From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!alice!rabbit!jj
Newsgroups: net.women
Title: Re: "man" and non-sexist writing - (nf)
Article-I.D.: rabbit.1399
Posted: Mon May  2 12:15:36 1983
Received: Thu May  5 08:37:37 1983
References: <1970@uiucdcs.UUCP>, <1387@rabbit.UUCP>


	Well, from the mail I've received about  my article, several
things are apparent:
	The first is that my "error" about wombat's sex seems to be
more important to most of those who wrote than the subject of the
article, which is a very revealing phenomina.
I ask: Why does wombat's sex MATTER?  I am well aware by now 
(thanks to all your sarcastic cards and letters) that wombat is
a she.  SO WHAT?  At least until some consensus regarding language
is reached, "he" is the "proper" usage for someone whose sex I am 
unaware of.  
Also:	Why should I care (other than for politeness sake, which I can
tell, dear readers, you don't give a damn about) which sex wombat's is?
Do you think I should argue any differently because she is a "she"?
WELL?  Do you???  <Sexual comments *will* be kept to yourself.>
	Second, I thank all of you for your comments about my spelling.
TOUGH.  Why don't you just admit that you want to divert the argument
to something that you feel comfortable with?
	Third:  With the exception of two letters, no one even addressed
the idea of education as a basis of prevention of discrimination.  I am
quite distressed that, while the effects and problems brought about
by discrimination are constantly discussed, the idea of long term
solution is either strongly resisted or (in this case) ignored.
No one has yet addressed the question of how to cope with the
debasement of the "new" vocabulary due to ignorance.  Frankly, I fear
the more subtle discrimination of saying "firefighter" and meaning
"fireman" more than I fear the much more obvious way of saying
"fireman" and meaning "man who fights fires" rather than 
"person who fights fires". (I feel that the first actually has the possibility
of being used deceptively, being a learned behavior.)
	While the language may be sexist, (and may have recently, in
historical terms, become that way) the language is not, and can
clearly be seen not to be, the CAUSE of sexist (or racist, etc) attitudes.
The language is clearly the symptom, brought about by teaching people
sexist attitudes.  If one wants the language to be non-sexist, I suggest
educating the populace to be non-sexist, and the language will either
change, or come to be understood as non-sexist.  Treating symptoms,
as our currently disintegrating society (welfare, social security, 
racial violence, crime, affirmitive action, lawsuits that extend liability,
lack of responsibility for one's actions, skewed penalties for
crimes <currently drunk driving in NJ has a much more severe
sentence, when no death, etc, is concerned, than homicide
or armed robbery, and guess sentence which is mandatory>) shows,
is counterproductive.   

Why not instead try a new approach? I don't know.

Can someone write a nice, carefully though out article for this
group explaining why or why not?

Thank you (in advance, by necessity, there being no precedent)
for all your kind support and thoughtful comments.

rabbit!<think about what you're writing>jj