deghare@lady.waterloo.edu (Dave Hare) (10/27/90)
Linda Carson recently posted an exposition on the effects and costs of
sexual stereotyping in language. It was very clear and well stated,
and concluded with:
LC> It takes an effort to strip sexual stereotyping from language. But it's
LC> not rocket science, folks. It's important, and it's worth the
LC> effort.
I would like to collect here some extracts from the responses that have
been posted:
Adrian Pepper:
AP> Myself, I think it would be a more powerful solution to continue the
AP> use of masculine names and pronouns, making it clear that they should
AP> not be construed as making assumptions about the actual sex of
AP> individuals involved.
Paul Colley:
PC> What I think I'm trying to say is, part of the problem is the
PC> _importance_ that readers place on the words "he" vs. "she". To pick
PC> an analogy, "color" is correct American spelling, and "colour" is
PC> correct British spelling, but nobody gets upset at "color" vs. "colour"
PC> (at least here in Canada). By making a big deal about it, you seem to
PC> be saying that your gender is important. If your gender didn't matter
PC> in the current context, you wouldn't be so upset.
PC>
PC> Incidently, I wasn't aware that "Dear Sir" was a male salutation. I've
PC> used that salutation when I _know_ the recipient is female. For
PC> example, in accepting job offers; both of my work term employment
PC> offers were from women.
Brad Templeton:
BT> But is it bias? (in the negative sense?) Assuming that one is referring
BT> to a person of unknown sex, and one is one of those conditioned not to
BT> use asexual pronouns, is there an evil in taking the best guess?
Naji Mouawad:
NM> No need for such a qualifier. French is gendered and I happen to like
NM> it that way.
NM>
NM> Other than that, this issue of 'he' versus 'she' is just not an issue.
NM> Removing the gender is like preparing a 'boeuf Bourgignon' without salt
NM> and wine; tastless.
NM>
NM> If a person doesn't feel insecure about her position and abilities,
NM> then calling her 'Dear Sir' or 'Dir Madame' will make her smile.
NM>
NM> I prefer saying 'he' all the time and keep the use of 'she' for those
NM> special people that somehow did not invent war, did not invent the
NM> atomic bomb, did not invent torture, domination, and did not force
NM> me to leave my country for fear of being killed.
The first point to be made is that the respondents to Linda's posting have
been, at least as far as it is possible to conclude from names and content,
male.
The second point is that all of these respondents have argued that the
issue of gender bias in language is really a non-issue.
This, I submit, is the major problem that women face in trying to attain
equality: Men insist on being the arbiters of what is important to women.
Most, possibly all, of the people quoted above would claim that they are
sensitive to women's issues, and will be quite indignant when I suggest
that they are not. The simple fact is that in order to be sensitive
to the issues of a group to which you do not belong, you must be willing
to accept that group's designation of which issues are important. To do
otherwise is to be satisfied with tokenism. The four respondents I have
quoted above are all guilty of this.
Responding individually:
To Adrian:
The idea of somehow emasculating the masculine pronoun, except
when it shouldn't be emasculated, sounds like a classic ivory tower
research project. Exactly how do you propose to explain to a child
that "he" means "person" except when it means "he". How do you
propose that people differentiate these cases? Think of it this
way: Would you be equally happy if it were decided to use the
feminine pronoun for the gender-neutral case? The problem is that
our language is *not* gender neutral. It is masculine dominant,
and the consequences of that, as Linda so clearly illustrated, are
not insignificant.
To Paul:
What you are saying is simply that men don't think the pervasive use
of the masculine pronoun is a big deal, so why should women? I would
rephrase this: Since women think the pervasive use of the masculine
pronoun is a big deal, why don't men?
(On another point you raised in your article, Linda was certainly not
saying that the gender of the boss in question important. She was
saying that *assumptions* about that gender are important.)
