Xref: utzoo comp.edu:3717 uw.general:1961
Newsgroups: comp.edu,uw.general
Path: utzoo!censor!geac!contact!watcsc!maytag!watdragon!violet!pacolley
From: pacolley@violet.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Colley)
Subject: Re: Assumptions about sex (Was Re: Recursion Summary)
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.195259.580@watdragon.waterloo.edu>
Sender: daemon@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Owner of Many System Processes)
Organization: University of Waterloo
References: <1990Oct23.211651.10227@contact.uucp> <1990Oct25.030752.6568@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1990Oct25.145511.13202@mks.com>
Distribution: uw
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 90 19:52:59 GMT
Lines: 102

In the following, I'd like to address the issue of language, more than
the assumptions and preconceptions people may have.

In article <1990Oct25.145511.13202@mks.com> linda@mks.com (Linda
Carson) writes:

>Comedies are full of excruciating moments when the protagonist discovers
>they've embarrassed themself mortally by *assuming* someone's boss is
>male, or their secretary is female. While I look forward to the day when
>my nephews ask me why that ever used to be funny, it's still pretty
>awkward to be caught in that situation today. One could embarrass oneself
>severely.

Everyone I've talked to has assumed that my supervisor is male, until
told otherwise.  I haven't noticed anyone thinking that it was funny or
embarrassing, just that it was a mistake.  Maybe progress is being
made.

The universal assumption that my supervisor is male is a separate
issue, one that I'm not intending to address with this reply.  I
wish to discuss the "mistake" part of the assumption.

In other words, traditional English forces a choice to be made between
"he" and "she" when talking about someone.  Some other languages force
this choice when talking about objects also.  Since there is a 50%
chance of getting this wrong if the proportions are equal and there is
no other information, nobody should be embarrassed by the mistake.  The
mistake is the fault of the language which forces a choice, not a fault
of the person using the language.

Changing a language is tough, since most "correct" language use is
defined by how people actually use the language, not by some
authority.  I suspect that many people would object to being referred
to as "it", and "(s)he" isn't in the form of a valid English word.  I'd
favour the use of "they", but the distinction between plural and
singular has its uses.

What I think I'm trying to say is, part of the problem is the
_importance_ that readers place on the words "he" vs. "she".  To pick
an analogy, "color" is correct American spelling, and "colour" is
correct British spelling, but nobody gets upset at "color" vs. "colour"
(at least here in Canada).  By making a big deal about it, you seem to
be saying that your gender is important.  If your gender didn't matter
in the current context, you wouldn't be so upset.

For example, the following quoted text seems to be saying (to me) that
Linda thinks the gender of a boss is important:

>                                    If I submitted my resume to Roy's
>boss, beginning with the salutation "Dear Sir",
 [...if Roy's boss is a woman...]
>I can expect my resume to end up in the circular file, fast.

While I expected that Linda's point is that the gender of a boss should
_not_ be important.

Incidently, I wasn't aware that "Dear Sir" was a male salutation.  I've
used that salutation when I _know_ the recipient is female.  For
example, in accepting job offers; both of my work term employment
offers were from women.

I always thought it was a term of respect.  Webster's says, "2a) Used
as a usu. respectful form of address  b) used as a conventional form of
address in the salutation of a letter."

Thus I'd say Webster's is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it is
exclusively male.  Regardless, my job opportunities didn't end up in
the circular file.  Fortunately.  I guess I'm just doing my part
to remove the gender bias of the phrase "Dear Sir:"

Anyone with a more authoritative dictionary or usage guide wish to
comment?

>                                     Telephone solicitors who call a single
>father at home and insist on speaking to "the woman of the house" are 
>never going to sell that man their grocery service, no matter how much
>he could use it.

This doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand, but I can't
resist:

I had a telephone solicitor phone recently and insist on talking to my
_mother_!  I guess I sound kind of young on the phone.  The T.S.
wouldn't take "she doesn't live here" and "I'm married" for an answer
either.

>Sexual stereotyping could cost us fellow professionals. It could
>cost our sons and daughters equal opportunity.

I agree, this is a very serious problem.

>           [...] number of constructive ways to address it (such as
>school visits by women in the sciences and engineering).

This is one of the best ideas I've heard of.  I also like the posters
that the Engineering faculty was using back in 1984 (?), "I want to
be an Engineer, just like my mom".

- Paul Colley
  pacolley@violet.waterloo.edu or .ca
  "Quantum Mechanics:  The dreams stuff is made of"    - Ken Burnside