Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site randvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!mcnc!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <2349@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 19-Mar-85 13:57:33 EST
Article-I.D.: randvax.2349
Posted: Tue Mar 19 13:57:33 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 04:48:26 EST
References: <824@druxo.UUCP> <269@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 67

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

Because they *aren't* trivial.  The effect of language is all-pervasive,
and has a key role in developing a child's perceptions of the world, as
well as a subtle effect on our way of thinking whenever it involves use
of the language.

> 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'?

How, pray tell, does using the generic ``they'' make things ``more difficult
to understand''?  As a matter of fact, I find *less* ambiguity in its use,
since it clearly indicates that sex is unimportant, whereas the use of ``he''
always implies the possibility of restriction to males.  The use of ``they''
introduces a singular/plural ambiguity that is much less of a problem, since
context usually makes it quite unambiguous.

> 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!

And except for language purists (who have problems with the inherently
ambiguous nature of natural language), the use of ``they'' is a lot more
natural than the convolutions necessary to eliminate such pronouns
altogether.  This leaves the mind clear to think about other aspects of
meaning.

> 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.

Neither do I--your rhetorical question seems to be a non sequitur.

> I have no problem with a language evolving from the grass roots.  New
> words are constantly created to fill gaps in meaning.

Actually, it is more common for old words to take on new meanings.
Except for compoundings, acronyms, and slang--all derivations from
older words--few words are ``created'' these days.

> But this trend to a generic, bland, boring, confusing, WRONG 'they' is
> not evolution but retrogression.

I fail to see how you have supported your point.  Besides, considered
in the abstract, how could a sexless personal pronoun *not* be boring
and bland?

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

Your article is hardly a paragon of clear-thinking, either.  Of course,
mine isn't, since I obviously embrace such ``mush''.

Ambiguity in language is *essential*--it allows us to point to those
elements of a statement which are important, and discard those which
are not.  As a tool of our thoughts, it influences how we form concepts,
and as the chief instrument of our social learning, it influences the
very structure of our society.
>
> Marcel Simon

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall