saquigley@watdaisy.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (01/23/84)
I read a short article in the December 83 issue of Ms Magazine that sparked my interest, first because I started reading it with very negative feelings against it and then liked it, then I gave it to my SO who usually reads Ms from cover to cover and he reacted very strongly against it even after he had finished reading it. It is about the feminisation of "great" litterature. I would be curious to see how some people react to it as I reacted very strongly both against it then for it. In this one page article entitled "a gift to my daughter", the author explains how she decided to "feminise" some great sayings so as to make them more accessible to her daughter. The way this author makes her point about the importance of this is by example. I would like to do the same thing so I will reproduce (without permission) some parts of the article. I am curious now as to people's reactions. Without bothering about whether it is morally right to change people's writings or about whether it it a waste of time to do so, what do you think of the following examples? "Go, seeker, if you will, throughout the land and you will find us burning in the night... To every woman her chance, to every woman, regardless of her birth, her shining golden opportunity - to every woman the right to live, to work, to be herself, and to become whatever thing her womanhood and her vision can combine to make her - this, seeker, is the promise of America" Thomas Wolfe, You can't Gp Home Again, 1940 "Whoever would change women must change the conditions of their lives." Theodore Herzl, Diary, 1923 "When even one American - who has done nothing wrong - is forced by fear to shut her mind and close her mouth, then all Americans are in peril" Harry S Truman, New York Times Magazine "You have not converted a woman, because you have silenced her" John Morley, On Compromise, 1874 "My political ideal is democracy. Let every woman be respected as an individual and no woman idolised" Albert Einstein, "Forum and Century", 1931, volume 84 "Human history begins with woman's act of disobedience which is at the same time the beginning of her freedom and development of her reason" Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and religion, 1950 "Put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this State will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only women can speak in whatever way given them to utter what their hearts hold - by voice, by posted card, by letters, or by press. Reason never has failed women. Only force and opression have mades the wrecks in the world" William Allen White The Emporia gazette, 1922
smann@ihu1g.UUCP (01/24/84)
Your experiment in feminizing literature was appreciated. I had to important reactions while reading the quotes: The words spoke more directly to me than they otherwise would have, and I appreciated the fact that I am neglected by most of what I read. I have done this myself and found it useful when reading certain books. Thanks, Sherry Mann ihu1g!smann AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville
bch@unc.UUCP (Byron Howes ) (01/24/84)
I find I have a very negative reaction to the bowdlerization of any text for any purpose, even in support of the women's movement which I whole- heartedly support. Changing the original text to any end implies a form of censorship which is, to me, a more critical issue than human rights. Although changing pronoun references and gender may seem a minor detail, certainly not destroying the intent or sense of the text, it opens a door for further rewriting by those who do not agree with the political direction of a citation. Secondarily (and *really* secondarily) if text is to be made "more accessible" by changing gender references, then why not something like the following (I feel very uncomfortable doing this): "Go, seeker, if you will, throughout the land and you will find us burning in the night... To everyone the chance, to everyone, regardless of birth, the shining golden opportunity - to everyone the right to live, to work, to be yourself, and to become whatever thing your individuality and vision can combine to make you - this, seeker, is the promise of America" Thomas Wolfe, You Can't Go Home Again, 1940 "Whoever would change people must change the conditions of their lives." Theodore Herzl, Diary, 1923 "When even one American - who has done nothing wrong - is forced by fear to shut the mind and close the mouth, then all Americans are in peril" Harry S Truman, New York Times Magazine "You have not converted a person, because you have silenced them" John Morley, On Compromise, 1874 "My political ideal is democracy. Let every one be respected as an individual and no person idolised" Albert Einstein, "Forum and Century", 1931, volume 84 "Human history begins with the act of disobedience which is at the same time the beginning of freedom and development of reason" Erich Fromm, Psychoanalysis and Religion, 1950 "Put fear out of your heart. This nation will survive, this State will prosper, the orderly business of life will go forward if only people can speak in what ever way given them to utter what their hearts hold - by voice, by posted card, by letters, or by press. Reason never has failed. Only force and oppression have mades the wrecks in the world" William Allen White The Emporia Gazette, 1922 [The last quotation seems particularly applicable here...] -- Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill (decvax!duke!unc!bch)
