Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!gateway
From: era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Can feminists change the language?
Summary: Normal or deviant?
Keywords: gender, pronouns
Message-ID: <1989Nov7.065815.22895@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 9 Nov 89 04:08:52 GMT
References: <47469@bbn.COM> <1329@uvaarpa.virginia.edu>
Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle)
Reply-To: Mark Ethan Smith <era1987@violet.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 49
Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu

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