ted@teldata.UUCP (04/20/84)
********** In our language we have common names for most species of animals i.e. horse, cow, pig, etc. and we have names for the male or female of those species. I have constructed a table illustrating a few examples. Common name Female Male (Genderless Name Name duck duck drake goose goose gander cow cow bull man woman man falcon falcon tercil(sp) I know this list is incomplete and there may be other (less common) terms that apply so please don't flame or send mail about these examples. My point is: The use of 'man' as a word, prefix, or suffix does not always suggest a male human being and the intended meaning is to be taken from context. Unfortunately some people (primarily feminists) have a sexist attitude and automatically assume any use of 'man' excludes female humans. This is a misunderstanding on their part showing their ignorance of the English language. I have on my property a large puddle that is visited regularly by my neighbor's 'ducks'. Should I be restrained from calling this body of water a 'duckpond' because half the creatures swimming in it are drakes? Ted Becker
ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/20/84)
-- >> My point is: >> The use of 'man' as a word, prefix, or suffix does not always suggest a >> male human being and the intended meaning is to be taken from context. >> Unfortunately some people (primarily feminists) have a sexist attitude >> and automatically assume any use of 'man' excludes female humans. This >> is a misunderstanding on their part showing their ignorance of the >> English language. No, it's a misunderstanding on your part showing your ignorance of linguistics. Language is the tool with which we think. Sexist language and sexist thoughts are intimately intertwined. Interesting how the most arrogant of these "defenders of the faith" are all men. Thought exercise for men who believe the quoted snippet: Every time you see the generic "man", substitute "Black" (or your favorite group) and tell yourself "but of course it refers to all people." Example: "No man is an island..." --> "No Black (but of course all persons are included) is an island..." Then tell me you don't feel left out. As a writer, I often cringe at the proposed solutions, but you have to be pretty dense to believe there is no problem. -- *** *** JE MAINTIENDRAI ***** ***** ****** ****** 20 Apr 84 [1 Floreal An CXCII] ken perlow ***** ***** (312)979-7261 ** ** ** ** ..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken *** ***
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/20/84)
Very interesting. It leads one to wonder why woman/man is the exception
to the rule. Could it be that if humankind was called womankind instead
of mankind, this would be too animalistic for the men's taste, after all
we all know women are closer to animals than men are (:-))
It might be interesting to find out whether ganders mind being called
geese, or whether they call themselves geese. After all we gave them
those names. Who knows what they call themselves....
I think that at any rate the ganders would not have any reasons to complain
about being called geese. After all it is their fault if they don't
understand our language the way it is, not that they had a say in our
decision to call them geese.....
So, we are not allowed to flame on your choice of animals. Are we allowed
to flame at your article? So, we feminists are wrong not to feel included
when people call us men, the problem is all in our heads right? obviously
we should all go see psychiatrists to help us solve our problems.
OK, time to throw the ball in the other court. Why is it that so many of you
men feel so threatened by the fact that many women have a different perception
of reality than they do? Why do they insist that there is something wrong
with us if we don't have the same perception of ourselves as they do of us?
When have we told you there is something wrong with your perceptions of
yourselves because we perceive you differently?
To come to back to this problem: when we hear man, we think male. We do not
think "me" without making an effort. When you hear "man", you supposedly
think "male or female" (so you claim).
OK, we have two different interpretations of the same word and we don't feel
we are communicating well. How are we going to resolve the problem?
Your solution: "We are right and you are wrong", the problem doesn't exist,
lets forget about it QED.
Our solution: "obviously we have different perceptions, let's use another
word which is not ambiguous, this way we will understand each other".
What do you have to loose by adopting our solution? It solves the problem,
doesn't it? why don't you care a bit more about our own self-image? is the
"purity" of language so important that it must be defended at the cost of
possibly alienating half of the population and at least not communicating
very well with them. I really don't understand:
WHAT MAKES YOU PEOPLE TICK???????????????????????
