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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!randvax!edhall
From: edhall@randvax.UUCP (Ed Hall)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: ``they'' vs *US*
Message-ID: <2473@randvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-May-85 13:33:40 EDT
Article-I.D.: randvax.2473
Posted: Wed May  8 13:33:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 12-May-85 11:22:18 EDT
References: <385@ttidcc.UUCP> <305@mhuxr.UUCP> <327@h-sc1.UUCP>
Organization: Rand Corp., Santa Monica
Lines: 50

> I beg to disagree.  "Fire fighter", "letter carrier" and "police officer"
> were invented later and there are plenty who say "Yuck, fire fighter is
> sloppy and letter carrier is ambiguous."  Besides, what about "chairman"?
> There are plenty of words ending in "man" that have no good equivalent.
> Such as "human".  (Oh, NOW I'm going to get flamed!  :-) )
> 
> 	marie desjardins

Yer right!  As has been mentioned several times before in this group,
``human'' does *not* derive from ``man'' (although ``woman'' does :-) ).
It comes from the Latin ``humanus'', the same as our word ``humane''.

``Man'' is Anglo-Saxon in origin.  The syllable ``man'' in ``human''
has no connection to it.

I've been following this discussion through four incarnations, now
(since the first time I saw it on the net in 1983).  I see the same
straw men, the same folk etymologies, the ``grammarians'' who've never
had a course in formal grammar since junior high school; all the
childishness, self-rightiousness and downright thick-headedness that
has been so brilliantly displayed in the past is still here.

No, I'm not picking on you in particular, Marie.  It's just that the
major points here have all been made: that language bears sexism, that
language has a powerful affect on people's thinking and on society,
that language is constantly undergoing change, and that it behooves us
to try to channel that change in a direction that reduces sexual
discrimination.  Few people have been arguing these points--instead
they've been getting off into picayune discussions over individual
words, wailing ``Yes, but *here's* a change that's *wrong* (or sounds
*awful*)!'' (To which my answer is, ``Fine, suggest something better.'')

And now that we've tied up all our energy in useless discussions on
words, there are a couple of people who are making the outrageous and
dangerous claims that:
  1. White men are being discriminated against, and this deserves at
     least as much attention as discrimination against women.
  2. It is wrong for women to be proud when they manage to overcome
     discrimination.
  3. Wearing ``provocative'' clothing is somehow responsible for
     (at least some) rape.

Except for one or two mild postings, the net is *silent* in response
to these and other such claims!  Instead, we'll generate scores of
postings on fireman vs. firefighter.

Come on, people:  WAKE UP!

		-Ed Hall
		decvax!randvax!edhall