phyllis@utcsrgv.UUCP (Phyllis Eve Bregman) (08/16/83)
Whether Laura agrees with it or not, it is essential to incorporate
genderless grammar into modern English usage. It takes time and patience,
and the willingness of a population to do this. When I was a child
growing-up in New York City, the term "Black" was never used to refer
to a "Negro" person. Then came the integration riots of the 50's, JFK
and Martin Luther King, Jr. in the 60's, and slowly the grammar we were
all taught changed. There are still some older people, my mother on
occasion, for one, who still have to think about it, but, it is my belief,
that few people (except for the bigots in the South) who grew-up from
1950- would think to use the word "Negro".
I object to being lumped together or excluded. I object strongly when
I answer my officemates' phone (three males), and it is assumed that I
am their secretary--the opposite NEVER occurs when they answer my
phone! I object to the many letters I receive that begin "Dear Sir"
or are addressed to "Mr. Phyllis Eve Bregman"! I object that it took
a long time for my children to understand that women can be firefighters,
policepersons and telephone repairpeople, to name a few. English is
confusing enough, and, it seems to me, this one area could easily be
unmuddled by insightful, clearthinking individuals. (And no, I am not
going to change my name to "Bregperson").
Leaving the question of grammar and common usage aside for a moment, I
think we have to look at our learned behavior and attitudes. I am no
longer, for the most part, referred to as a Kike, and Blacks, for the
most part, are no longer referred to as Negroes or Nigger. And there
are other minority groups who are no longer referred to derogatorily.
Why? Because these distasteful names are insulting, for one! Well,
since women feel similarly, then common usage, learned behavior and
attitudes MUST be changed, as they have been previously! It seems
perfectly obvious to me and to most of my peers.
--
Phyllis Eve Bregman
CSRG, Univ. of Toronto
{linus,ihnp4,uw-beaver,floyd,utzoo}!utcsrgv!phyllismmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (08/17/83)
When I was growing up, "Negro" was a polite term for Blacks, and "Black" was offensive. I think this changed because of a general consciousness- raising campaign "Black is beautiful", which helped Blacks to be proud of being themselves. I understand that earlier "Nigger" was a polite form of "nigra", which is presumably the same word as "Negro", but I am not sure of this. The point is that the words each in turn came to have insulting connotations because the group concerned was thought of as inferior. The same thing happened to a series of "polite" "non-pejorative" words for the institution sometimes called a "lunatic asylum". Social attitudes affect our feelings towards words, and our uses of words reflect our social attitudes. But I don't think the language is strong enough to have profound effects on the attitudes we express with it. Perhaps we should try for precision of expression rather than worrying about changing what we now use any ol' way. Martin Taylor
dje@5941ux.UUCP (08/18/83)
Am I mistaken, or wasn't it the case ~20 years ago that "Black" was a demeaning term, while "Negro" was regarded as polite (at least from a white perspective)?
tech@auvax (08/25/83)
It seemed perfectly obvious to nineteenth century surgeons that removing the womb and ovaries made women less hysterical-hens hysterectomies. It seems perfectly obvious to me that I can hate a Native American just as much as I can hate a Wagon Burner. Richard Loken