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!cbosgd!ihnp4!drutx!druxo!nap
From: nap@druxo.UUCP (ParsonsNA)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: A Small Victory; Not at All
Message-ID: <840@druxo.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Apr-85 09:14:01 EST
Article-I.D.: druxo.840
Posted: Wed Apr  3 09:14:01 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 4-Apr-85 06:04:32 EST
Organization: AT&T Information Systems Laboratories, Denver
Lines: 53

Saumya Debray:
> Somehow, I've never felt that "he" _necessarily_ refers to males, just as
> "you" isn't necessarily singular.  Maybe that's why I have trouble --
> politically unfashionable though it currently might be -- empathising with
> people who _insist_ that "he" necessarily refers to males.

Nancy Parsons:
The issue is not what is politically fashionable, nor is it a question of
whether or not we agree that "he" does not necessarily refer to males (most
of us agree that it doesn't).

The problem (as shown by studies--see "Words and Women" by Casey Miller and
Kate Swift) is that in cultures using the Engilish language, we who have
"never felt that 'he' necessarily refers to males" do, in fact, think male
when "he" is used generically.  Does anyone really imagine a woman when
they hear a statement such as "The farmer milks his cows twice a day"?  Or
"The employee and his spouse are entitled to the following benefits"?
Etc.  Some of the effects of such mental assumptions are surely obvious.
Some of the more subtle (and harmful) ones are examined in "Words and
Women."

>                                                             Other languages
> have their share of such overloaded words, e.g. German with "sie" (and
> arguing that "we're not concerned with German here" is a cop-out!).

The issue is not one of male vs. female gender in language *PER SE*.
Rather, it is one of the psychological effect of such language, which can
only be determined by studies.  I am unaware of any such studies in any
language other than English, would probably not understand them if I knew
about them, and have my hands more than full just dealing with English. 
No, I do not consider this a cop out.

> For someone who wants, nonetheless, to identify "he" with "male", I don't
> see why Marcel's suggestion of using "one" isn't adequate -- makes for a
> somewhat constrained style of expression, perhaps, but certainly a whole
> lot more palatable than, say, "they is ...".

I suppose you chose "they is..." because you also use "you is..." :-)

I, for one, have no problem using "one" in much of my communication.  But
having no hang ups about a singular "they," I find it more comfortable to
say, "If anyone is cold, they should..." rather than "If anyone is cold,
one should..."(or "that one should...").  Likewise, I find it awkward to
refer to the Executive Director of an organization (whose gender will vary
over time) as "that one has this responsibility" and "that one has that
duty" etc.  "They" is more palatable (your expression, and one implying a
personal judgment of the individual using it) to me.  And, besides, adding
a footnote to explain the reason for the singular "they" gives one the
opportunity of reminding people of the detrimental effects of sexist
language. :-)

Nancy Parsons
AT&T ISL