rcne@machaids.UUCP (08/04/83)
The following was extracted from a posting in net.general, net.wanted, net.video. The name is withheld to protect the guilty. ----------------------------------------------------------- "I would like some help from the wise men of netland. ...." ------------------------------------------------------------ <flame on> So this requestor wants help only from men, not the wise women. Or is he implying that only the men are wise? I am so very tired of being left out. Don't I count? Does my sex exclude me from being a contributor to technical areas, the work force, and someone in need? Does an opinion have more value becuase it came from a male instead of a female? I have been sending messages to several net contributors to point out their errors. I have seen too many items like MAN-MONTHS. (F. Brooks is not one of my idols!) With a little extra thought people could clean up their language style. I feel that the dominance of use of masculine terms in lanugage is learned. That means it can be unlearned. <flame off> Am I alone in being disturbed and outraged? Rosemarie Newberry machaids!rcne
andie@cvl.UUCP (Diane L. Donaldson) (08/05/83)
No, Rosemarie, you are not alone. I too am often disturbed by the dominance (excuse the pun) of masculine terms in writing and speaking. Unfortunately, whenever I complain, some well-meaning soul invariably tells me that I'm being "too sensitive" to the problem; that somehow, because I am a woman and notice the problem, that is bad. People such as these say that I would probably want to adopt such terms as "personperson" for "mailman", etc. It's really not that hard to use neutral terms when dealing with both sexes; I always use "they" for he or she, and so does 70% of the population when speaking informally. The standard seems to be changing, but until it does, I will probably always flinch when confronted with sentences such as "Will everyone please pick up his book". Diane seismo!rlgvax!cvl!andie
courtney@hp-pcd.UUCP (Courtney Loomis) (08/06/83)
#R:machaids:-42100:hp-pcd:19100010:000:1334
hp-pcd!courtney Aug 5 13:01:00 1983
No, your not alone... but we can find patience with the understanding that
things don't always change easily or all-at-once.
What burns me is when people don't give a shit and aren't even trying to
get the gender out of their speech when it is unnecessary (and/or socially
destructive).
Another thing that I have been seeing a lot of is people exclaiming that
"men and women ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT" in the same breath as when they
try to justify differential insurance rates, or different abilities to be
a firefighter, or... when the sex of the person has nothing at all to do
with the issue.
It is inappropriate to use the words "men" or "women" when talking about
or discriminating between these two groups (unless you are specifically
talking about biological differences), because these words imply reference
to the INDIVIDUALS of the group. When talking statistics, it is ok to say
that "40% of all women cannot lift more than (some-such) pounds of weight,
while 60% of all men can lift this weight..." This is a fundamentally
different statement than "men can lift more than women"... This diffence
is subtle yet very often overlooked, and it really pisses me off when people
don't pay attention to the semantics of a statement that they are using to
make a point...
Courtney Loomisdebray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (08/06/83)
> ----------------------------------------------------------- > "I would like some help from the wise men of netland. ...." > ------------------------------------------------------------ > <flame on> > > So this requestor wants help only from men, not the wise > women. Or is he implying that only the men are wise? Rosemarie, the word "man" is also used to mean "human being", and "the human race" (consult your favourite dictionary!). Do you use "mankind" to refer to "the set of male Homo Sapiens"? Or "man-made" to mean "made by a male human"? Must we forever tilt at windmills? Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook
deb@uiucuxc.UUCP (08/07/83)
#R:machaids:-42100:uiucuxc:22800011:000:955 uiucuxc!deb Aug 5 08:47:00 1983 the real question is: does an implied/inferred reference to "men only" stop you from responding even if you are capable of supplying a valid response? if it does, then you are equivalently guilty of continuing the "gender gap." i have a hunch that the outrage you mentioned keeps a lot of women from responding, a lot of the time. language is a process of evolution. it doesn't always evolve quickly, it doesn't always evolve the way we think it should, it sometimes reaches a particular state of evolution before we're ready for it, etc., etc. although language is used as one means to express ideas, it is not synonymous with ideas. women must find positive ways to continue changing ideas and stop spending so much energy being outraged at language. sure, i get outraged/disturbed sometimes. and it's sometimes mandatory for mental health reasons to let that outrage loose.... as long as it doesn't take too much of my time. debbie uiucuxc!deb
kmw@iheds.UUCP (08/09/83)
I was also irritated by the request for help from "wise men" of the net, and sent mail to the author pointing it out. I'm sure he didn't really mean to exclude women, but he did. I am posting this article just to let those who really don't think it matters know that it does, at least to some of us. "Men" doesn't mean "men and women". It means either "men," or, at best, "men, and, oh yeah, women, too". I don't like being excluded, or an afterthought. There are plenty of terms refering to people that do not specify sex; if you don't mean "men," use another term. In discussions with other women, I have found my reaction to be quite common. Even if they say nothing, women are irritated and distracted when they are adressed as part of a group and are referred to as "men". It definitely detracts from whatever the speaker was saying. -Kathy Wilber (...iheds!kmw or ...mvuxt!kw)
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (08/11/83)
Okay, enough already. I have been using HE,HIM,HIS all my life when gender was not known. But I will try and repent. On the other hand, using IT offends me because IT is usually reserved for objects or even less-defined things. By using IT, you are objectifying people, which there is certainly too much of in the computer-hacker community (things like, so-and-so is broken, etc.). I don't like that. Here, however, in the age of rampant surveys, is what we will do: Send to me your nomination for a new personal pronoun to be "third person singular neuter personal" and IT will be "third person singular neuter impersonal." If the pronoun changes spelling for case, include all cases (objective, possessive, etc.) Here is a summary: Predicate nominative Objective Possessives I me my,mine you (sing) you your,yours he him his,his she her hers,hers -- mystery pronoun goes here -- it it its,its we us our,ours you (pl) you yours,yours y'all (provincial) y'all y'all's,y'all's (it does, however, avoid ambiguity) they them their,theirs So, mail me your favorite idea, and I'll compile and post the results, and maybe we can even vote on it. Then, maybe we can start using it a lot and get people around us to do this also. THIS IS NOT A :-) !!! We are going to influence language. Somebody has to do it. -- Randwulf (Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)
hakanson@orstcs.UUCP (08/13/83)
#R:machaids:-42100:orstcs:15700002:000:243
orstcs!hakanson Aug 11 10:51:00 1983
Even if we assume "men" refers to humans, we are still excluding any
(whether perceived as such, or really) nonhuman readers of the net.
Seriously, I believe we should all choose our words carefully.
Marion {hp-pcd,teklabs}!orstcs!hakansonkatz@beesvax.UUCP (08/15/83)
i resent/dislike calling my 35 year old 'male companion' my BOYFRIEND. the subject of new words to use for people who live together has been brought up before in different circles. does anyone have any suggestions?
schnitzl@hplabsb.UUCP (Ray Schnitzler) (08/16/83)
I still say "posslq" is cute and effective. "Friend" (capitalized) also works. If you are not embarrassed by it, "lover" is very good. Note that all of these are gender-generic(?).
rst@houxu.UUCP (08/17/83)
What is "posslq"?
softech@micomvax.UUCP (08/20/83)
Here we go again, Rosemarie... Don't you people out there think there are much more important issues at stake than flaming about MAN-MONTHs and the like? I mean, would WOMAN-MONTH be better? Or, as many would suggest, PERSON-MONTH ? Who cares anyway? (In MAN-MONTH, I think the term MAN refers to the *species*, not the sex). Why get annoyed at such trivia? "I am so very tired of being left out. Don't I count?" "Does my sex exclude me from being a contributor to" "technical areas, the work force, and someone in need?" There, there, Rosemarie, of course you count. Just because we men don't always EXPLICITLY mention the other gender(s) doesn't mean we don't take them into account. I agree that many of these language twists are learned, and that as such they could be un-learned. But are they a REAL threat ? I mean, just because you *feel* threatened (or left out, or whatever) doesn't mean that there *is* such a threat (or will to leave you out). On the other hand, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean other people don't laugh at you behind your back... Victimizing yourself and women in general about little things like this would have many men question the true grit the women's movement is supposed to be made of. I don't see Margaret Thatcher whining about how unfair the world is: she just went out there and grabbed the whole bag of jelly beans right under the nose of all those male chauvinist politicians. And that, to me, is what its all about: you want something bad enough, you just reach out and get it. Quickly diving into my asbestos bunker, Richard "I love 'em all" Blouin !philabs!micomvax!softech
rh@mit-eddie.UUCP (Randy Haskins) (08/22/83)
posslq (Person of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters) is a good
alternative.
