Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Re(2): Net Language Use (what, again?)
Message-ID: <1036@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 10-Sep-83 00:39:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1036
Posted: Sat Sep 10 00:39:39 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 10-Sep-83 02:33:40 EDT
References: <31@ism780.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 211

The folowing is a response to Jim Balter.

Balter:
	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.

Somebody else wrote the letter. I just signed it. And your usage is
part of the problem. Currently there are some people who think that
words such as 'manpower' are a bad thing. if there are enough of them
that it will become a bad thing by the simple strength of their
numbers. This may be the case already, but I hope it is not. However,
if the issue can be put to rest now, then nobody will be trying to
change the language, which would be in my opinion a very good thing.

laura:
	I also believe that the idea that the language needs changing
	is based on a non-scientific, non-tested belief,

Balter:
	What does non-scientific mean?  There is significant evidence
	for the belief.

there is significant evidence that the belief exists, yes. But any
grounds for the belief? I have been asking people on this net for 3
years and i haven't got any evidence yet. Hypothesis without testing is
NOT SCIENCE. (or rather it is the very first step of the scientific
method). Non-scientific means in not in accordance with the scientific
method.

Balter:
	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.

Oh really. I will stand by my current grounding in the philosophy of
science, which is rather extensive.

Balter:
	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.

But NO evidence is NO evidence. If you persist in a belief without
bothering to get evidence, or in the light of contrary evidence then
while you may still feel what you are doing is right, I am not
obligated to call it science.

Balter:
	Since policy requires choosing one action *instead of* another
	action (possibly passive retention of the status quo) it
	frequently must precede proof.

This does not mean that proof is not desirable, or that if the premise
of a policy is known to be false that the policy should not be
changed.  And in the absense of proof you have decided to make a policy
decision on how you will use language. This is your right, but when you
decide to make a policy decision on how *I* will use language, and pass
it off as science then i will get extremely annoyed.

laura:
	and I am vehemently opposed to legislation on the basis of such
	beliefs.

Balter:
	You gotta be kidding!  Are laws against murder based upon
	scientific beliefs?

Mine are. People are valuable. (this can be proven). Killing people
deprives both themselves and others of that value. (this is obvious).
therefore killing people is a bad thing, in that it deprives society
(what the laws are about) of this value. On the other hand, rapists and
murderers may have little or no value, and so capital punishment may be
lawful.

	Which ones?  Do you have a scientific proof that killing is
	"bad"?

See above.

	Do you even have a scientific proof that not having such laws
	wouldn't yield a "better" society, whatever that means?

Right now I am trying to bootstrap an entirely new legal system that is
not based on taboos. It is a lot of work. Whether 'laws' will actually
be necessary is a moot point. I personally believe that they will not
but that I am living in the wrong time to see the fulfilment of all of
this.

	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*).

I can prove my own moral principles, yes, against all claims that are
not or the sort that 'all the world is an illusion'. At that level
proof becomes meaningless. Some of the fundamental points at upon which
I base my moral principles are not agreed, however (For instance, I
believe that man is not inherantly evil). But my moral system is true
to the scientific method.

I talk to such feminists far more often than I would like. I have
megabytes of mail from them. It may be a straw man with respect to you,
but not with respect to many. And since you decided to inaccurately
present my beliefs i thought that I would outline them more fully.


Laura:
	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 --

Balter:
	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.

Not since the whole function of the editor was to prevent sexist
language from coming out of the hospital, it wasn't. She has received
lots of letters.  And the hospital is still hiring her despite the loud
protest of people who want her fired for her editorial changes. She
claims that we are all sexist and that the human rights commision
should look at the papers we produce. yet in at least one case a change
that she introduced in the hands of a naive anaethetist could KILL a
premature patient.  You can beleive that people are pretty riled about
this one.

Laura:
	People who want to change the language wholesale had better
	consider these problems.

Balter:
	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.

But I have suffered at the hands of those that DO NOT. Your implication
that these people do not exist and wield power is stupid.

Balter:
	Current language use helps foster misconceptions and false
	visualizations.  The new language use helps to call attention
	to same.

Your claim. Back it up with facts, now.

Balter:
	"language use contributes to sexism" is not the same as
	"language use causes sexism", but you argue as though it were.

You are using 'cause' to mean 'sole cause'. i am not.

	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.

Well, i will never have to deal with this problem because i have never
had to demonstrate that others believe that sexism is inherant in the
language.  They make that perfectly clear. Now I did not say that it
was only found in the language, though, or event hat they said this
(though I have met some people who believe this as well).

laura:
	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.

Balter:
	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.

The only money I get to determine the spending of is my own, and that
of those whom I can influence. i am trying to spend my money and effort
reforming all of society which to my mind needs drastic reforms.
Sexism is only a small problem from this perspective. Still, I believe
that it will only be changed with a massive change in society, one that
I am working towards though it is unlikely that i will see it realised
within my lifetime.

laura creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura