jeffw (04/19/83)
Grrr! There go, my pen's/eye's/mouth's abhorrence...
There is no such thing as a "sexist pronoun".
The only way a pronoun can be sexist is if its use implies that one sex
is superior in some fundamental way to the other. The use of "he" to
denote the universal unspecified human does not do this; "he" can be
a murderer, jackass, or other putrefaction just as easily as "he" can
be a doctor, hacker, or some other supposedly successful denizen of society.
Two other points I think are relevant to this issue:
I'm sure that men were doing horrible things to women long before
there was language to describe what those things were. Language, at worst,
is a reflection, not a cause, of sexism in our society.
I have the feeling that people who are literate but little else
like to dink around with experiments such as "he/she" and "womyn" so
they can feel they've "done their bit" for the women's movement. It's
a lot less work than doing something that might actually further sexual
parity. (Sorry, the mathematical influence is too strong for me to be
able to use "equality" in this context.)
Despite my aversion to "nonsexist" pronouns, I am all in favor of
words such as flagger, fisher, etc. which are expressive without having
pointless sexual references. By the way, someone told me once that
constructions such as waiter/waitress and aviator/aviatrix are a fairly
recent introduction (within the last 100 years). Does anyone have more
concrete information on this?
- Jeff Winslowzhahai (04/23/83)
To those in favor of establishing new non-sexist pronouns: I wish you luck,
and I will be an early supporter if it ever gains any momentum. I personally
think it would help counter sexism *some*, mainly by bringing it to peoples
attention; the anology with nigger/black etc. has some bearing. Try this:
type "nigger". Do you feel any internal reaction? Does it break your smooth
automatic thought processes any? (I should have said, type it in a sentence;
really do it, not just think about how you would react). After noticing such
a word-flag, one gets a subtle reinforcement for how one beleives about the
social issue involved. (of course, for some, it is a negative reaction; I've
also met people who still use "nigger" comfortably). In the long run, of course
this (a new pronoun) would just become natural - but that is fine with me, for
it is a useful semantic distinction, even apart from non-sexism. And, to me,
more "aesthetic", if you will. I would like the language to have such a
construct.
BUT, I suspect that those who argue that structural words like pronouns are hard
to change are right. I got tired of fighting those things, and adding 'noise'
to the real point I was trying to make in a conversation or paper. If you
still want to try to change it, go for it; how will the language evolve if
nobody tries? (How will we overcome sexism if nobody tries?) As long as you
don't get haughty or righteous about it, nothing's hurt, eh?
By the way, at Twin Oaks (a long standing communal group in Va.) they appear to
use the word "co" (if I recall rightly - maybe it was "per") very consistently,
in real everday speech as well as more formal occasions (written agreements).
I don't know that that in itself makes them non-sexist, but it does symbolize
their commitment in that direction (to them and to us).
I also have a fondness (minor) for names which do not imply the gender of their
owners.
(( I hereby appologize if I've contributed to an overextended discussion which
should have moved to net.nlang; all I can say is that this issue has always
been more associated with feminism for me than with language per se, although
vaguely informed by the latter))
(not a pseudonym)
Zhahai Spring Stewart
NBI, Inc. Boulder CO
{ucbvax|allegra}!nbires!zhahai