debray@sbcs.UUCP (Saumya Debray) (08/19/83)
This is an attempt to address some of the points raised by Phyllis Bregman, and supplement some of those made by Laura. Surprising as it may seem, words like "Negro", "kike", "gook" etc. are not inherently evil. As an example, consider the word "Negroid", a perfectly respectable anthropological term; compare the "-oid" suffix with that in, say, "ellipsoid". What, then, makes "Negro" bad, but "black" OK? Surely not the character-strings "N-e-g-r-o" and "b-l-a-c-k", for there is no reason for assuming that one UNINTERPRETED string is superior to another. It has to be the interpretation, the USAGE. One of those terms has been used to express hatred and contempt, and hence is generally considered socially unacceptable. However, if both parties to an exchange are aware that no such invective is intended, then there is no need to assume that the words will retain their "badness". This, of course, is exactly what Laura pointed out in citing the example of her friends. Conversely, if it is made clear that disparagement is intended, then even a word as innocuous as "foreigner" can be made to sound pretty insulting. The point is that the prejudice is in the minds of people, and not in isolated words. This is borne out by the numerous examples cited, here on the net, of sexist societies whose languages have only genderless pronouns. Attempts to twiddle with the language are, therefore, really treating the symptoms rather than the disease. They waste, as Laura pointed out, time, effort and money - all of which would be better spent in treating the disease itself. The disease, of course, is our set of social stereotypes. And if the stereotypes don't change, no amount of linguistic mucking-around will change anything much: the same stereotypes will simply be reattached to different words. Phyllis objects that "it took a long time for [her] children to understand that women can be firefighters, policepersons and telephone repairpeople, to name a few". May I suggest that this is very possibly due to the fact that it took a long time for her children to see enough female firemen(*), policemen etc. for them to form the appropriate, genderless stereotypes. With increasing numbers of females in these professions, this should be less of a problem as time goes by. Again, why tilt at windmills? Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook (*) the "-man" suffix in, e.g., "fireman" derives from Old German "mann", which referred to "a person" rather than "a male human". I, therefore, have no compunction about using a phrase like "female fireman".
billp@bronze.UUCP (Bill Pfeifer) (08/22/83)
>>>(*) the "-man" suffix in, e.g., "fireman" derives from Old German "mann", >>>which referred to "a person" rather than "a male human". I, therefore, have >>>no compunction about using a phrase like "female fireman". Saumya Debray SUNY at Stony Brook Hate to disappoint you, but "mann" in old or contemporary German means "a male human" ("frau" means "a female human"). The word for "human" is "mensch". Bill Pfeifer {decvax,ucbvax,zehntel,uw-beaver} !tektronix!tekmdp!billp