Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alberta.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-visi!alberta!stephen
From: stephen@alberta
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: More on my hard-to-unsexist word
Message-ID: <493@alberta.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 10-Oct-83 01:45:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: alberta.493
Posted: Mon Oct 10 01:45:53 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Oct-83 08:42:07 EDT
References: <2246@tekecs.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
Lines: 33

How about "Alderman Betty Hewes"?  It is being used at the request
of the (obviously female) alderman because she didn't like the
alternatives.

  I still prefer the Idea of returning the word 'man' to it's
generic format and inventing a work (like himan) to specify 
a male <man>.
 
  The rules that I came up with such a word are:

 1) It must make the malenes obvious.
 2) It should be a derivative of man (to compliment woman).
 3) It should be short (path of least resistance)

The only words that I could come up with that followed the rule
were himan and heman. 

  Since he-man already has connotations which I don't like, himan
seems to be my primary choice.

  Anybody have a better choice/set of rules?

The advantage of such an approach is that man already is assumed to
be generic ("What are you -- a man or a mouse?) 

    Stephen Samuel
     (alberta!stephen)

P.S. Some of you may be suprised to learn that in the early 1900s
when Alberta tried to appoint it's first female judge, the question
was taken all the way to the British House of Lords as to whether
the word "person" should include women.
   (The answer -- "Why not?").