mass. 01969; Newbury
House Pub.; 1975, is a very good intro. to the topic and has a fabulous (though
now dated) annotated bibliography of about 250 further works on the subject.
Enough (too much?) for now,
Cameron
{ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!watarts!cdanderson
I will be working in another city for the next week, and then for
an additional 10 wks., so don't know if I will be able to answer feedback
as I will lack a net-link. Sorry!