rob@lzmi.UUCP (09/02/83)
[I am posting this response for a friend of mine who does not have Usenet access of her own. Please mail replies to .....!pegasus!lzmi!lznv!klc thanks.....rob (yes, I AM a supportive male) coben] In response to Richard Blouin on his stupid comments on language: Why do you think that language is so trivial an issue? If I said to you: "the guys in my group went to lunch", would the image of men, women, or both come to mind? My guess is that the image of men come to mind. Thus, women are excluded, although not intential, by that type of a statement. Furthermore, even if PERSON MONTH sounds weird, STAFF MONTH does not. At work, the use of staff in place of man is quite acceptable. As it implies no gender, it should be used. If you still protest this point, then it is clear that you are not supportive of all people having an equal opportunity. Otherwise why should you protest? Do you do so because you do not want to change? Well, when ever you start a new job, the environment is different and you must adjust (change) to this new environment. This is a similar circumstance. The use of man instead of a non-gender word or girl instead of women is similar to the use of colored instead of black. I am 35 and grew up with everyone saying colored. When the black power movement instilled the concept that black is beautiful and thus they wanted to be called black instead of colored, I changed as a matter of respect to what *they* wanted to be called. If I wanted to put them down and be non-supportive, I would have continued to say colored. But I wanted to be supportive so I changed my vocabulary. Did you, or are you too young? Think about why you do not want to change. Chances are you do not feel that women warrant the respect. This is an issue of support and respect! In closing, I would like to comment on your statements of why don't women just go out and grab what they want. This is something that women (and men) have to do. The old saying of "God helps them who help themselves" is apropos here. However, if one is discriminated against, one cannot grab what one wants. For example, the first job I ever applied for I would told that they were not hiring women because I might have a baby. Well, this is 14 years later and I still have not have a baby. Was it worth not hiring me? They certainly missed out as I do an excellent job. The point is that along with trying to help yourself, you have to have an environment that is supportive. Thus, try being supportive and you will see that women will grab the whole bag of jelly beans (or are you too afraid that then you will be passed over?). Karen L. Cohen
preece@uicsl.UUCP (09/07/83)
#R:lzmi:-11100:uicsl:16400014:000:1602 uicsl!preece Sep 6 10:47:00 1983 I like the word firefighter instead of fireman, it's a nice, descriptive word. I'm less comfortable with chairperson, especially since it often is used only for females. I usually just make it chair, when it's my choice. When I hear the phrase 'the guys at the office' I don't make any gender assumption -- i've heard 'the guys' or 'you guys' (as opposed to 'a guy,' which would connote maleness) used gender-free as long as i can remember. Around here we usually say 'FTE month.' I don't know whether that's a response to AA requirements, but I'd bet it is (it stands for 'full time equivalent'). It's a struggle to write gender-free prose. Those generic pronouns do crop up from time to time. If I really can't get around it gracefully, I usually use 'he or she' (or vice versa), though I like the idea of alternating. Usually I just rewrite so it isn't necessary at all. And I'm not afraid to use 'one,' even if it does sound pompous. But I would like to urge everyone to just try to find appealing words as alternatives, instead of making pedestrian substitutions of person for man or euphemistic alternatices like sanitation engineer. Let's aim for vigorous, attractive language, the kinds of words that make people say 'why didn't we always call firemen firefighters?' I would point out that it is possible to differ on the issue of words that contain 'man' without being unenlightened or unsupportive. Sesame Street, while always very careful to portray all kinds of people in all kinds of roles, still says 'fireman.' scott preece uiuc - coordinated science lab pur-ee!uiucdcs!uicsl!preece
bentson@csu-cs.UUCP (09/08/83)
I've been experimenting with the phrase "labor-{hour,day,month,year}"
instead of "man-{hour,day,month,year}" and have found it to be
suitable and natural to use.
Randy Bentson
csu-cs!bentson
Colo State U - Comp Scipaulp@tekcad.UUCP (09/12/83)
#R:lzmi:-11100:tekcad:22000007:000:287
tekcad!paulp Sep 11 20:20:00 1983
Re: The Great Language Debate
Yawn
Paul Pomes
Usenet: {ucbvax,decvax,pur-ee,ihnss,chico}!teklabs!tekcad!paulp
CSnet: paulp@tek
ARPA: paulp.tek@rand-relay
US Mail: Paul Pomes, Tektronix, Inc.
Box 500 MS 59-323, Beaverton OR 97077
Phone: 503-627-2341