ronni (04/15/83)
I heartily recommend the following book: The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing Casey Miller & Kate Swift (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, division of Harper & Row, 1980) Reading this book is an excellent start to becoming more sensitive to the ways in which sexism creeps into our language. I have thought about this before, but I learned a lot about the pervasiveness of sexism in language, which sometimes appears in subtle ways. The book is full of examples of graceful ways to avoid sexist language, from new job titles (e.g., repairer instead of repairman) to suggested rewordings. There also is some discussion of a new, nonsexist pronoun. The book is fairly short and very enjoyable to read. It is available in paperback for $3.95, but you may have to special-order it.
leichter (04/16/83)
Just to say it one more time - since there are people who seem not to have heard it: The "man" in, for example, "repairman" does NOT derive from "man" as in "male person"; it derives from the Anglo-Saxon "mann", meaning "one who". If people react to a female repairman with some disparaging remark indicating that they don't believe this is "a suitable job for a women", THEY are being sexist. The LANGUAGE is not sexist. Try educating people, not making trivial changes to language. The former is much harder but much more likely to have positive effects. As a friend of mine used to joke: "There used to be men and women. Now there are men and persons." -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
bj (04/20/83)
<<The LANGUAGE is not sexist. Try educating people, not making trivial
changes to language. The former is much harder but much more likely to
have positive effects.>>
There are many theories maintaining that one's view of the world is
created by one's language. Maybe they are only partly correct, but
witness the change in overall attitudes that has happened in this
country since words such as kike/nigger/wop have fallen into such
low regard, even disuse (I find it difficult to even type them). At
one time such words were commonly used in even "polite" circles.
These words are not used, but still have the same meanings. This is a result
of educating people -- the language is the same as it was. Adding non-sexists
pronouns or changing "chairman" is making a change to the language. Your
argument supports the quotation you were trying to attack.
If you want to study the affect of language on sexism, look at Sweden (with
a sexist language and relativly non-sexist culture) with various Arab states
(with non-sexist pronouns in their language and sexist cultures).
B.J.
Herbison-BJ@Yale
decvax!yale-comix!herbison-bjminow (04/20/83)
Before you decide that genderless pronouns will in any way "improve" the state of women in a society, you might consider asking Finnish or Turkish women whether the total lack of sexuality in their language has in any affected her status within the society. The Finnish women I used to know would say "no". Martin Minow decvax!minow
leichter (04/20/83)
Mike Ellis claims that the my the derivation of "man" in "postman" from the neuter "mann" (actually, "man"; my mistake) in Old English appears only because I didn't trace the word back further to what was "certainly" an earlier, sex- specific term. My, we do have "experts" around! It's so easy to be an expert when you are willing to bend the facts to fit your preconceptions. "Certainly" indeed! The FACTS - as indicated by the OED, usually taken as a standard reference on this kind of thing; you are welcome to go argue with them - are as follows: In Old English, "man" was a specifically neuter term, refering to a person of either sex. There were two additional terms, "wer" and "wif", that refered to male and female persons. The use of "man" to refer to the male is, linguistic- ally speaking, a relatively recent development. In fact, the insistence by all of you who "know better" that common phrases like "man does not live by bread alone" inherently refer ONLY to males is contributing to a distinction in the language that has been growing for hundreds of years - but growing quite slowly. You may, if you like, congratulate yourself on being "part of a historical trend", but I hardly think its one to be proud (or ashamed or whatever) of. ^ it's This nonsense reminds me of a similar bit of nonsense that appeared -and, fortunately, died - about 10 years ago. A number of article appeared claiming that American society was inherently racist - as revealed by the use, in English, of "black" imagery to indicate "the bad guy" - e.g., "blacklist"; "blackball"; good guys wearing white hats while bad guys wear black ones. The idiocy of this argument was indicated by two factors, one linguistic, the other historical. Linguistically, if you are going to make this argu- ment then why not look at businesses being "in the black" versus "in the red"? Does this mean that businessmen are inherently pro-black but anti-Indian? One can find other examples... Historically, one has to recognize that the use of "black" for blacks - at least in its most recent incarnation; the language has shifted back and forth several times through history - is very recent - no more than 12-15 years and that it was BLACKS who chose and insisted on the term. Prior to that, the term "Negro" was the universal term chosen by non-racists - why do you think the NAACP is the NAACP? Now, "black" is not the only term one could naturally use for Negroes, most of whom are "black" only to the extent that "whites" are actually "white". "Brown" would have been as natural a choice - this, of course, was well before Chicanos decided that that was a good description for them. Language is FULL of arbitrary choices. Reading deep meanings into them is about like reading deep meanings into the white noise and snow you get when you tune your TV to an unused channel. It is partly because some of the choices ARE arbitrary - i.e. because there are other "just as good" choices - that language can and does shift so much over time. And, pace Sapir-Whorf, I would like to see ONE bit of evidence that changing the language has ANY effect whatsoever on how people think or act. If you really want to feel holy and pure, by all means make up and use new pronouns, new job names, and whatever; but don't expect to ACCOMPLISH anything other than making yourself feel good this way - and DON'T expect that most of us will care; most of us will simply think you are foolish. (Actually, my one reason I'm so vehement about this is that it has been turned from a personal issue into a political one. How many tax dollars were spent at the Labor or Commerce Departments carefully revising job titles to eliminate "man"? If you want to spend your time and effort doing that go ahead - but what gives you the right to tax me to do it?) -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
glaser (04/21/83)
The discussion of non-sexist pronouns (and non-sexist words in general) has been pretty interesting, although I find myself in the position of disagreeing most vehemently with two fellow Yalies, Jerry and B.J., who seem to think that worrying about non-sexist pronouns is a colossal waste of time. It is important for us to introduce and use non-sexist words because: (1) We live in a deeply sexist society. Some manifestations of sexism, particularly the more explicit and obvious forms, have been done away with, but more subtle types of sexism still remain. (2) Language reflects, among other things, the cultural and social mores of the society in which it uses. This does not mean that a sexist society will necessarily have a sexist language. However, it does mean that if one is in a sexist society, ONE of the things that one must do if one wants to reduce the society's sexism is remove the vestiges of sexism from the language. (3) Pronouns in our culture are first and foremost sex-linked. The notion that our generic pronouns are male gender pronouns simply for historical reasons really strikes me as specious. Consider the phrase, "When I see a fireman on the street, I expect him to smile at me." This sentence reinforces the sexist stereotype of a male fire fighter in two ways, through the use of the word "fireman," and the word "he." Go back and read the quoted sentence again. Can anybody honestly say that the sentence does not evoke a clear image of a male fire fighter? Of course this evocation is a function of our sexist society. BUT IT IS ALSO A REINFORCEMENT OF THAT SEXISM. To me, the imperative for change is very clear. The question then becomes, how do we best effect the change. My philosophy about this is: (1) In the case of specific nouns, there is almost always a good (or almost as good) substitute. Chairman -> Chair or Chairperson. Fireman -> Fire Fighter. Mailman -> Mail Carrier or Mailperson. (2) In the case of pronouns, I always use both if I mean both. "He or She" and "His or Her" are always possible constructions, even though they sometimes introduce inelegance, particularly in the case of possessives or contractions. In lieu of (2) some would suggest some kind of new pronoun such as Te/Ter. This seems to me to be as ill-fated as Esperanto. It is possible to modify particular aspects of usage over time (e.g., if "Firemen" started calling themselves "Fire People," this might work) but I don't see how general purpose language can be changed by fiat. For example, when Blacks began asserting in the mid-1960's that they didn't want to be called Negroes, we had a major shift in usage (I don't know anybody under 30 who uses "Negro" in common parlance). However, I know of no analogue to this in pronouns or other general usage. Alternately, others might suggest that we use "she" instead of "he" for a couple of years. I think this has some aesthetic appeal (and shock value), and is used, for instance, in an intro CS book called (I believe) "Pascal by Discovery." However, I've always thought that feminism really meant more than just sending the pendulum off in the other direction, and the use of "he or she" (as opposed to "she") is a way to demonstrate that feminism is really an inclusive movement. Like most of my flames, this has gotten too long, but I hope I've made my point. Also, I'd like to hear about other people's solutions to the problems of sexist language. Rob (I should add, I suppose, that I use written language a good deal. For the past two years I have written a weekly editorial column in the Yale student newspaper, and was Editorial Editor of the paper for a year.)
leichter (04/22/83)
This is mainly in reply to Robert Glaser: "This is a deeply sexist society..."; "'I saw a fireman and he smiled at me' - try to imagine that the 'fireman' is a women". 1. If you define things right, you can make this society "deeply sexist", "deeply racist", "totalitarian" - whatever you like. I think your statement is nonsense, if you are using any reasonable definition of "sexist" - a remarkable word, anyway, in existence hardly more than 10 years, its meaning so ill-formed that everyone can interpret it his own way. (And don't tell me that "sexist is obviously just like racist but having to do with sex" or I'll cite Wittgenstein to you on the dangers of "just like ... but" defini- tions - not to mention the remarkable growth in the meaning of "racist" in the last 10 years!) I reject the contention that a society which does not claim men and women are IDENTICAL is sexist. I reject the claim that a society in which some jobs happen to have more men than women, or more women than men, is sexist. If you want to talk about sexism in any reasonable terms, you have to look at opportunity. I don't deny that some inequality of opportunity exists for men and women in this society; but the AMOUNT of it, and the amazing DECREASE in the amount of such inequality recently - "amazing" when you consider the degree of change in a very short period of time - makes a mockery of statements about "deep sexism". (And don't cite that favorite figure of women earning 56 cents for every dollar a man makes at me. I've written before on the complications in this measurement and won't repeat myself here. Even if, by some miracle, ALL TRACES of inequality of opportunity were to vanish by midnight tonight, you could not reasonably expect that ratio - many of whose causes have nothing whatsoever to do with inequality of opportunity - to change by much for many years.) 2. The main reason that it's hard to visualize a women fireman in you little sentence is that there are very few women fireman. This has NOTHING to do with the language; it is a fact about the world with which each and every one of us is intimately familiar. If, 100 years ago, you had told people that a secretary had smiled at you, they would all have assumed that you had been smiled at by a man. Today, they would all assume you had seen a woman. If and when the number of female fireman reaches the level that people no longer have any particular expectations about the sex of a fireman, we MAY see the language change; but then again, we may not - we may just see the expectations change while "fireman" remains the word of choice. BTW, if I say "When I meet your secretary, how will I recognize her?" - not knowing, ahead of time that your secretary is female - many people consider me sexist for making the assumption (although, the world being what it is, it is a VERY safe assumption to make). Why do they fell better when I say "... how will I recognize HIM?" ^feel -- Jerry decvax!yale-comix!leichter leichter@yale
ka (04/22/83)
I have to disagree with Rob's conclusion that because "language reflects, amoung other things, the cultural and social mores of the society which uses it," the language must be changed to reduce sexism. Experts generally agree that language is indeed a reflection of the society and *not* the other way around. Does the word "repairman" really suggest a male because the sylable "man" appears in the it? It seems silly to suppose that people refuse to use the word "repairman" to refer to a female, or that if a word is used to refer to females as frequently as males the word could retain a masculine con- notation is spite of common usage. And as for the suggestion made in one article to use the non-word "repairer" instead of the word "repairman," my understanding is that "er" ending is masculine as in waiter/waitress. The above polemic is directed against mass butchery of the language, not against making any changes to the language to reduce sexism. The addition of a genderless pronoun to English does seem like a reasonable idea. First, the lack of such a pronoun is truly awkward. Secondly, it involves adding only two words to the language so I don't have to start ripping pages out of my dictionary en mass. Let's agree on a genderless pronoun and its pos- sessive form so people who want to can start using it in their submissions to the net. Or, given the anarchic nature of the net, people can just start using their favorite genderless pronoun with a note indicating what it means. Kenneth Almquist
gary (04/22/83)
Don't forget the obvious sexism in going from chairman to chairperson: it should be chairperdaughter! :-)
bernie (04/28/83)
Yes, it's true that 'wer' and 'wif' were the original "sexist" terms to distinguish male from female, and that "man" was considered neuter. (As an aside, it's interesting to note what's become of 'wer' and 'wif'; 'wer' really only endures to the present day in the word "werewolf" (i.e. a man-wolf), while 'wif' has become 'wife'. The latter is an example of a general term used to describe a women having become a more specific term to refer to one's wife. (The same thing happened in German; 'frau' means both 'woman' and 'wife', depending on context)). I suspect that the 'neuter' terms being introduced to day will have little or no effect, simply because no one will bother to use them (and those who do will be considered silly for doing so). Language doesn't evolve because people say it ought to, it evolves because there is a natural and widely-felt need for it to do so. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie
bernie (04/28/83)
...and as for the use of terms like "mailperson", I suggest we find new terms entirely rather than simply turning the "-man" suffix into "-person". "Mail Carrier" and "Fire Fighter" are not only non-sexist, they are also far more descriptive of the job being performed. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie
ellis (04/29/83)
To comment on a recent remark: <<Language doesn't evolve because people say it ought to, it evolves because there is a natural and widely-felt need for it to do so.>> Seems to me that recent conversations on the topic are a manifestation of a natural and increasingly widely-felt need. -- Michael Ellis ..!decwrl!flairvax!ellis
bernie (05/04/83)
The question of whether there is a 'natural and widely-felt need' for neuter pronouns is interesting. Michael Ellis contends that there is, else why would we be discussing it on the net at such great length. However, there is as yet no clear concensus as to whether those pronouns are good or bad; this suggests that the need is *not* 'natural and widely-felt'. After all, we're discussing ABM systems in net.space and abortion in several (perhaps too many?) newsgroups; the fact that things are being discussed does not mean there is an agreement on the issue. The fact that no one posting articles to the net has used a neuter pronoun suggests that, at least for the present, there is no natural or widely-felt need for their use. As I said in my previous article, language does not evolve in a particular direction simply because people feel it ought to. --Bernie Roehl ...decvax!watmath!watarts!bernie