laura@utcsstat.UUCP (08/16/83)
i believe that i could make a case for the 'proof' that words such as 'nigger' and 'kike' promote discrimination. 'Nigger', for instance, was (and sadly still is) a word that was used by certain people who were (and some still are) opposed to the emancipation of Blacks, often as an invective, and had association and hence connotations with slavery. Clearly, not *everyone* used it for this purpose. Indeed, I have 2 friends, one of whom is Black and the other who is a White Jew. they routinely address each other as 'you cheap kike' and 'you nigger, you'. Since their relationship is, in part, based upon their mutual belief that the world is out to get them, this may even strengthen their relationship. This is not the point. 'Nigger' as it is commonly used in North Carolina (about the only area in the Southern US with which I have any familiarity) with the possible excpetion of Chapel Hill which is reputed to be very different from the rest of North Carolina, is obviously derrogatory, and is used to express hatred. Which brings us back to 'sexist language'. Most people who insist on using 'correct' English, are interested in using correct English. I see no evidence that they are interested in promoting hatred for women, or a belief in their inferiority, or slavery, or any of the numerous rotten things one can say that people who use 'Nigger' feel routinely for Blacks. the parellel drawn is thus very tenuous indeed. laura creighton utcsstat!laura ps to the curious. 7 people have sent me polite letters agreeing with me. 4 people have sent me polite letters disagreeing with me. 42 people have sent me hate mail...and $MAIL continues to grow.
tjj@ssc-vax.UUCP (T J Jardine) (08/17/83)
Some light has finally been shed on this topic, even if possibly by accident! It appears that the battle between those who think that English should become a genderless language and those who oppose that view is equivalent to the battle between the smokers and the non-smokers (yes, my asbestos suit is on!). The light that seems to have appeared regarding gender-free terms is that it is not the WORDS that are the object of dislike, but the EXPECTATIONS that are associated/held with respect to males and females. When we (male or female) place a telephone call to someone of the male persuasion at what we understand to be a business office location and a person answers the phone with a voice which sounds obviously female, what is the picture that we have in our mind that provides a model for us of this situation? I would expect that a significant percentage would immediately bring to mind the role of a manager and secretary. However, if we knew the company employed a large number of engineers, that the person we were telephoning was one of them, and we had experience with the model of an engineer's office as a place where 387 people share the same window, then our model of the situation would be different, and consequently our response would be as well. Obviously, then, what we need to do is change the models people use to handle various kinds of situations. This seems to me a far more challenging, and therefor worthwhile, task than merely trying to rid ourselves of every occurrence of 'man' in referring to the gentler (have you ever seen a female wrestler?) sex. TJ (with Amazing Grace) The Piper ssc-vax!tjj
ginger@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ginger Grover) (08/18/83)
Language *reflects* attitudes, it doesn't cause them. Attitudes
and stereo types need to be changed first or a change in the
language is meaningless. "Person" is often assumed by the
unthinking to be just the current popular term for "woman" in-
stead of the correct term for "man or woman" (or child, for that
matter). The underlying reasoning appears to be "Okay guys, we
gotta call the women "persons" now or they'll get mad at us".
The attitude here seems to be "Fer chrissake, give 'em what they
want so they'll leave us alone! We're gonna miss the kickoff!"
:-) Every woman knows the best time to sue for important conces-
sions [other than the "afterglow"], is during Monday Night Foot-
ball. :-)
I understand what some of the other women mean when they say that
the standard accepted usage can make them feel nonexistant. I
would rather be called "woman", with all the dignity and respect
that title owns, than be called "person" and still be discounted
and disregarded. Women have long been annoyed by this, the
difference now is that they are speaking up and saying "Damitall,
I DO exist! Acknowledge me!" :-) And if you men feel confused
by the *apparent* hostility, allow me to remind you that women
have always known that mock aggression is the surest way to get a
man's attention. :-)
Ginger Grover
ssc-vax!ginger