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!crsp!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: <572@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-May-85 04:40:53 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.572 Posted: Sun May 26 04:40:53 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 27-May-85 07:34:27 EDT References: <749@oddjob.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 67 Xref: linus net.women:4851 net.flame:9285 From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart), Message-ID: <749@oddjob.UUCP>: >Your second mistake, beth@sphinx, was to completely misunderstand my >proposal. I proposed that grownup females be referred to as men. This >constitutes a significant departure from the current use of the English >language. You claimed that I proposed that no change be made. Clearly, >simple logic escapes you. I'd say you have a lot to learn. > > Cheryl Stewart Apparently I *do* have a lot to learn. When you said >I really think that the generic term for a person should >be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". , I thought you meant that you thought that the generic term for a person should be "man", and that the generic pronouns should be "he", "him" and "his". This has always been the case. There are, however, *specific* terms like "woman", "she", "her" and "hers" that are used in *specific* cases. "Man", "he", "him" and "his" have always been used as the *generic* terms. If you wanted to change the *specific* terms you might have referred to them properly. (By the way, that was probably my *first* mistake. I doubt I would have responded so "childishly" if I had understood what the hell you were talking so rabidly about.) Now that we've gotten past the misunderstanding: It would in fact be nice if we didn't polarize people into separate groups. I'm not going to jump on your bandwagon, however, for a couple of reasons. The first, and least logical, is your choice of replacement words. I simply don't *want* to be called a man (neither do I want to discuss this "man-to-man" :-). I'm willing to meet folks halfway (person does *not* strike me as wimpy), but something in me rebels at suddenly calling everyone "men". It seem to be saying that "man" is a more appropriate word than "woman", and that appropriateness could only be based on the meanings of words. And I just don't agree with that. A more logical reason is the extreme difficulty in implementing it. One could not abolish *all* gender-specific words, as there are legitimate reasons to distinguish between the sexes (e.g. explaining sex, menstru- ation, etc. to children). And if any gender-specific words are present, people would have to have already achieved the goal (i.e., not distin- guishing in their thoughts between men and women) before they would use the language properly. The shift in language usage would then be an effect, not a cause, of the attitude shift. Of course, the same could be said of gender-neutral pronouns. I suppose the point is get a few folks to undergo the shift and then use the language in a way that would induce others to too. Hmmmm. I wish there was a gender-neutral set of words already. I really don't like picking one or the other. Just out of curiousity, would you also like to abolish the distinction between blacks and whites, and foreigner, and ? I suppose those aren't as pervasive in the language (ie, there's not a seperate pronoun for "Hispanic's"). Yet the prejudices are often as great. Hmmmm again. Well, now that I understand what you're talking about, it is indeed thought provoking. My apologies for responding initially with such foolhardy abandon. -- --JB "The giant is awake." Disclaimer? Who wud claim dis?