Your claim that "Dear Sir" is gender neutral is simply a reflection
of your sex and your society: Business letters get written to people
in traditionally male domains, so if women want to enter such domains
they should be willing to accept that most people will assume they are
men. You actually go even further: you use the salutation "Dear Sir"
even when you *know* the recipient is a woman. This is the height of
insensitivity, and if the recipients of those letters didn't let you
know it, perhaps it was not because, as you imply, they were not
offended, but rather because they could not afford to be offended,
that their situation demanded that they feign indifference.
To Brad:
Linda pointed out the reality of the "best guess" argument: it is
self-fulfilling prophecy. Use "he" when discussing doctors to a grade
school class, and "she" when discussing nurses, and the message is
unmistakable. So the answer to your question is a resounding: Yes,
it is evil.
To Naji:
This article is a classic of male chauvinism and sexual stereotyping.
I had trouble reading this without gagging, and I could hear echos
of Linda doing the same.
Naji happens to like the fact that French is gendered. "He" versus
"she" is "just not an issue". Hey, well, Naji has spoken, so what's
left to say?
NM> If a person doesn't feel insecure about her position and abilities,
NM> then calling her 'Dear Sir' or 'Dir Madame' will make her smile.
Make "her" smile? Why is it that you assume a person who is insecure
about their position must be female?
NM> I prefer saying 'he' all the time and keep the use of 'she' for those
NM> special people that somehow did not invent war, did not invent the
NM> atomic bomb, did not invent torture, domination, and did not force
NM> me to leave my country for fear of being killed.
I hate to burst your bubble, Naji, but a lot of terrorists are women,
and, to name but one figure of historical significance, Jesus was a
man. Women do not *want* to be on this pedestal where you insist on
putting them. They want *equality*, both equality of respect and
equality of opportunity. Attitudes such as yours confine them to
being mere decorations. I am glad you were able to escape your
country with your life, but I think you brought too much baggage with
you. So take the money you were going to spend on that fine wine for
toasting women and donate it to a shelter for battered women. It will
be much more appreciated.
As a final point, consider the following: The reason the issue we are
discussing is called that of "inclusive language" is because to more than
50% of the poulation of the earth, the status quo is exclusive.
*D*brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (10/28/90)
I still maintain that ignorance is not malice in this case. I actually don't even think the typical educated participant is that uninformed. Over the past year or two, I have taken the habit of, when needing a pronoun for a generic person, picking "she" from time to time instead of "he." In particular, I have done this in cases like "programmer" "taxpayer" and "business owner", where the assuption of a penis is common. Nobody ever notices or comments or gets upset. People probably double- take at it, but quickly realize what it means. In more formal writing, I use "he or she" and equivalents, but this makes the writing more formal and dry, which I dislike. My method above is good in general, but is not valid yet for formal use. (Plus it takes the risk that random selection might be accused of stereotyping. I know that random selection of jokes can get one accused of racism.) -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) (10/28/90)
Dave Hare <deghare@lady.waterloo.edu> writes: DH> Linda Carson recently posted an exposition on the effects and costs of DH> sexual stereotyping in language. It was very clear and well stated, DH> and concluded with: LC> It takes an effort to strip sexual stereotyping from language. But it's LC> not rocket science, folks. It's important, and it's worth the effort. DH> This, I submit, is the major problem that women face in trying to attain DH> equality: Men insist on being the arbiters of what is important to women. All right, so maybe Brad can't decide, nor can Naji, nor me. But does Linda represent all women? Do we know how most women feel about this issue? Has anyone ever done any surveys with any sort of statistical validity? DH> The simple fact is that in order to be sensitive DH> to the issues of a group to which you do not belong, you must be willing DH> to accept that group's designation of which issues are important. To do DH> otherwise is to be satisfied with tokenism. The four respondents I have DH> quoted above are all guilty of this. Again, this