My grandmother and people of her classification say 'friend,' which
sounds so euphemistic to me. I think it's demeaning to call
someone with whom I share bodies simply, 'friend.'
I'm for saying 'Lover.' If people are hung up by this, SHPX GURZ.
-Randy
--
Randwulf
(Randy Haskins); Path= genrad!mit-eddie!rh or... rh@mit-ee (via mit-mc)stevel@ima.UUCP (08/24/83)
#R:mit-eddi:-64200:ima:36300001:000:307
ima!stevel Aug 23 09:47:00 1983
Randy's posslq (Person of Opposite Sex Sharing Living Quarters)
is still not perfectly explicit. Sharing Living Quarters doesn't
mean sharing bodies how about
possible - Person of Opposite Sex Sharing In Body, Life, and Everything
Steve Ludlum decvax!yale-co!ima!stevel, {ihnp4|ucbvax}!cbosgd!ima!stevel,jim@ism780.UUCP (Jim Balter) (09/06/83)
Re: Here we go again, Rosemarie... Don't you people out there think there are much more important issues at stake than flaming about MAN-MONTHs and the like? I mean, would WOMAN-MONTH be better? Or, as many would suggest, PERSON-MONTH ? Who cares anyway? (In MAN-MONTH, I think the term MAN refers to the *species*, not the sex). Why get annoyed at such trivia? --- Of all the issues discussed on the net, why is this one singled out in terms of its importance relative to other issues? Do you only discuss the issue most important to you? Such arguments are ad hominem and irrelevant. Arguments such as Laura's that the purity of the language is at stake are much more legitimate, but belong elsewhere (where I personally think they could be easily refuted). In the meantime, there are obviously people who do care; your asking who cares is arrogant and condescending. There are people coming up with reasonable terms such as work-months, which you of course ignore because it doesn't make your attack sound as good. I am sure that most of those people spend only a fraction of their time on this language issue, so your "Don't you people ..." question is stupid and condescending rhetoric. I am tired of this insulting belittling of the concerns of myself and others. When someone says something bothers her and wonders if other people have a similar problem, responses of the form "you are a silly little twit for caring about that" or "it is not OK for you to care about that unless you can formally prove that it does you harm" are not being solicited, are not relevant, are ad hominem (attacking the person rather than the argument), are negative, and are misdirecting. If you want to defend the way things are, do so openly, but there is no point in attacking people who are trying to change something for trying to change it, just because you yourself don't consider it worth changing; they will go ahead and change it anyway. Don't you people out there have anything better to do? Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp --------
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (09/07/83)
clarification: I am more interested in the great expense of converting existing language forms, than the purity of language. I also believe that the idea that the language needs changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief, and I am vehemently opposed to legislation on the basis of such beliefs. Note: a student of my father was prevented from having a paper published by the Hospital for Sick Children until the word 'fathering' was changed to 'parenting'. Before you language reformers get up and cheer, consider this -- it is the opinion of my father that the sense of the article was lost since it concerned BIOLOGICAL fathering. And the article was changed without the permission of the author (who is on vacation, and hasn't heard about it yet). People who want to change the language wholesale had better consider these problems. And, in the end, I believe that they are only contributing to the 'smoke screen' belief that sexism is inherant in the language. If sexism is not in the language, then language reforms of this nature are a waste of time and money which could be spent studying and perhaps even attacking the real problems. laura creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura