Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <273@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 13:40:46 EST
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.273
Posted: Tue Mar 19 13:40:46 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 06:10:34 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP>, <269@mhuxr.UUCP> <825@druxo.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 87

[Original posting from Nancy Parsons and my response deleted. See references
for text]
> 
> 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.
> 
By changing the language, are you not attacking the symptom rather than the
cause? 

As I said, it is always possible to express oneself gender-neutrally.
The failure of a speaker or writer to do so is an indication of
laziness and/or unclear thinking. Why penalize the already
much-abused language for its users' faults?

> 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.
> 
See above. One does not have to use 'he' or 'she' if the sex of the person
one is speaking of is not known, or is irrelevant. 'One' does the job
very well. One can also rewrite the sentence so a pronoun is not required.

> 
> >                       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."
> 
Precisely. With so much left to do, why should we waste our time on
trivial or counterproductive pursuits? Why not instead work toward
goals that will make a difference: the universal availability of
quality, affordable day care; the narrowing of the gap between women's
and men's wages; the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment; and so
many others. If we reach or get sufficiently close to these goals,
sexism in the language will not be an issue. Languages are not sexist,
people are (What a cliche!! Sorry about that)

To look at the problem from another angle, what would you do if the
language was French, which has the concept of gender built into its
grammar? Every noun is masculine or feminine, which determines the gender
of the pronoun used. Before you say that French is just more sexist,
reflect on some fine ironies: 'clitoris' and 'vagina' are masculine;
'testicle' and the slang word for 'penis' are feminine. The one really
sexist rule in that language is that in speaking of a collection
of people of both sexes, the masculine plural is used ('ils') One can
get around even that, however, by not speaking of specific he's or
she's, but of generic 'personnes' (which just happens to be feminine)
My point in this rather long digression is that in all languages
that I know about, it is possible to be gender neutral  without
language modifications. So why change the language?

To digress further, my wife, who speaks Japanese, reports that it,
despite having no grammatical gender, is a more sexist language,
because it has entirely different vocabularies for males and for
females. You might want to apply your energies to Japanese (:-)
> 
> "Wrong" by what standard?  Do you consider grammatical rules as absolutes?

No, I consider grammatical clarity an absolute requirement.
>
> 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.

Hope the above were clear enough. Mine is an emotional response. I am
appalled at how poorly people express themselves these days and I cringe
at efforts to legitimize the horrors that are perpetrated in the vernacular.
> 
> Nancy Parsons

Marcel Simon