Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!allegra!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth
From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.flame
Subject: Re: Now is the time for all good men...
Message-ID: <561@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-May-85 01:54:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: sphinx.561
Posted: Sat May 25 01:54:45 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 26-May-85 21:43:53 EDT
References: <742@oddjob.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center
Lines: 65
Xref: linus net.women:4819 net.flame:9246

From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart), Message-ID: <742@oddjob.UUCP>:

>I was serious.  I really think that the generic term for a person should
>be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his".

Oh my goddess, she *was* serious.

>The psychology of this is phenomenally powerful...it does not demand that
>anyone change his concept of "manhood" to one of "personhood", but rather
>that a female of our species be considered part of mankind.  It also
>acknowleges the fact that it IS a "man's world", and it does not place
>any importance in radically changing that man's world into a "persons
>world".  It rather puts the burden on individuals to live up to cerain
>standards of job performance, self-reliance, and social dominance
>necessary to survive in an unchanged man's world.  If everyone were a
>"man", it would be no longer possible to speak of "women's work" any more
>than people can get away with referring to manual labor as "nigger's
>work".  It would just be too impolite, and asking for a stylletto heel
>right between the eyes (or a nike in the nuts as the case may be).  
>
>Furthermore, the use of the word "man" to refer to a human being of either
>sex would force men to consider social, financial, intellectual,
>technical and scientific accomplishments as something very, very
>different from simple biological endowments.  If you're the best man for
>the job, you're the best man for the job--no matter what your plumbing,
>parentage or early social environment was like.  The push for THIS kind
>of change in the use of the language would have a different connotation
>from the bleeding-hearded whine "but we're all people, aren't we?"
>associated with mutilations like "to each his/her own". Rather, it says,
>"Dammit, I'm as good a man as you, and what I do is just as important as
>what you do, and if you have a dispute with me, you'd better prove it."  

Gibberish.  Knee-jerk, unintelligible gibberish.

>And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile
>than than the drivel about rape and high-heel sneakers I've been reading
>about in this newsgroup lately.

Cheryl, dearest, the "good idea, new idea" you're proposing is *no change
at all* in our language.  How the h*ll is not making any change at all
going to influence people's pre/misconceptions?  (Well, technically, it's
changing *back* to the language that had us brainwashed before, but the
progress we've made is still new enough to be non-standard.)

>Is the idea just too simple and effective a solution to gender-connotation
>discrimination?

It's simple alright.  But effective?!?!  Stand around and do absolutely
nothing, and everyone will undergo a "phenomonally powerful" mind shift.
You're looney-tunes.

>It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it?

It makes too *little* sense to argue with.

>                              Cheryl Stewart, BMOC

aka Eliza II

-- 

--JB                                             "The giant is awake."

Disclaimer?  Who wud claim dis?