kmw@iheds.UUCP (01/25/84)
I, too, read the MS article on "feminizing" literature. I had mixed reactions. If I had a daughter, in the interest of historical and literary accuracy I would want her to know the correct quotations, male generic pronouns and all. But I would want her to have heard the feminine versions first. Aside from considerations of accuracy, the original quotations reflect the times of the authors; in fact, some of them most definitely did NOT mean "men and women" when they said "men", to point out one of the more extreme effects of their times. This is important to know. But assuming that the point of being exposed to the quotations in the first place is to consider their meaning (or lack of meaning) relative to one's own life, I think it is far better for a girl to hear them first refering to "women". I know that when I was growing up, I most definitely did not perceive statements about men or mankind in general with the same immediacy that I perceived statements about women. They went through a filter of: Did they really mean women, too? If they didn't, should they have? If they didn't and should have, why didn't they? If they did mean women, too, why didn't they say so? If I can't tell the answers to any of the above questions from context of the quote, does it make a difference? etc., etc., etc.... I was a feminist at a very early age; at different ages the above questions were answered with considerably different depth. But at all ages, those issues coming up at all detracted considerably from the impact of the original quotations. -- K. M. Wilber iheds!kmw or mvuxs!kw
preece@uicsl.UUCP (01/26/84)
#R:watdaisy:-644900:uicsl:16400032:000:555 uicsl!preece Jan 25 09:50:00 1984 The feminized quotations in two ways. They make you think about Woman's role in the world and they make you think about the authors' meanings in a different light. Most of the authors would probably not object to the changes, which do no violence to the underlying sentiments. What is curious, though, is that when we read the revised versions they carry not only their intended meaning about human-kind but they also seem to speak directly to feminism and to the things women must do if feminism is to triumph. scott preece ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (01/27/84)
I enjoyed Sophie's excerpts from `Ms'. I think the flames that precede
me miss the point. The words do sound different -- more inclusive --
in a feminized form.
No, we shouldn't go out revising literature to serve political ends
no matter how noble, but sometimes it is helpful to look at things
differently, to change the words to see how they sound (are they still
true? How is it different? Does it `feel' different?).
Though `men' and `man' are, in some contexts, supposed to apply to all
people, sometimes we need to be reminded of that. I think what Sophie's
contribution has done (for me anyway) is to remind me of that.
--
Gordon A. Moffett
{ allegra, decvax!decwrl } !amd70!proper
hplabs!intelca!proper!gamwelsch@houxu.UUCP (Larry Welsch) (01/27/84)
(to the eater of first lines) I read the article in Ms. and the articles by Sophie and Laura on the network and have some general comments. I would like to start in the area of ownership. Science and the laws of science are not owned or ownable by individuals. Inventions based on principles discovered by scientists are ownable for a period of time. The same principle holds for concepts. Concepts are not ownable, but a particular expression of a concept is, and if that expression is written, then it is owned via copy-right. Therefore I conclude that no one owns the concepts expressed either by the famous statements or the modifications made to them in the article in Ms. The first question, I asked myself on reading the quotations and the modified quotations was whether or not they expressed same concepts. I decided no, the modified quotation and original expressed different concepts. The modified quotation referred only to women not to all people. The originals could be interpreted as referring to all people, but more likely referred just to men. For example, I see three different concepts expressed by the following "My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolised" "My political ideal is democracy. Let every woman be respected as an individual and no woman idolised" "My political ideal is democracy. Let every person be respected as an individual and no person idolised" The second question, I asked myself, is if the concepts expressed are different is there an infringement on ownership. After all just because an invention is used for something it was not intended doesn't mean that the inventor loses ownership of the invention. My conclusion here was wording was sufficiently close that ownership (ie. copy-right) would have been infringed on if the quotations had copy-rights. The third question, I asked myself is how to