hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (11/09/89)
In article <47469@bbn.COM> rshapiro@BBN.COM (Richard Shapiro) writes: >>>How does "one" change a language? "One" doesn't, unless one is >>>extraordinarily influential and/or powerful. I'm not sure any "one" >>>has that much power or influence. >>> [...] >>> Feminists do not have this kind of power or influence, and >>>they have no means to acquire it (that I can see). In article <47878@bbn.COM> Richard Shapiro <rshapiro@BBN.COM> continues: >There seems to be a lot of confusion on this point. I was drawing an >ANALOGY between languages and gender systems, which I still think is a >good one. I got that point. And perhaps the analogy is good, but my point was that you were drawing the wrong conclusions from the analogy. >Your partial quote obscures this point, but I've re-read the >original twice now, and I still don't see the source of confusion. The point of the partial quote was that a change in the language itself _is_ a change of a sort in the gender system. And it's a very important change at that, one which I think warrants a separate thread. > [...] IF a gender system is like a languge, >then the kind of change we would need to convert our gender system >into a non-sexist one is probably similar to the kind of change which >has taken place in the English language from its inception until the >present day. A handful of neologisms are a trivial compared to this -- >if anything, such words show how little the language changes as a >result of conscious effort. I'm not convinced that this assessment of the degree of change is accurate, Richard. Have you seen any studies that support the idea that recent "neologisms" are trivial compared to all the changes that have taken place since the "inception" (how do you date that, btw?) of English? If anything, I think the rate of change in the language has greatly accelerated in recent years, as has the pace of technological change. In fact, this would almost be necessary for language to keep pace with the new technology it must describe. And further, that new technology has made it possible to propagate language changes much faster than before. >I was NOT AT ANY TIME talking about language changes brought about by >feminism. Even if I were, the changes themselves are minor and of >little significance. I disagree. > The important aspect of the feminist >investigation of language is the way it exposes the patriarchal >assumptions with which we speak, write, and corresondingly, think. Right, but I would say that language not only exposes, but to some degree causes, patricarchal assumptions, and thus if we apply your analogy, it should be possible, in part by changing the language, to change "gender systems" faster today than ever before. >Is my position clear now? Yes, but you used your analogy to argue that change would be slow in coming, whereas I would use the same analogy to argue that change can be brought about very rapidly. hb -- Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET) ** MOBILIZE for Women's Lives on November 12th; details in soc.women. **
era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU (11/09/89)
In article <1329@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) writes: >The most obvious example is probably the widespread usage of the term >"Ms." instead of "Miss" or "Mrs.", but there are numerous other examples >as well, such as replacing "mailman" with "mail carrier", "fireman" with >"fire fighter", etc. I'm not sure that "feminists" changed the language by introducing the term "Ms." The term "Ms.," just like the terms "Miss," and "Mrs." is a term that is used to denote that a person is female. There are many other devices used to denote that a person is female, such as traditionally feminine names, female clothing, and socialization in female mannerisms. Without having been given a female name, wearing female clothes, learning to speak, walk and act in a female manner, and being referred to in a gender-specific, non-default way, a person who is born female might not be readily recognized as such in any and all situations, and might thereby avoid some types of discrimination. As Professor Gerder Lerner said in, "The Creation of Patriarchy," in order to keep an entire class of people permanently oppressed, they must be made readily identifiable at all times. That's why slaves were always required to wear clothing that marked them as slaves and forbidden to wear clothes that might cause them to be mistaken for free persons. That's why Jews and gays in Nazi Germany were required to wear distinctive patches on their clothes. It is just too easy to make a mistake and treat somebody as an equal unless they are obviously marked out as different. It is unfortunate that many women have come to believe that their sex is the same as their socialization, and that if they didn't have female names, wear female clothes, and act in a female manner, they simply wouldn't be female. The FBI and the CIA used to treat feminist groups as subversive. Gloria Steinem, who did much to popularize the term, "Ms.," had a boyfriend who was part of the intelligence community. Whenever women notice that seperate terms for women are sexist and discriminatory, somebody suggests that a new term be devised. No matter how many