mokhtar@ubc-vision.UUCP (02/03/84)
Why is "feminizing" literature equivalent to replacing the 'he' pronouns
by the 'she' pronouns? If it wasn't so good to use 'he' pronouns to refer
to people, isn't replacing them by 'she' pronouns the same kind of not so
good thing in reverse? Beware of Female Chauvanism in the name of Feminism,
although I have my reservations about the word "Feminism" too. (remember I
said the WORD). As long as he's and she's are so important, How would one
make sure that justice really has been served with he's and she's? I guess
one would use he's 50% of the time and she's the other 50%. But that is not
enough. The context in which he's and she's appear are not always equally
important. If equal number of he's and she's are used but he's appear in
more important contexts, that would be injustice. How would one attach
weights to contexts so that the "weighted" number of he's and she's would
be equal? How about using a (he or she) or (she or he) or (s)he or s/he, etc.
whenever in doubt? But which pronoun would one use first? There are a lot of
issues to resolve for those "feminists" who set out to "feminize" literature.
If the pronouns can be "feminized", why not "feminize" the ideas contained
in the literature? Something starts to go wrong. One could rewrite history
that way. Fine except that it won't be true anymore.
PS. Why can't we have a gender-less pronoun used for people when in doubt
or when gender is irrelevant? It would be so useful. Additions are
made to languages all the time.