correct the problem of expressing a new (by new I mean slightly different) concept without infringing on someone else's ownership of the expression of another concept. The answer is simple, find a different way of expressing the concept. For example, instead of "My political ideal is democracy. Let every man be respected as an individual and no man idolised" try Democracy is my political ideal. All people are respected for their own qualities and privilege is given to no one. Another approach is just to ask the owners to amend their statements. Now for some comment on "feminisation of great" literature. There is no way great literature should be fiminized. Instead of worrying about what has happened in the past I recommend creating great feminine literature in the future. Two reasons. First, we have a hard enough time keeping the past straight without rewriting it. Second, feminizing great literature will perpetuate the myth feminine was derived from masculine, ie. the only way to create a great woman is to take a rib from a great man and feminize it. From the view point of making the literature more available to a daughter, I believe that the result will be just the opposite. However, there is a more important effect that makes the exercise the author perhaps overlooked. That effect is to acquaint us with just how far we have to go to have equality. I think from this view point the exercise is worth while and can be used as a teaching vehicle, for sons, daughters, mothers and fathers. It makes you think. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
emjej@uokvax.UUCP (01/31/84)
#R:watdaisy:-644900:uokvax:6500004:000:7190 uokvax!emjej Jan 27 11:53:00 1984 Concerning hacking literature to fit current fashion, I think that the following, which was posted to net.jokes.d, is eminently applicable. James Jones ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Author's Afterword (from Fahrenheit 451 - Ray Bradbury) About two years ago, a letter arrived from a solemn young Vassar lady telling me how much she enjoyed reading my experiment in space mythology, The Martian Chronicles. But, she added, wouldn't it be a good idea, this late in time, to rewrite the book inserting more women's characters and roles? A few years before that I got a certain amount of mail concerning the same Martian book complaining that the blacks in the book were Uncle Toms and why didn't I "do them over"? Along about then came a note from a Southern white suggesting that I was prejudiced in favor of the blacks and the entire story should be dropped. Two weeks ago ny mountain of mail delivered forth a pipsqueak mouse of a letter from a well-known publishing house that wanted to reprint my story "The Fog Horn" in a high school reader. In my story, I had described a lighthouse as having, late at night, an illumination coming from it that was a "God-Light." Looking up at it from the viewpoint of any sea-creature one would have felt that one was in "the Pres- ence." The editors had deleted "God-Light" and "in the Presence." Some five years back, the editors of yet another anothology for school readers put together a volume with some 400 (count 'em) short stories in it. How do you cram 400 short stories by Twain, Irving, Poe, Maupasant and Bierce into one book? Simplicity itself. Skin, debone, demarrow, scarify, melt, render down and destroy. Every adjective that counted, every verb that moved, every meta- phore that weighed more than a mosquito -- out! Every simile that would have made a sub-moron's mouth twitch -- gone! Any aside that explained the two-bit philosophy of a first-rate writer -- lost! Every story, slenderized, starved, bluepenciled, leeched and bled white, resembled every other story. Twain read like Poe read like Shakespeare read like Doestoevsky read like -- in the finale -- Edgar Guest. Every word of more than three syllables had been razored. Every image that demanded so much as one instant's attention -- shot dead. Do you begin to get the damned and incredible picture? How did I react to all of the above? By "firing" the whole lot. By sending rejection slips to each and every one. By ticketing the assembly of idiots to the far reaches of hell. The point is obvious. There is more than one way to burn a book. And the world is full of people running around with lit matches. Every minority, be it Baptist/Unitarian, Irish/Italian/Octogenarian/Zen Buddhist, Zionist/ Seventh-day Adventist, Women's Lib/Republican, Mattachine/Four Square Gospel feels it has the will, the right, the duty to douse the kerosine, light the fuse. Every dimwit editor who sees himself as the source of all dreary blanc- mange plain porridge unleavened literature, licks his guillotine and eyes the neck of any author who dares to speak above a whisper or write above a nursery rhyme. Fire-Captain Beatty, in my novel "Fahrenheit 451", described how the books were burned first by minorities, each ripping a page or a paragraph from this book, then that, until the day came when the books were empty and the minds shut and the libraries closed forever. "Shut the door, they're coming through the window, shut the window, they're coming through the door," are the words to an old song. They fit my life-style with newly arriving butcher/censors every month. Only six weeks ago, I discovered that, over the years, some cubby-hole editors at Ballentine Books, fearful of contaminating the young, had, bit by bit, censored some 75 separate sections from the novel. Students, reading the novel which, after all, deals with censorship and book-burning in the future, wrote to tell me of this exqui- site irony. Judy-Lynn Del Rey, one of the new Ballentine editors, is having the entire book reset and republished this summer with all the damns and hells back in place. A final test for old Job II here: I sent a play, "Leviathan 99", off to a university theatre a month ago. My play is based on the "Moby Dick" myth- ology, dedicated to Melville, and concerns a rocket crew and a blind space cap- tain who venture forth to encounter a Great White Comet and destroy the dest- royer. My drama premiers as an opera in Paris this autumn. But, for now, the university wrote back that they hardly dared do my play -- it had no women in it! And the ERA ladies on campus would descend with ballbats if the drama de- partment even tried. Grinding my bicuspids into powder, I suggested that would mean, from now on, no more productions of "Boys in the Band" (no women), or "The Women" (no men). Or, counting heads, male and female, a good lot of Shakespeare that would never be seen again, especially if you count lines and find that all the good stuff went to the males! I wrote back maybe they should do my play one week, and "The Women" the next. They probably thought I was joking, and I'm not sure that I wasn't. For it is a mad world and it will get madder if we allow the minor- ities, be they dwarf or giant, orangutan or dolphin, nuclear-head or water-con- servationist, pro-computerologist or Neo-Luddite, simpleton or sage, to inter- fere with aesthetics. The real world is the playing ground for each and every group, to make or unmake laws. But the tip of the nose of my book or stories or poems is where their rights end and my territorial imperatives begin, run and rule. If Mormons do not like my plays, let them write their own. If the Irish hate my Dublin stories, let them rent typewriters. If teachers and gram- mar school editors find my jawbreaker sentences shatter their mushmilk teeth, let them eat stale cake dunked in weak tea of their own ungodly manufacture. If the Chicano intellectuals wish to re-cut my "Wonderful Ice Cream Suit" so it shapes "Zoot," may the belt unravel and the pants fall. For, lets face it, digression is the soul of wit. Take philosophic asides away from Dante, Milton or Hamlet's father's ghost and what stays is dry bones. Laurence Sterne said it once: Digressions, incontestably, are the sun- shine, the life, the soul of reading! Take them out and one cold eternal winter would reign in every page. Restore them to the writer -- he steps forth like a bridegroom, bids all-hail, brings in variety and forbids the appetite to fail. In sum, do not insult me with the beheadings, finger-choppings or the lung-deflations you plan for my works. I need my head to shake or nod, my hand to wave or make into a fist, my lungs to shout or whisper with. I will not go gently onto a shelf, degutted, to become a non-book. All you umpires, back to the bleachers. Referees, hit the showers. It's my game. I pitch, I hit, I catch. I run the bases. At sunset I've won or lost. At sunrise, I'm out again, giving it the old try. And no one can help me. Not even you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jsq@ut-sally.UUCP (John Quarterman) (01/31/84)
Ursula LeGuin wrote a novel called The Left Hand of Darkness, in which
most of the characters were of a race where each person was at
different times male, female, and neither. She used masculine pronouns
in referring to her characters. This caused complaints from many
feminists that she should have either invented neutral pronouns or used
female ones as well as or instead of male ones.
Some time earlier, Ms. LeGuin had written a short story called
"Winter's King" that was a prequel to the novel. In revising it for
the collection The Wind's Twelve Quarters, she used male titles and
female pronouns. The universal reaction to this practice among
everyone I have asked about it was mild disorientation or sensation of
novelty at first, but almost complete disregard by the end of the
story. The pronouns had little or no effect on the perception of the
characters by the readers, regardless of the readers' preconceptions
beforehand. There *was* an effect on perception of the relation of
parent and child, but possibly not what you would think.
You must remember, though, that LeGuin *wrote it that way* in both
cases. If someone had taken the novel and changed all the male
pronouns to female ones and then *passed off passages as real
quotations* that would be indefensible. Book burners are no worse.
Furthermore, with short one-line or one-paragraph "quotations", all you
see is the novelty, not the real final effect (or lack, rather).
Of the examples given in a previous article, the Thomas Wolfe
"quotation" was the worst mangled because his prose depends so much on
the sound and especially the rhythm of it. But all of them were
*WRONG* because *that's*not*what*they*wrote*!
--
John Quarterman, CS Dept., University of Texas, Austin, Texas
jsq@ut-sally.ARPA, jsq@ut-sally.UUCP, {ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!jsqsaquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/02/84)
I, too was an early feminist. I can remember exactly when it happened: When I was in grade 1, our teacher explained to us (my mother tongue is french) that if you had a hundred female cats and one male cat, the collective pronoun would be "ils". French is an even more sexist language than English. I was terribly shocked by this and asked "what if the male cat was hidden?". It was still "ils". The idea that one stupid male cat that nobody could see would be more important than one hundred female cats really got to me. I wondered about this for a long time thinking about situations in which one would be allowed to say "elles". I've discussed this "s/he" topic a few times with people very rationally and came to the conclusion each time that 'yes, I know it is wrong, but there's not really too much we can do about it, and anyway people don't mean "he" when they say it, they really mean "he or she", so they mean it for me; all I have to do is get used to the idea, that's much simpler than changing the language; besides, changing languages is very complicated and costly and awkward and there are many more important things to worry about than this` So, when I read that article, I started thinking along those reasonable lines until I came to the examples; then it hit me, what a bunch of crap all those excuses are! if "he" means "s/he" then how come putting "she" in those sayings make them look like some of the best (or corniest) feminist propaganda? Just look at them! if I had said all these things the way they are now, I would have been called all sorts of names. The ideas expressed in there sound revolutionary when they are applied to women, words of wisdom when applied to men: "to every woman her chance, to every woman, regardless of her birth, her shining golden opportunity - to every woman the right to live, to work, to be herself, and to become whatever thing her womanhood and her vision can combine to make her". Doesn't this "every woman" sound like she is going to do all sorts of horrible things, like "destroy our families"? This is when ** THE TRUTH ** came to me: a "he" is a "he" is a "he" and a "she" is a "she" is a "she" and a "man" is .... and a "woman" is a ... When people say "he" they think "he" and they mean "he". The reason we "she"s have trouble understanding that ""he" means me too" is not because we have some kind of "translation problem" or "lack of imagination", but simply because "he" is ""he" (i.e. not me)". I laughed (inside), how could I have been so stupid all these years? I knew it all along and it is so obvious that "he" means "he", after all that's the definition of the word, isn't it?, why was I trying to believe that this wasn't true? While I was guiltily enjoying the lecture of this feminist propaganda, I noticed something else in me. As these words were talking to me, I was listening to what they were saying. I had heard some of these in their original version and had found them nice but somewhat corny, chinese fortune cookie-ish, and pompous. But now they evoked all sorts of weird feelings in me. For a while, I was ready to go jump on barricades and hurl stones at whoever wanted to attack my freedom. I was going to die defending my beliefs and my rights to ...... When I regained my wits, I finally understood how people managed to get manipu- lated by all sorts of propaganda, because it happened to me (Gosh, just like the poor Americans and their TDA I flamed at in net.politics) And to think I thought I was immune to propaganda because I was much more intelligent than all those stupid people who believe all this crap when actually it was simply because the crap was never properly fired at me! Feed ME crap and watch me run; I'll fly for you!! (pause.. humbling moment.. (I am getting more and more of these as I grow up)) Fortunately, I was saved from my humility by the **Feminist thought of the day** (they sure come at very appropriate times) How many women out there are like me? people have been saying all along that we women are much more peaceful than those awful testosterone-loaded men. Could it simply be because we were never adequately manipulated because the manipulators didn't understand how to talk to us, and so we managed to keep a clearer mind and see the words for what they were, just words? who knows? Moral of the story: none. I just wanted to see how other people reacted to this article which made me react so strongly because for once it spoke to me. Another thing I wondered about and still wonder about: am I the only person in the world who has to constantly rediscover basic truths that I knew all along? All of this "words are powerful" stuff has been said before. I did my duty, I read about Newspeak, understood it, even agreed with it. There are lots of other stuff I read about, understand and agree with or disagree with. I have thought about lots of thoughts along with their authors as I have read their words, and yet it is only when people say "hey you!! yes I mean YOU, listen to what I am saying" that I finally fully listen and understand. Is this a perception problem that I have because I am human, because I am a woman, or because I am immature me? Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
wombat@uicsl.UUCP (02/02/84)
#R:watdaisy:-644900:uicsl:16400037:000:882 uicsl!wombat Feb 1 13:50:00 1984 I don't think most people are talking about "censorship" here; they just want to give their children the chance to hear an idea in a form that may cause them to see more relevance to their own lives. Adults can play games feminising literature to see how it changes the works, how it reflects on the authors, etc., but I don't think anyone is seriously proposing feminising their local library, or even mindlessly replacing men with people in arbitrary works. I think once children start reading for themselves, they should be told what's what and given the writer's original words, but with the option of reading what they want to into those words. Parents just might want to make their daughters feel included, though, in bedtime stories and philosophical quotes; they also might want to show their sons that females are people, too. Wombat ihnp4!uiucdcs!uicsl!wombat
saquigley@watmath.UUCP (Sophie Quigley) (02/07/84)
To all those of you who have sent me mail on this topic and to whom (who?) I haven't answered, thank you. Your comments were interesting and I liked reading them. Sophie Quigley watmath!saquigley
dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale) (02/08/84)
From Sophie Quigley: The ideas expressed in there sound revolutionary when they are applied to women, words of wisdom when applied to men: "to every woman her chance, to every woman, regardless of her birth, her shining golden opportunity - to every woman the right to live, to work, to be herself, and to become whatever thing her womanhood and her vision can combine to make her". Doesn't this "every woman" sound like she is going to do all sorts of horrible things, like "destroy our families"? This is when ** THE TRUTH ** came to me: a "he" is a "he" is a "he" and a "she" is a "she" is a "she" and a "man" is .... and a "woman" is a ... When people say "he" they think "he" and they mean "he". The reason we "she"s have trouble understanding that ""he" means me too" is not because we have some kind of "translation problem" or "lack of imagination", but simply because "he" is ""he" (i.e. not me)". I laughed (inside), how could I have been so stupid all these years? I knew it all along and it is so obvious that "he" means "he", after all that's the definition of the word, isn't it?, why was I trying to believe that this wasn't true? Hmm. My immediate reaction to reading phrases such as those quoted above is "but why exclude men". I realize that women have probably thought exactly the same thing when hearing the male-oriented version of the sentence. I was surprised at the strength of my feeling of being "left out" because the phrases seemingly didn't apply to me. What the language needs is some concise way of specifying clearly that both sexes are intended yet is not too ugly to speak or write down. I haven't seen such a method, but perhaps I will now be a bit less supportive of the solution of just using masculine pronouns for the entire species.
daemon@decwrl.UUCP (02/09/84)
From: akov68::boyajian ******************************************************************************** from Sherry Marts: I can't imagine that any (formally or self) educated person, male or female, would readily give up the privilege of reading great literature as originally written. From a feminist perspective, such literature serves as a record of the psychological, social, and political oppres- sion of women throughout history. (Conspicuous in its nearly complete absence is the literature of, by and about women, but that is another topic.)... No, I would never condone the re-writing of any work of literature, no matter how sexist. These works are part of the history of MANkind's greatest crime, the continuous, systematic oppresssion of one half of humanity. But I see no harm, and great good, in encouraging the imagina- tion and vision of the next generation of women. ******************************************************************************** I'm tempted to flame rather hotly in response to this, but I'll try to keep calm. Quite frankly, I don't see where you get off psychoanalyzing writers of the past. The fact that they have used the generic he/him/his/MANkind/etc. only shows that they followed the rules of English grammar. I fail to see how this implies that they are oppressing "one half of humanity" by doing so. To say that they are guilty of "MANkind's greatest crime" without having the slightest know- ledge of their motivations or characters smacks of the worst kind of blind, knee- jerk arrogance. By your standards, I (because of my usage of the generic he/etc.) am an oppressor of women, but if you should tell me that to my face (or my term- inal), your ears would probably burn from my response. Indulge me in a semi-facetious argument, please. Take a look at the words "feMALE", "woMAN", "sHE". Now try looking at things from a different perspective. Has it occured to you that instead of the masculine terms being used for the generic, it's actually the generic terms that are being used for the masculine? Practically speaking, it makes no difference which is the source and which is the object, but the implications are vastly different (That was the serious part, now we go for the facetious part) What this means is that us poor men, who don't count for nothing, have to use generic terms in reference to us while you women get to have words all to yourself. We're just ordinary generic human (excuse me, huMAN) beings while you're something *special*! Women are just special-case men, rather like squares are special-case rectangles. So think about it. Long and hard. Are you *really* convinced that the traditional generic terms have a one-to-one relationship with the oppression of women? Are you *really* convinced that inventing new generic terms will and/or introducing clumsy construction will end oppression of women? I'm certainly not. As I said in my previous posting, changing the language will not eliminate sexist thought, but eliminate sexist thought and you will also eliminate the need to change the language. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard) UUCP: (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian) ARPA: (decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian@Shasta)
jamcmullan@watmath.UUCP (Judy McMullan) (02/10/84)
I think Thoman Johnston missed the point of the "feminized" quotes. Altering
the quotes was a vehicle for generating some news ways of thinking about the
sentiments expressed. No matter that the word "man" means "man or woman". When
the word "woman" is used in the quote, it speaks to a woman more directly and
has more power to stir up her feelings. The new quotes were
INTENDED to speak to only women.
