Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 7/7/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rlgvax!jack From: jack@rlgvax.UUCP (Jack Waugh) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: "Firefighter" Message-ID: <998@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 14-Aug-83 18:38:44 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.998 Posted: Sun Aug 14 18:38:44 1983 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Aug-83 22:51:40 EDT Organization: Computer Consoles Lines: 35 There has been enough discussion of nonsexist language here to convince me that many people won't be budged from their opinion. Anyway, I thought I'd throw in two bits. I like "firefighter" and "letter carrier". Not only are they nonsexist, they is also explicit. A "firefighter" clearly fights fires; a "fireman" could be someone who starts fires, as in Ray Bradbury's book *Fahrenheit 451*. On the other hand, I find coinages that take a word containing "man" and substitute "person" awkward, and don't use them. A woman can be a chairman. The "man" in "chairman" is not stressed in speech (in fact, it's pronounced more like "mun"), and I'm pretty sure that for me, it has no masculine connotation. I am convinced, however, that language affects prejudices. I used to think that "he" was the pronoun I should use for a person of unknown sex, since that's what my English teachers told me. What changed my mind was using a college textbook that used "she" for this purpose part of the time (never switching between "he" and "she" for the same antecedent). I'd be jolted by the "she", when a picture of a man had already formed in my mind. If I had had no prejudice, my mental image would not have specified sex. I think I am less prejudiced now, because of the language the authors of the book chose. I now emulate them in use of "she" part of the time for an unspecified person. ---------------------------------------- the canned signature of Jack Waugh Computer Consoles, Inc., Reston, Va. seismo!rlgvax!jack