Will one of you please explain on the net why it is that you feel so threatened
by feminist proposals like the one to use human to mean human instead of
using men. What difference is it going to make to your life if we adopt these
proposals?
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleycmgiuliani@watrose.UUCP (Carlo) (04/21/84)
Sophie asks what makes "us" tick? Why do "we" object to proposals to change
the default use of male pronouns and male generic nouns? Do "we" feel
threatened by such proposals?
The quotes used above indicate that I am not quite sure what "we" I am
identifing myself as a member of, but I thought I would risk it.
Answer: I don't think the choice of default/generic gender is important.
I don't object to proposals to use a different default. Go ahead.
But I grew up with these defaults built into me and I will object
to any attempt to make *me* change my usage, unless you can convince
me that there is a good reason for it.
I will not feel threatened by any such proposals unless the proposals
include measures to force me to change my usage. Then I will feel
threatened with respect to things like freedom of speech.
As far as your usage of generic/default gender is concerned, that is *your*
freedom of speech. And if you convince enough people to change, then I'll
probably end up going with the flow.
Carlo @ the U of Waterloomartillo@ihuxt.UUCP (Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo) (04/21/84)
Isn't werewolf a sexist term. After all were is the historic English term
for a male man. It is cognate with the Latin word uir (meaning male man
or hero). From the Latin word uir, English receives words like virtue and
veracity (uerus, the Latin adjective for true is related to uir).
--
Yehoyaqim Shemtob Martillo
(I don't care what you think about my signature)saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (04/21/84)
Well Carlo, you were obviously not one of the people I was refering to in
my article. I think there is a wide gulf between saying: "Even though I
recognise it makes some people feel uneasy to be called ..., I don't feel
like changing and that's my right" and "If it makes you uneasy to be called
..., it's because there's something wrong with you. I think you are
completely wrong to feel this way, here's proof of it: <assinine "proof"
follows>"
I was not objecting to the first behaviour as I too think that freedom of
speech is important, but I was objecting to the second behaviour which is
one of complete arrogance, and refusal to accept other people's different
perception. Looking what is at stake: using "human" to say "human" instead
of "man", "s/he" instead of he and a few other minor changes to the common
use of the language, I find the violence of some people's reactions very
strange, and disturbing. That is why I was asking them: "what makes you
tick?". There must be more than respect for the language, because the
language is hardly been denigrated, and also because the same people probably
do not go crusading off against the use of such words as "television",
"telecommunications", or any other "new" technological words. This makes me
conclude that in their minds it is alright to change the language to change
the state of technology, but not alright to change it in order to get social
changes; strange priorities if you want my opinion. That is why I cannot
help believing that there are ulterior motives to their reaction, and the
violence of the reaction leads me to believe that those ulterior motives are
pretty heavy stuff.
Therefore my question still stands.
Sophie Quigley
...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax,allegra}!watmath!saquigleyjbf@ccieng5.UUCP (Jens Bernhard Fiederer) (04/21/84)
>What do you have to loose by adopting our solution? It solves the problem, >doesn't it? why don't you care a bit more about our own self-image? is the >"purity" of language so important that it must be defended at the cost of >possibly alienating half of the population and at least not communicating >very well with them. At least in my case, it is not the "purity" of language that concerns me. The language with which I grew up has become part of my nature, and it would feel unnatural to warp it simply to satisfy some fad. If you truly believe this fad is supported by half the population, please make this somewhat more evident to the rest of us. I see only a small minority clamoring to change the language as an expression of their power. By the way, I am also one of those guilty of calling female humans of most ages "girls". Throughout my life, when someone has pointedly called me a "man", they usually wanted something from me, and came off as very pompous: "you are a MAN, and it is part of being a MAN to do such and such that I desire." Such blatant attempts at manipulation put me off. I don't want to come off the same way, using the rather stilted "WOMAN" to ingratiate myself. Siegfried -- "Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd" Reachable as ....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf