era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU (11/28/89)
[I took the liberty of updating the subject line, as I think it has wandered a bit from the question of if feminists can change the language. --clt] In article <1419@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) writes: > >This depends on the meaning given to the new term and how universally >it is accepted. For instance, to the extent that "Ms." is used by >both married and single women, it has erased the distinction between >married and single women. Women that still base their identity on >their husbands still use "Mrs.", so "Ms." still says something about >the mindset of the person claiming it, but I think most people using >"Ms." would consider such connotations preferable to a label >indicating marital status. Right. There are now three types of women. Married women (Mrs.), not yet married women (Miss), and feminists (Ms.). Of course feminists would rather be known as feminists than by reference to their marital status. And it was certainly a logical goal of feminism to attempt to raise the status of unmarried women to that of married women. The only problem is that the status of men is higher than the status of married women, single women, and feminist women. So if feminists do not wish to see women continue to have lower status than men, the object of any fight for equality must be equality with men, not equality with higher status women. And, of course, men, particularly men in the intelligence community[*], will do everything they can to pit women against each other and divert them from any competition with men. The maintenance of a patriarchy requires only that women be distinguishable from men at all times and in all situations to facilitate discrimination. It does not require that all women be on the same level, just that all women be on a lower level than men. >On the other hand, "Ms." was not intended to erase the distinction >between male and female, and obviously it has not done so. But >gender-neutral pronouns could erase that distinction if widely >accepted. Gender neutral pronouns could only erase gender distinctions in situations where the woman was not physically visible. But the fact that so many women use only their initials in the phone book, or have unlisted numbers, or list only their husband's or boyfriend's name, is because women do not have to be visible to invite discrimination. Simply indicating that you are female is sufficient in many cases. >I disagree with this. I think men will accept a (temporarily) >non-default term if it is presented the right way. The only "right" way that would work, would be to present the non-default term as being equal. And men, having experienced the privilege of the default, are fully aware that non-default means different and that separate and different are not equal. >>Only when women are able to accept the default terms ... >>will women cease being given special and different (discriminatory) >>treatment based upon sex. > >But again, why is this the "only" way? Why must women "accept" the >current defaults? This argument seems a bit self-defeating to me, in >that it presumes that women (and men) do not have the power to effect >systemic change, but must instead settle for a better adaptation to the >existing system. In a hierarchical society, a systemic change towards equality would have to either raise women to the higher status enjoyed by men, or bring men down to the lower status suffered by women. The latter is much less feasible than the former. As a matter of fact, the few men who routinely suggest that the status of women isn't so bad, that they themselves as men would be more than happy to accept diminutive pronouns, wear drag, etc., are usually those men most opposed to equality for women. They know that most men will not accept diminutive terms or wear drag, so they make what they know is an impractical suggestion simply to distract, divert, disrupt and frustrate any attempt by women to begin to understand what equality means and how it can be obtained. >I say again, change _is_ possible and _change_ is the preferred course. I totally agree. --Mark [*] [I asked Mark what he meant by "men in intelligence," and this is the reply he gave me. I put it in as a footnote as there wasn't a way to simply incorporate it into the original text! --clt] The reference to "men, particularly men in the intelligence community," was a specific reference to a boyfriend of Gloria Steinem's, but I don't recall if he was FBI, CIA or whatever, and a general reference to the fact that there is, or at least used to be (probably still is), a "subersive list" that our government kept (again, probably by the FBI but I'm not sure), and feminist groups like NOW and others were on it because being a feminist was considered a "subversive activity." It doesn't make sense unless you know the mindset of men like Reagan adviser George Gilder who wrote that in order to "affirm male identity," women should be deprived of all means of survival outside of marriage such as jobs and social programs, but also wrote about the fact that some friends of his had trouble getting laid in a massage parlor despite the fact that they were successful, well dressed, and had lots of money to offer, because women were getting so independent that they could survive by giving massages and didn't have to prostitute themselves. What the latter story has to do with depriving women of all means of survival outside of marriage, I fail to understand, unless Mr. Gilder considers marriage and prostitution to be one and the same. In that he is almost a radical feminist himself, I guess! Anyway, I don't know how you could incorporate any of this, but you're welcome to try.