Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: feeling/being left out
Message-ID: <838@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Aug-83 16:36:32 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.838
Posted: Tue Aug  9 16:36:32 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Aug-83 20:23:35 EDT
References: <1777@hplabsb.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 83

Patricia Collins writes:

	"The current project needs more manpower."

	--What kind of people come to mind?

I dont think of "kinds of people". I don't think of horses when someone
uses the word "horsepower", either.


	The current project needs more staffing."

	--Now what kind of people come to mind?

I think that this is the statement of someone who is corrupting the
English language. Corruption may happen anyway, but I don't think
that I have to *like* it. People who make these sorts of statements
tell me something about their views on whether a consensus is all
that is required to make something right. They scare the hell out of
me.

	Words are powerful.  They both reflect and reinforce ways of
	thinking. 

Words can reflect ways of thinking. Words can reinforce ways of thinking.
This does not mean that that is their only function. Thinking is not
always expressed in words. Some words are but clumsy representations of
thoughts. 

	It is my experience that those who use gender-
	specific language THINK gender-specifically.

That has not been my experience. It has been my experience that *everyone*
thinks gender-specifically. Do you really think of some amorphous asexual
blob when I mention the word "fireman"? Are you incapable of accepting that
women can be firemen, unless they are called "firefighters"? Do you make
that assumption about me? I'd say that you are the person with the
'gender specific' hangup, not me.

	It does seem
	to be unnatural for many people to use genderless references,
	but that hardly seems a justification for reinforcing biased
	thinking with biased communications.

Prove to me that genderless communication reinforces biased thinking.
It seems to me that many people find the word 'he' offensive when applied
to people in general, but thathardly seems justification for changing
matters. Prove to me that it is harmful. Where are your facts?
Not that it *CAN*. Prejudice is a real phenomenon. A language which
cannot be used to discribe real phenomenon needs to have additions made
to it. It is therefore not sufficient to demonstrate that some
people can use language in a prejudiced way, for you are guilty of
blaming the language for the faults of the people without evidence.

	Many people are getting more comfortable seeing women in engineering
	(etc) positions.  Perhaps more people will be comfortable thinking
	in unbiased terms if they hear less biased communication. 

Perhaps your credibility will be lost altogether. I want an engineer who
relies on facts and understands the scientific method.

	I'm
	much more comfortable with "staffing," "person-months," and
	"chairperson" than I am with "manpower," "man-months," and
	"chairman."  

I'm not.


	I hope that before long my colleagues will be comfortable with
	these significantly different terms (and concepts).

Not until you prove to me that they are 'significantly different' rather
than pretentious, silly, and HIDEOUSLY expensive. (Have you ever wondered
how much money was spent changing all the school and office building
FIRE notices to read 'firefighter' rather than 'fireman'? I'm sure that
I could find better uses for that money -- if only to finance a study to
determine whether 'he' is actually harmful.)


laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura