From: utzoo!decvax!yale-com!glaser
Newsgroups: net.women
Title: Re: Genderless pronouns and non-sexist writing
Article-I.D.: yale-com.1374
Posted: Thu Apr 21 03:33:02 1983
Received: Mon Apr 25 23:08:07 1983
References: flairvax.113 yale-com.1366

The discussion of non-sexist pronouns (and non-sexist words in general)
has been pretty interesting, although I find myself in the position of
disagreeing most vehemently with two fellow Yalies, Jerry and B.J., who
seem to think that worrying about non-sexist pronouns is a colossal
waste of time.

It is important for us to introduce and use non-sexist words because:

(1) We live in a deeply sexist society.  Some manifestations of sexism,
particularly the more explicit and obvious forms, have been done away with,
but more subtle types of sexism still remain.

(2) Language reflects, among other things, the cultural and social mores
of the society in which it uses.  This does not mean that a sexist
society will necessarily have a sexist language.  However, it does mean
that if one is in a sexist society, ONE of the things that one must do
if one wants to reduce the society's sexism is remove the vestiges of
sexism from the language.

(3) Pronouns in our culture are first and foremost sex-linked.  The
notion that our generic pronouns are male gender pronouns simply for
historical reasons really strikes me as specious.   Consider
the phrase, "When I see a fireman on the street, I expect him to smile
at me."  This sentence reinforces the sexist stereotype of a male fire
fighter in two ways, through the use of the word "fireman," and the word
"he."

Go back and read the quoted sentence again.  Can anybody honestly say
that the sentence does not evoke a clear image of a male fire fighter?
Of course this evocation is a function of our sexist society.  BUT IT IS
ALSO A REINFORCEMENT OF THAT SEXISM.

To me, the imperative for change is very clear.  The question then
becomes, how do we best effect the change.  My philosophy about this is:

(1) In the case of specific nouns, there is almost always a good (or
almost as good) substitute.  Chairman -> Chair or Chairperson.  Fireman
-> Fire Fighter.  Mailman -> Mail Carrier or Mailperson.

(2) In the case of pronouns, I always use both if I mean both.  "He or
She" and "His or Her" are always possible constructions, even though
they sometimes introduce inelegance, particularly in the case of
possessives or contractions.

In lieu of (2) some would suggest some kind of new pronoun such as
Te/Ter.  This seems to me to be as ill-fated as Esperanto.  It is possible
to modify particular aspects of usage over time (e.g., if "Firemen" started
calling themselves "Fire People," this might work) but I don't see how
general purpose language can be changed by fiat.  For example, when Blacks
began asserting in the mid-1960's that they didn't want to be called
Negroes, we had a major shift in usage (I don't know anybody under 30
who uses "Negro" in common parlance).  However, I know of no analogue to
this in pronouns or other general usage.

Alternately, others might suggest that we use "she" instead of "he" for
a couple of years.  I think this has some aesthetic appeal (and shock
value), and is used, for instance, in an intro CS book called (I
believe) "Pascal by Discovery." However, I've always thought that
feminism really meant more than just sending the pendulum off in the
other direction, and the use of "he or she" (as opposed to "she") is a
way to demonstrate that feminism is really an inclusive movement.

Like most of my flames, this has gotten too long, but I hope I've made my
point.  Also, I'd like to hear about other people's solutions to
the problems of sexist language.

Rob

(I should add, I suppose, that I use written language a good deal.  For the
past two years I have written a weekly editorial column in the Yale
student newspaper, and was Editorial Editor of the paper for a year.)