Xref: utzoo uw.general:1975 comp.edu:3736 Newsgroups: uw.general,comp.edu Path: utzoo!censor!geac!contact!watcsc!maytag!watserv1!daemon From: tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu (Tom Haapanen) Subject: Re: Inclusive language... Message-ID: <1990Oct27.185050.23933@watserv1.waterloo.edu> Sender: daemon@watserv1.waterloo.edu Organization: University of Waterloo, WATMIMS Research Group References: <1990Oct27.165810.4278@watdragon.waterloo.edu> Distribution: uw Date: Sat, 27 Oct 90 18:50:50 GMT Lines: 43 Dave Hare writes: DH> Linda Carson recently posted an exposition on the effects and costs of DH> sexual stereotyping in language. It was very clear and well stated, DH> and concluded with: LC> It takes an effort to strip sexual stereotyping from language. But it's LC> not rocket science, folks. It's important, and it's worth the effort. DH> This, I submit, is the major problem that women face in trying to attain DH> equality: Men insist on being the arbiters of what is important to women. All right, so maybe Brad can't decide, nor can Naji, nor me. But does Linda represent all women? Do we know how most women feel about this issue? Has anyone ever done any surveys with any sort of statistical validity? DH> The simple fact is that in order to be sensitive DH> to the issues of a group to which you do not belong, you must be willing DH> to accept that group's designation of which issues are important. To do DH> otherwise is to be satisfied with tokenism. The four respondents I have DH> quoted above are all guilty of this. Again, this is assuming that Linda is speaking for all women. I don't know whether she is or not --- do you? DH> Linda pointed out the reality of the "best guess" argument: it is self- DH> fulfilling prophecy. Use "he" when discussing doctors to a grade school DH> class, and "she" when discussing nurses, and the message is unmistakable. DH> So the answer to your question is a resounding: Yes, it is evil. "Evil"? Oh, come now. "Bad", yes, if it promotes stereotyping. "Evil" means something a bit more, including intent to harm. > As a final point, consider the following: The reason the issue we are > discussing is called that of "inclusive language" is because to more than > 50% of the poulation of the earth, the status quo is exclusive. Say, how do you figure "over 50%"? Just because English has separate 3rd person pronouns for the two genders, doesn't mean every language does. For example, Finnish has no concept of gender built into the language at all. Of course, it's not one of the more popular languages in the world... :) [ \tom haapanen --- university of waterloo --- tom@mims-iris.waterloo.edu ] [ "i don't even know what street canada is on" -- al capone ]