is assuming that Linda is speaking for all women. I don't know whether she is or not --- do you? DH> Linda pointed out the reality of the "best guess" argument: it is self- DH> fulfilling prophecy. Use "he" when discussing doctors to a grade school DH> class, and "she" when discussing nurses, and the message is unmistakable. DH> So the answer to your question is a resounding: Yes, it is evil. "Evil"? Oh, come now. "Bad", yes, if it promotes stereotyping. "Evil" means something a bit more, including intent to harm. > As a final point, consider the following: The reason the issue we are > discussing is called that of "inclusive language" is because to more than > 50% of the poulation of the earth, the status quo is exclusive. Say, how do you figure "over 50%"? Just because English has separate 3rd person pronouns for the two genders, doesn't mean every language does. For example, Finnish has no concept of gender built into the language at all. Of course, it's not one of the more popular languages in the world... :) [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]
pacolley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Colley) (10/29/90)
In article <1990Oct27.165810.4278@watdragon.waterloo.edu> deghare@lady.waterloo.edu (Dave Hare) writes: > To Paul: > [...] You actually go even further: you use the salutation "Dear Sir" > even when you *know* the recipient is a woman. This is the height of > insensitivity, and if the recipients of those letters didn't let you > know it, perhaps it was not because, as you imply, they were not > offended, but rather because they could not afford to be offended, > that their situation demanded that they feign indifference. Dave has misinterpreted some of what I wrote. I'd like to clarify what I meant: "The height of insensitivity" implies Dave didn't read what I wrote. I said that I didn't know that "Dear Sir:" was gender-biased. If I believed that the phrase was neutral, I do not think I was "the height of insensitivity" to use it. I may have been "wrong". "The height of ignorance", I would accept. Similarly, I did not think that I implied that they weren't offended, merely that I got the job despite any offence they may have felt, which I appreciate. I used the word "fortunately", which I thought implied that I recognize in retrospect the potential to offend. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Would someone like to suggest a respectful, gender-neutral salutation? Again, the style handbook in the back of Webster's Dictionary leaves "Dear Sir:" as the only candidate, but at least one person (Dave Hare, as quoted above) has indicated that it is for addressing males only. - Paul Colley pacolley@violet.waterloo.edu or .ca "Quantum Mechanics: The dreams stuff is made of" - Ken Burnside
dave@mks.com (Dave Till) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct27.180404.536@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >In more formal writing, I use "he or she" and equivalents, but this makes >the writing more formal and dry, which I dislike. I disagree. There are so many different ways of expressing one's meaning in English that it is always possible to choose a method that is both non-sexist and lively. -- --Dave Till, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., 35 King Street N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. Internet: dave@mks.com UUCP: ..!uunet!watmath!mks!dave "You can only drive down Main Street so many times." -- Max Webster
dave@mks.com (Dave Till) (10/30/90)
In article <1990Oct27.185050.23933@watserv1.waterloo.edu> tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) writes: >Dave Hare <deghare@lady.waterloo.edu> writes: >DH> Linda Carson recently posted an exposition on the effects and costs of >DH> sexual stereotyping in language. It was very clear and well stated, >DH> and concluded with: > >LC> It takes an effort to strip sexual stereotyping from language. But it's >LC> not rocket science, folks. It's important, and it's worth the effort. > >DH> This, I submit, is the major problem that women face in trying to attain >DH> equality: Men insist on being the arbiters of what is important to women. > >All right, so maybe Brad can't decide, nor can Naji, nor me. But does Linda >represent all women? Do we know how most women feel about this issue? Has >anyone ever done any surveys with any sort of statistical validity? Why does it matter? If some women are offended by the use of "he", why not choose another form of phrasing? It's not hard to do. -- --Dave Till, Mortice Kern Systems Inc., 35 King Street N., Waterloo, Ont., Can. Internet: dave@mks.com UUCP: ..!uunet!watmath!mks!dave "You can only drive down Main Street so many times." -- Max Webster