pc@hplabsb.UUCP (Patricia Collins) (08/08/83)
"The current project needs more manpower." --What kind of people come to mind? The current project needs more staffing." --Now what kind of people come to mind? Words are powerful. They both reflect and reinforce ways of thinking. It is my experience that those who use gender- specific language THINK gender-specifically. It does seem to be unnatural for many people to use genderless references, but that hardly seems a justification for reinforcing biased thinking with biased communications. Many people are getting more comfortable seeing women in engineering (etc) positions. Perhaps more people will be comfortable thinking in unbiased terms if they hear less biased communication. I'm much more comfortable with "staffing," "person-months," and "chairperson" than I am with "manpower," "man-months," and "chairman." I hope that before long my colleagues will be comfortable with these significantly different terms (and concepts). Patricia Collins hplabs
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (08/09/83)
Patricia Collins writes:
"The current project needs more manpower."
--What kind of people come to mind?
I dont think of "kinds of people". I don't think of horses when someone
uses the word "horsepower", either.
The current project needs more staffing."
--Now what kind of people come to mind?
I think that this is the statement of someone who is corrupting the
English language. Corruption may happen anyway, but I don't think
that I have to *like* it. People who make these sorts of statements
tell me something about their views on whether a consensus is all
that is required to make something right. They scare the hell out of
me.
Words are powerful. They both reflect and reinforce ways of
thinking.
Words can reflect ways of thinking. Words can reinforce ways of thinking.
This does not mean that that is their only function. Thinking is not
always expressed in words. Some words are but clumsy representations of
thoughts.
It is my experience that those who use gender-
specific language THINK gender-specifically.
That has not been my experience. It has been my experience that *everyone*
thinks gender-specifically. Do you really think of some amorphous asexual
blob when I mention the word "fireman"? Are you incapable of accepting that
women can be firemen, unless they are called "firefighters"? Do you make
that assumption about me? I'd say that you are the person with the
'gender specific' hangup, not me.
It does seem
to be unnatural for many people to use genderless references,
but that hardly seems a justification for reinforcing biased
thinking with biased communications.
Prove to me that genderless communication reinforces biased thinking.
It seems to me that many people find the word 'he' offensive when applied
to people in general, but thathardly seems justification for changing
matters. Prove to me that it is harmful. Where are your facts?
Not that it *CAN*. Prejudice is a real phenomenon. A language which
cannot be used to discribe real phenomenon needs to have additions made
to it. It is therefore not sufficient to demonstrate that some
people can use language in a prejudiced way, for you are guilty of
blaming the language for the faults of the people without evidence.
Many people are getting more comfortable seeing women in engineering
(etc) positions. Perhaps more people will be comfortable thinking
in unbiased terms if they hear less biased communication.
Perhaps your credibility will be lost altogether. I want an engineer who
relies on facts and understands the scientific method.
I'm
much more comfortable with "staffing," "person-months," and
"chairperson" than I am with "manpower," "man-months," and
"chairman."
I'm not.
I hope that before long my colleagues will be comfortable with
these significantly different terms (and concepts).
Not until you prove to me that they are 'significantly different' rather
than pretentious, silly, and HIDEOUSLY expensive. (Have you ever wondered
how much money was spent changing all the school and office building
FIRE notices to read 'firefighter' rather than 'fireman'? I'm sure that
I could find better uses for that money -- if only to finance a study to
determine whether 'he' is actually harmful.)
laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!lauraandie@cvl.UUCP (Diane L. Donaldson) (08/10/83)
The problem with using "he" for "he/she" is that children often don't understand the distinction. In some recent study or other, elementary school children were given a list of "neutral" sentences using the pronoun "he" (such as "Will each student return his book?" Over 60% of them interpreted the "he" to mean that the students were male. This attitude has an unfortunate tendency to carry over later in life. Although I try to watch my own speech, I myself sometimes jump to conclusions when I hear certain "sex-oriented" nouns, such as lawyer (male), nurse (female). And a sentence such as "Will each student return his book" can sometimes catch me too. When I realize what has happened, I don't immediately think, "Oh, what a neurotic nerd I am to think that a fireman is a man"; instead I think "Oh, what a stupid system that has made what should be a neutral choice biased towards one sex or the other, thus causing confusion." So, what do you mean by harmful? If "harmful" can mean "causes confusion in the listener or reader", then yes, using "he" for "he or she" is harmful. Incidentally, I suspect there are very few people that haven't been caught by the he = male trap at some time or another. That's why I always use "they". Diane ...seismo!rlgvax!cvl
chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/10/83)
There are two sides to the "he" vs. "they" issue, as I see it:
1. "He" has the problem that it is, quite obviously, male. "Will
each student put *his* book on the shelf" is too informative.
2. "They" is not correct. It's just plain wrong. ``Subjects must
agree with it's verb.''
So, how about:
"it"
Just think, not only do you get rid of the male/female aspect, but
you no longer are prejudiced in favor of humans!
"Will each student put it's book on the shelf."
How clean and simple. Much shorter than "he/she".
Bonus side effect: maybe people will even learn the distinction
between "it's" and "its" . . . (probably not).
Just in case, I'd like to point out that I'm being only marginally
serious. In other words, :-)
- Chris
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci
UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!chris
CSNet: chris@umcp-cs ARPA: chris.umcp-cs@UDel-Relayfranka@tekcad.UUCP (08/12/83)
#R:hplabsb:-177700:tekcad:22000005:000:356 tekcad!franka Aug 11 10:06:00 1983 Ohmygod! Don't tell me to use the word "it". I get so many flames from my friends when I use the word "it" even in regard to their pets (even when "it" is the appropriate word). Try calling an unborn child an "it" someday! If you are lucky you will escape with only broken bones... Frank Adrian P.S. Didn't we have this discussion a few months ago?
halle1@houxz.UUCP (08/12/83)
How clean and simple. Much shorter than "he/she". Bonus side effect: maybe people will even learn the distinction between "it's" and "its" . . . (probably not). I hope they do learn the difference, but not from you, because you obviously do not know the difference. It's, that is, with the apostrophe, is the contraction of it is. There is no other meaning. Its without the apostrophe is the possesive of it. The plural of it, that is more than one it, where it is a noun, probably should also have an apostrophe, although rules here can differ. (There are three it's in the last sentence.) I learned the difference the easy way: in senior English, if you got this one wrong, the paper was an F, regardless.
CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP (08/25/83)
Apparently it is/was acceptable, at least in the U.K., to refer to children (not just fetuses) as "it". There are numerous places in C.S. Lewis's books where "it" is used with the antecedent "child", with the context indicating a child several years old. Some of these passages were written 40 years ago! -- Jeff Sargent/pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq