Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ttidcc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!ttidca!ttidcc!regard
From: regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Genderization (is that a word?)
Message-ID: <289@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 21-Mar-85 16:43:44 EST
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.289
Posted: Thu Mar 21 16:43:44 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 24-Mar-85 06:28:41 EST
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 55


Nancy Parsons gets my vote for thinking person of the year.  Her comment
and rebuttal were sound, lucid and persuasive.  Congratulations.

Regarding the subject matter:

I can understand why many people would not consider the genderization
of the language to be a problem worth a lot of concern (especially
given the numerous other arenas for effort in the larger struggle with
inequity).  And there are two conflicting forces on language at all
times -- the "evolution" of the language and the "institutionalization"
of language.  Both occur, and both change the language in many ways.
What is tangentially interesting is that neither force is apparently
guided by any morality -- neither force changes language consistently
"for the better" (clearer, less discriminatory, whatever).  While the
changes to language are not random, they correlate most closely to
convenience than anything else.

Genderization can be harmful, however, and I concur with Nancy on this
point.  The original text of the bible used a hebrew word that was feminine
in form to speak of "God".  The word itself more closely resembled "earth".
Our western culture, in the middle ages, changed the concept of "God"
to include the notion of masculinity, and it has only been in the last
(somebody give me dates) 25 years or so that the "proof" of a male god
has even been questioned.  How many women have been denied religious
aspirations because of the views of our ancestors?  How harmful is this?
I don't know.  I don't believe in God.  But if I did, and I were raised
with the notion of a masculine God, who created humans in "His" image. . .
Thank god (whoops) that our country can no longer support such wasted
potential.

I, along with Nancy, will choose to use other forms (like singular "they" or
"s/he") to express my intent rather than the standard "he" whenever the
gender would be inaccurate or immaterial.  That is one solution.  Like
Marcel, I will often elect to rewrite my content into a form that does not
require differentiating pronouns.  That is another solution.  I don't see
that "s/he" is remarkably different than "one" in terms of awkwardness of
expression.  Since the institutionalization of language doesn't serve to
freeze it in any case, I don't see that either solution will insure
the purity of the language, either.  Like both Nancy and Marcel (if I read
you aright), I don't subscribe to the all-encompassing "he" as an
alternative pronoun for everyone.

Re the "gender" of languages other than English:

1.  Is that material to English?  I don't think so.
2.  Genderization is relative to the evolution of the word, rather than
    it's meaning.  A book may be masculine (gender) in French, but "his"
    isn't feminine (sex) in English.
3.  Another tangential note -- not even dead languages are safe.  In the
    attempt to translate "Winnie the Pooh" into Latin, the authors had to
    create dozens of words, and determine their "gender".  Most often, they
    elected to alter existing Latin and stick with the gender of the base,
    or root, word regardless of the "sex" of the object . . .and you know
    how the Romans would feel about that!!  No?  lets go ask 'em.