ariels@orca.UUCP (Ariel Shattan) (08/12/83)
These are my comments on Laura Creighton's comments on Patricia Collins' article on feeling left out when the generic male is used. I've prefaced my contributions with the characters ###, for the sake of clarity. ###Laura Creighton writes: 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. ###You don't? I sure do. Just my the way my mind works, I guess. 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. ###I certainly don't see the how the term used is corruption. I find it a creative, AND PROPER, use of the English language. I write technical manuals, and this is exactly the kind of phrase upon which my editors smile. Language is a constantly growing means of communication. It is not fixed in stone. In the spoken language, a consensus IS all that is needed to make something correct (please note, I am confining that last statement to refer to the spoken language). Also, there are TWO (count 'em) sweeping generalizations in your rebuttal. People like WHAT? WHAT sorts of statements? 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. ###No argument here, but I think the lexicon of the English language is full enough that we can eliminate many of the thought-to-word translation problems if we just improve our vocabularies. 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. ###You are making exactly the point that P.C. is making. We don't call to mind an "amorphous asexual blob" when we hear the term "fireman". We think of a MAN. If you can call up the image of a woman in a black rubber coat carrying a hose and an axe when you hear the term "fireman", then YOU don't think gender-specifically and are to be commended for your progressive thinking. However, MOST people react to the term MAN in a word by imagining a male human in the role. If we begin to use the term "firefighter", those who hear it won't immediately cook up an gender- specific image. 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. ###P.C. did not say that genderless communication reinforces biased thinking. She said that BIASED communication reinforces biased thinking. For the sake of the following argument, I shall assume that you are rebutting what P.C. said, and not what the first sentence of your paragraph implies. ### 1. Yes, the fact that a term is offensive IS justification for "changing matters." The accepted term for Black used to be Negro. Before that, it used to be something that today would get you beat up in many places, and frowned at anywhere else (that was't a KKK meeting). There is no reason that a person should have to use termi- nology that is offensive to her. The generic male got to be generic through common usage, and will get to be UN-generic the same way. ### 2. There have been studies showing that young girls become confused by the generic male and feel excluded. There have also been studies showing that children think of men when the term MAN is added to a word, and think of both sexes when the term is PERSON, or some such. I got this information out of some textbooks for a linguistics course. They are on my shelf at home, but I'll post the titles and authors if people wish. ### 3. Yes, prejudice IS a real phenomenon, but the English language as it is used today not only describes the prejudice, it perpetrates the prejudice (by bringing to mind male images instead of mixed sex images). The purpose behind changing the way we use the language is to bring about a change in attitudes that are reinforced by the current use of the language. 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. ###HUH?!? This sounds like an emotion-based gut reaction to me. This Is a totally unsubstantiated accusation. I'm much more comfortable with "staffing," "person-months," and "chairperson" than I am with "manpower," "man-months," and "chairman." I'm not. ###No one's asking you to be. P.C.'s simply pointing out her reasons for disliking the generic male, and in my opinion, doing it very clearly and reasonably. 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.) ###There is no way you can stop P.C. from using the language the way she chooses, she does not have to prove anything to you. Likewise, there is no way for her to stop you from using the language as you choose to. The English language is forgiving enough (both spoken and written) that individual users can elegantly develop their own styles. ###So, to end a long harangue -- Methinks thou dost protest too much. Ariel Shattan tektronix!tekecs!ariels