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: they vs it vs he vs she
Message-ID: <385@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 29-Apr-85 18:10:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.385
Posted: Mon Apr 29 18:10:50 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Apr-85 02:27:25 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 44

>The point I'm trying to make is that even when some sort of correlation has
>been established between a word and some sort of mental image conjured up by
>that word, it _does not_ follow that there's a causal link between them.
>I've tried to show, using a few examples, that a strong case can be made for
>experiential generalization being the cause of the particular mental image -
>I'm sure you can find many other such examples.

>Now until you can demonstrate a convincing causal relationship between the
>use of "he" and the conjuring up of a mental "male" image, I'll view your
>attempts to change my world-view by changing my language as an attempt to
>treat the symptom rather than the disease (Sapir-Whorf and George Orwell
>notwithstanding!).  And if you can't demonstrate such a causal relationship,
>well, that's a pretty serious flaw in your argument, isn't it?  I'd suggest
>that you try to get more women into the work force, fighting fires and
>delivering mail: that, I think, would be more effective in changing the
>"male" image associated with "fireman" and "postman" than any amount of
>linguistic twiddling.
>Saumya Debray

Yes, but. . .

Your points are well taken, but just so far.  A male image is associated
with "fireman" and "postman" as much from experience as from language.  But,
let's say we get lots of women into these fields (as we have, in leaps and
bounds in the recent past).  Has that changed the "image"?  And will it
change the image if people who are worried about "sloppy grammar" do not
allow the change to occur (in literature for children, for instance) based
on some "purity of the language" argument?  Why do we still have the words
"fireman" and "postman" when women are now represented in these fields?
The requests, and then demands, of women to be referred to in a neuter form
(fireperson, mailperson) have been ridiculed by "grammarians" as well as
politicians, and indian chiefs.  Everybody who doesn't like something is
quick to point out how "sloppy" it is, how "ambiguous".  The neuter form of
"they" is simply another "sloppy" method for reducing the sexual
differentiation in language.  A method that is being accepted by some and
vigorously opposed by others, on many grounds.

It is, moreover, a change that currently _follows_ a trend (the move of
women into the heretofor male dominated workplace) rather than an attempt
to "twiddle" with the language and create a new (inaccurate) image.  No
one is suggesting misleading small children, office managers, document
readers, etc., by introducing inaccurate or obscure usages.  Seems to me
the effort is in recognition of a historic change to our society.
Adrienne Regard