lipman@decwrl.UUCP (02/23/84)
Message-Id: <8402231546.AA29038@decwrl.ARPA> Date: Thursday, 23 Feb 1984 07:50:06-PST From: akov68::boyajian To: net.women Subject: re: re: the power of words No, Ms. Marts, you don't need the asbestos earmuffs; your "... of which he may not have been aware" was a good enough flame retardant. Since you have taken the time to try to clarify your position, I feel obliged to do the same (at least one acquaintance of mine who will undoubtedly be reading this will most likely think that I'm digging myself in deeper). (1) I will not, for a minute, deny the assertion that women have been oppressed throughout human history. If you read that into my previous posting, then you are guilty of mistaken inferrence. I was only denying that the use of the generic "he" is proof of such oppression. (2) I concede that I may have misinterpreted your original statement by claiming that you believe "that sexism begins and ends solely with the use of masculine pronouns as generics". You have my humble apologies. However, look at the original situation: we were talking about the feminizing of literature, the replacing of the words "he/him/man/etc." with "she/her/woman/etc.". For you to then say that "...such literature serves as a record of the pyschological, social, and political oppression of women throughout history", can you really blame me for interpreting that to mean that you think that use of the generic "he" is proof of the oppression of women by men? (3) You say "The treatment of woman by most male and many female novel- ists, poets, historians, painters, sculptors, philosophers, theologians, crit- ics, and anyone else who contributes to what we refer to as `culture' has always and continues to place her in a subordinate, inferior position with respect to man. The use of masculine pronouns as generics in English and other languages is a true example of this. I will assert that Mr. Boyajian's inability to recognize this subtle, insidious bit of sexism..." I will be the first to admit that I may at times be obtuse, but I truly fail to see how "The use of masculine pro- nouns as generics in English and other languages is a true example of this" fol- lows from the sentence that precedes it (logically, that is -- it obviously fol- lows physically). As for the "other languages" bit, as I said before, German has a generic "she" (*sie*), rather than a generic "he"; their culture is no more nor less oppressive of women than any other human culture. (4) "Whether masculine is generic or generic is masculine, such a con- struction sets woman apart as Other, something separate from the all-important male" Again, a non-sequitor. If the woman is being set apart from the "rest" of humanity, how does it follow that the male is "all-important"? Don't answer the question with examples of how men think of themselves as all-important; that's irrelevant. What I want to know is how setting apart women implies that men are all important. (5) "Being considered a `special-case' male is not my idea of equality and freedom from oppression. (It does recall the occasion a few years ago when Queen Elizabeth II was made an "honorary man" by the Arabs so that she could be accorded the respect due to a visiting head of state. I wonder how honored she felt.)" (a) That occasion was stupid, and I'll certainly agree that it serves as an example of how women are oppressed, but then, look how the Arabs treat their women as oppossed to the way we treat ours (in general). I still fail to see how that illustrates the point. When I said "special-case", I did not mean "honor- ary"; to imply that I did is doing me a disservice. (b) I'm not trying to push, just asking: *Why* do you feel that consid- ering women as "special-case" men is such a horrible thing? What I was attempt- ing with that comment is to use "man" in place of "human being". Is it perhaps that "man" is such a loaded word that you are horrified at thinking of yourself as the same kind of biological organism as *I* am? [No snide comments, please; let's leave your perceptions of my personality or attitudes out of this]. Isn't that the whole purpose of feminism -- to say that we're really all the same type of being? Consider the analogy I provided: a square is a special-case rectangle, one in which all four sides are equal in length. Does that somehow imply that squares are inferior to non-square rectangles? (Before you ask, the property that makes women special-case men is that they can bear children -- that is the only *major* difference that *I* can see between the sexes, design is based en- tirely upon this property). This reminds me of an argument I was in many moons ago in which I was asked, "How would you feel if the men were the ones who had to bear children and stay at home while the women went out and worked?" (not that I felt that the reverse was as it should be). My reply was, "Why then the men would be called women, and the women called men, and we'd have the exact same situation that we began with". To forestall misinterpretation, what I meant by that is that a "woman" is a "female person" and "female" is defined as being the sex that bears young, so a reverse of the current situation (women are the ones who bear chil- dren) would be the exact same situation (whoever bears the children would be the women). Would you allow me to say that all this is just one of my "buttons" and that's why I jumped on you like I did. I am willing to admit that my reply may have been more rash than I would have liked, but I'll still stand by everything that I've said. Friends? --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard) UUCP: (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian) ARPA: (decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian@Shasta)