new, non-default terms are devised, they all mean that the person referred to is a non-default, or different person. Some people prefer to be special and different, but some prefer equality and wish only to be included in the default. Women are human, not a seperate, inferior species that must be discriminated against on the basis of sex. There is absolutely no reason to give females distinctive names, distinctive clothing, and socialize them to act in what every culture considers to be inferior ways, other than to discriminate against women on the basis of sex. Male is the default in all patriarchal societies, so you cannot get men to accept a non-default term in referring to themselves. Only when women are able to accept the default terms, and stop insisting upon special and different treatment based upon sex, will women cease being given special and different (discriminatory) treatment based upon sex. --Mark
hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) (11/10/89)
[Included text below is reordered somewhat... hb] In article <1989Nov7.065815.22895@agate.berkeley.edu> Mark Ethan Smith <era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU> writes: >In article <1329@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) writes: >>The most obvious example is probably the widespread usage of the term >>"Ms." instead of "Miss" or "Mrs." ... > >I'm not sure that "feminists" changed the language by introducing the >term "Ms." ... >Gloria Steinem, who did much to popularize the term, "Ms.," had a >boyfriend who was part of the intelligence community. Well, I don't really want to get into a debate over Steinem's credentials as a "feminist". One could certainly debate the merits of much of what has gone on in "Ms." magazine in recent years, for example, but I think that is largely beside the point I was making, and which you implicitly concede above, that "one" (in this case Steinem, whether feminist or not) can have a significant impact on the language. >The term "Ms.," just like the terms "Miss," and "Mrs." is >a term that is used to denote that a person is female. ... Whenever women >notice that seperate terms for women are sexist and discriminatory, >somebody suggests that a new term be devised. No matter how many new, >non-default terms are devised, they all mean that the person referred >to is a non-default, or different person. 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. 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. >Some people prefer to be special and different, but some prefer equality >and wish only to be included in the default. ... ^^^^ I have no problem with that, but I think _changing_ the default might have a more positive overall effect in the long run. >Male is the default in all patriarchal societies, Agreed, but... >so you cannot get men to accept a non-default term in referring to >themselves. I disagree with this. I think men will accept a (temporarily) non-default term if it is presented the right way. >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. I say again, change _is_ possible and _change_ is the preferred course. hb -- Hank Bovis (hb@Virginia.EDU, hb@Virginia.BITNET) ** MOBILIZE for Women's Lives on November 12th; details in soc.women. **
holstege@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Mary Holstege) (11/16/89)
This is veering a bit from soc.feminism, but as a sometime linguist I
feel compelled to make a few comments.
First, one must distinguish between vocabulary change and grammatical change.
Recently English has been grabbing new vocabulary to describe new
technology fairly quickly. It is difficult to say whether this is at
a greater rate than previously: English has always been welcoming of
foreign terms and there have been bursts of vocabulary associated with
the colonization era (local languages), the enlightenment (greek and
latin), and if you want to consider it the same language, the invasion
of England by a bunch of French speakers.
On the other hand, there has been little change in the grammar of
English in the last few hundred years. I can't think of too many.
Even the much-maligned use of 'they' as a singular pronoun goes back
to Chaucer, at least in such constructions as 'If anyone says that,
they are fools.' Modern English, especially on the west coast, is
slightly more accepting of 'they' for other constructions than with
'anyone' or 'someone' than in the past, that's all. Another slight
change in this area is the hypercorrective reaction of using 'he'
where 'she' or 'one' would have been used previously: 'When a patient
goes into labor, he should be made as comfortable as possible.' or 'If
one is not careful, he looks like a moron.' Both of these are
generally regarded as 'incorrect'. (The latter is more acceptable to
US speakers, who tend not to use 'one' very much and so have weaker
intuitions about it.)
How has feminism changed the language? Some of the increased
acceptance of 'they' is probably due to feminist sensibilities, I
would say, and the loss of such horrid terms as 'authoress',
'aviatrix', and 'poetess'. It's fairly minor.
-- Mary
Holstege@cs.stanford.edu
ARPA: holstege%cs@score.stanford.edu
BITNET: holstege%cs@STANFORD.BITNET
UUCP: {arpa gateways, decwrl, sun, hplabs, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!holstege