Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!orion.oac.uci.edu!uci-ics!gateway From: hb@uvaarpa.virginia.edu (Hank Bovis) Newsgroups: soc.feminism Subject: Re: Can feminists change the language? Summary: YES, and change is better than adaptation. Keywords: gender, pronouns Message-ID: <1419@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> Date: 10 Nov 89 02:38:25 GMT References: <47469@bbn.COM> <1329@uvaarpa.virginia.edu> <1989Nov7.065815.22895@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: tittle@ics.uci.edu (Cindy Tittle) Reply-To: hb@Virginia.EDU (Hank Bovis) Organization: University of Virginia, Charlottesville Lines: 75 Approved: tittle@ics.uci.edu [Included text below is reordered somewhat... hb] In article <1989Nov7.065815.22895@agate.berkeley.edu> Mark Ethan Smith 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. **