That was the point of the original article in "Ms". Not only did the altered
quotes seem to apply to women more, they often seemed as if they were
urging women to be strong and take control of their own lives, as the
feminist movement urges.
--from the sssstickkky keyboard of J.A.M.
...!{allegra|decvax}!watmath!jamcmullancdanderson@watarts.UUCP (02/13/84)
As a male, I am convinced of the power of words as indicators
of cultural mores and folkways and that, if found improper, should be
changed to reflect that the perception has been registered and acted
upon.
I further believe that we must do more than believe ourselves
out of oppressive conditions. Such foolishness has served to keep millions
in their place through, for eg., religions which state that even though
you are starving or in a dictatorship, it is meant to be that way, so
enjoy the inner bliss of at least knowing God.
n.b. The only reason for putting "As a male" in the 1'st
sentence was to show that even we can "learn" to recognize the harm
that certain gender-limiting terms can bring and desire to change them.
Otherwise, gender unimportant.
C.D. Andersonsam@phs.UUCP (02/15/84)
Apparently I did not make my point clearly enough, for I do not
believe, as Jerry Boyajian has
misinterpreted, that sexism in works of literature
begins and ends solely with the use of masculine pronouns as generics;
nor was I "psychoanalyzing" anyone. Let me take a step back and outline the
premises behind what I was trying to say.
First, I am taking as given that sexism is a pervasive force in society and
has been so for thousands of years. Second, I am assuming that individuals
producing works of art or literature at a given time in history would have
internalized the attitudes concerning women and woman's role current at the
time. The important thing to note here is that I am not referring solely
to the use of masculine pronouns as generics. The treatment of woman by
most male and many female novelists, poets, historians, painters,
sculptors, philosophers, theologians, critics, 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 means that he is (in a subtle and
insidious way of which he may not have been aware) contributing to the
oppression of women. (Pause while I put on my asbestos earmuffs).
Mr. Boyajian's "semi-facetious" argument serves to reinforce my
point. Whether masculine is generic or generic is masculine, such a
construction sets woman apart as Other, something separate from the
all-important male. 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 just how honored she felt.)
No intelligent person could believe that the oppression of women will
end once language has been reformed and made inclusive. Rather, I believe
that as sexist oppression is recognized, fought, and eliminated, language
will change (is changing?) to reflect the real change taking place in the
minds and hearts of people. Formal rules of grammar change as usage
changes; witness the now accepted use of the pronoun "who" in the objective
case. I think the mere fact that inclusive language is being discussed at
all is a small step forward.
Sherry Marts
duke!phs!samcdanderson@watarts.UUCP (02/23/84)
I am currently enrolled in a course in Communications Theory. As the
professor is an unabashed sexist w.r.t. language and the other members of the
class are going along with it, I thought I had better use my opportunity to
present a seminar to address the problems of misogynous language structures.
What I hope to do is to show how the use of HE etc. for One affects our wayof thinking and isolates females, and with the other problems extant, why
a non-sexist language is developing .
Another problem I wish to deal with is that of the paucity of terms coming
from a woman's sense of the world. As the Prof. put it, if a word does not existeither does the concept. What concepts are emerging from the rise of Feminism?
If you know of material dealing with Feminism and Language or attempts to
develop genderless language structures, please forward the information to
me. It would be very much appreciated!
Cameron Anderson
watarts!cdanderson
or C/O Integrated Studies
University of Waterloo, Ontario
Waterloo, Ontario
N2L 3G1
or (519) 885-1211 X-2345