Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!cca!ima!ism780!jim From: jim@ism780.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re(2): Net Language Use (what, again?) Message-ID: <31@ism780.UUCP> Date: Thu, 8-Sep-83 13:14:00 EDT Article-I.D.: ism780.31 Posted: Thu Sep 8 13:14:00 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Sep-83 04:55:02 EDT Lines: 107 re: I am more interested in the great expense of converting existing language forms, than the purity of language. --- Sorry for misstating your concern. However, I consider it reasonable to encourage people to change their language use and to use such changed language without forcing the change of existing materials. It seems to me that many of your attacks on people wanting to avoid terms like manpower are separate from any issue of expense. If you are upset about some specific action or actions by the University which you consider uneconomical, I suggest that you document the cost, determine that the materials changed were not subject to republication anyway, and then send them a letter. While you are at it, you might want to point out all their other uneconomical action. My choice of using the word "staffing" instead of "manpower" is not the cause of their action, and I resent the implication that it is. re: I also believe that the idea that the language needs changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief, --- What does non-scientific mean? There is significant evidence for the belief. I believe that the idea that the language does not need changing is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief. Before you expound upon such things, I suggest that you strive to understand the difference between science and policy, and that you get a better grounding in the philosophy of science. Testing is a method for obtaining evidence; evidence is used to establish the presence "of some aspect or property of the class of phenomena in question which shows a uniform correlation with some other character or property of these same phenomena or of other phenomena to which they stand related". Such establishment is not and never can be absolute; if you consider the evidence to constitute sufficient inductive confirmation of the correlation, then it is "proven" to you. Since policy requires choosing one action *instead of* another action (possibly passive retention of the status quo) it frequently must precede proof. re: and I am vehemently opposed to legislation on the basis of such beliefs. --- You gotta be kidding! Are laws against murder based upon scientific beliefs? Which ones? Do you have a scientific proof that killing is "bad"? Do you even have a scientific proof that not having such laws wouldn't yield a "better" society, whatever that means? Can you scientifically prove your own moral precepts? More importantly, though, you are arguing against a straw man; I do not favor legislation regarding the use of language, against "m*npower", "n*gg*r", or "f*ck", and I don't know of any feminist who does (although I don't doubt that there are such silly people, but talk to *them*). --- re: Note: a student of my father was prevented from having a paper published by the Hospital for Sick Children until the word 'fathering' was changed to 'parenting'. Before you language reformers get up and cheer, consider this -- --- Fine, send *them* a letter and complain. Editors are constantly making inappropriate changes because they do not read or understand the material; this is just one example of that general sort. It is a lousy argument against use of genderless or appropriate-gender language where appropriate. re: People who want to change the language wholesale had better consider these problems. --- I have read informed discussions on ways to use genderless and appropriate-gender language held by responsible people who do consider these issues. Your implication that they don't is arrogant. re: And, in the end, I believe that they are only contributing to the 'smoke screen' belief that sexism is inherant in the language. --- You and a number of others continually argue that sexism is not inherent in the language, but I have yet to see an argument by people favoring use of genderless and appropriate-gender language that it is. Current language use helps foster misconceptions and false visualizations. The new language use helps to call attention to same. "language use contributes to sexism" is not the same as "language use causes sexism", but you argue as though it were. If you ever find yourself bringing this up again without demonstrating that the other side believes that sexism is inherent in the language, then you must admit to yourself that you have a stronger desire to protect your own ego from the pain of having been in error than a desire to arrive at truth. re: If sexism is not in the language, then language reforms of this nature are a waste of time and money which could be spent studying and perhaps even attacking the real problems. --- It doesn't take much time for me to be conscious of my language when speaking and writing. Many people *are* studying and attacking other aspects of sexism and inequality; most of them also try to use genderless and appropriate-gneder language. The question is, what are *you* doing? If you fight to stop spending on language change, will you do it only on the condition that the money be spent on those other areas? If you have placed yourself in a position responsible for the spending of funds, and have chosen to spend them on the study and attack of areas of inequality which you consider to be effective, then I have the utmost respect for you. Otherwise, if all you have to say is something simplistic like "words don't hurt people, people do", then not only aren't you part of the solution, but you are a damn roadblock. Jim Balter (decvax!yale-co!ima!jim), Interactive Systems Corp --------