Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site druxo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap
From: nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <825@druxo.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 10:52:48 EST
Article-I.D.: druxo.825
Posted: Tue Mar 19 10:52:48 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 05:10:53 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP>, <269@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 106

Nancy Parsons (original posting)
> > Just want to share a small victory (I love to celebrate)...
> > 
> > Last night, Crossroads in Faith Ministries, an organization working in the
> > field of domestic violence, adopted a set of bylaws containing the
> > following footnote:
> > 
> >     Throughout this document, the personal pronouns "they," "them," and
> >     "their" are used to indicate third person *SINGULAR* when the referent
> >     may be either female or male (a grammatical form practiced for
> >     centuries by reputable writers such as Shakespeare, Shaw, and Scott
> >     Fitzgerald).
> > 
> > One reason this is significant is that the organization is one of typically
> > "traditional" or "conservative" church people who have come to recognize
> > that traditional language transmits values and behavioral models that
> > contribute to attitudes leading to domestic violence.

Marcel Simon (response)
> Wait a minute. Are you saying that the use of 'he' and 'she' instead of the
> grammatically incorect, ambiguous 'they' promotes domestic violence??????

Sigh...  No.  Sexist language (using "he" when "she or he" is meant; always
putting "he" before "she") tends to promote domestic violence because of
the attitudes it fosters.

Personally, I don't much care whether we use "she or he" or the singular
"they" or make up some new pronouns.  Many people will complain about it
whatever we do: "she or he" is awkward; singular "they" is grammatically
incorrect; new pronouns are not part of the language.

Nevertheless, I'm not willing to continue giving males the credit for what
women accomplish or to make positions of power and influence sound as though
they were reserved for males by referring exclusively to "he/him/his" when
what is meant is someone of either sex.  So I will use one or more of the
non-sexist options, take the flack that results, and encourage others to
do the same.

> Actually, I do not understand why people spend so much time on such trivial
> tasks as eradicating gender specific pronouns from the language.

I am unaware of anyone suggesting "eradicating gender specific pronouns
from the language."  I advocate using them *ONLY* when a specific gender is
intended.

>                                                                   Aside
> from making it more dificult to understand what we say or write to each other,
> what specific "victory" is derived by not using 'he' or 'she'?

The "victory" was not in the choice of "she or he" over the singular
"they"; it was in the fact that people recognized the harmful influence of
sexist language and were willing to do something about it.  In my opinion,
almost any choice is better than continuing to use sexist language.

>                                                                 It is always
> possible to express oneself in a gender neutral manner; one may have to think
> a bit before speaking though. God forbid we should have to think before
> speaking or writing!

This feels like an attack.  Marcel, I do try to think before speaking or
writing.  And I don't advocate that other people should not do so.

>                       Now that we have had a female candidate for the
> Vice Presidency of this country, now that we are seeing the fruits
> of these past twenty years of activism, with women in the work force
> making their way up their various fields' ladders, is it really advancing
> the cause of and of benefit to women to advocate greater vagueness in the
> language? Frankly, I find nothing to celebrate here.

A few visible advances do not win a war nor eradicate the mindset of
centuries.  Obviously, we have a difference of opinion.  I find using "he"
to refer to people of either sex the worst sort of "vagueness in the
language."

> I have no problem with a language evolving from the grass roots.

Then it would *SEEM* that your choice of the three options, unless you are
advocating continued use of sexist language, would be the singular "they,"
since that is the choice evolving from grass roots.

>                                                                   New words
> are constantly created to fill gaps in meaning. But this trend to a generic,
> bland, boring, confusing, WRONG 'they' is not evolution but retrogression.

"Wrong" by what standard?  Do you consider grammatical rules as absolutes?
I don't.  They are often useful, but when they maintain a harmful status
quo, they can and should be changed, in my opinion.  Evolving to a singular
"they" is surely not all that different from evolving to a singular "you"
(which suffers the same potential for confusion, but we are used to it).
Are you as eager to return to "thou" to maintain grammatical purity as you
are to maintain "he"?

> Sorry for the flame tone, but I am surprised and dismayed when I see normally
> clear thinking folks like Parsons embrace such mush.

I'm glad you perceive me as "normally clear thinking."  However, phrases
like "embrace such mush" tend, in my opinion, to promote emotionally
muddied thinking, so I try not to use them, and I try to see beyond them
when they are used by others.  Frankly, I haven't figured out whether you
are promoting sexist language over all other options or are simply upset by
the singular "they" which offends your sense of grammatical correctness
(which I fully understand, having come from that position myself).  Any
clarification would be most appreciated.

Nancy Parsons
AT&T ISL