Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: The Great Sexist Language Debate
Message-ID: <253@spar.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 20-May-85 10:11:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.253
Posted: Mon May 20 10:11:33 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 23-May-85 03:38:10 EDT
References: <2221@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 57

The Great Sexist Language Debate has continued on and off in net.women for
years now. I'm as sick of it as the next person, but newcomers do keep 
arriving, and I cannot bear to see a reasonably good cause get trounced.

Nonsexist language IS important, even if the topic has been beaten to death.
For example, how is a woman to respond to such an ad:

	XYZ Corp. is looking for an ambitious salesmen with a knowledge
	of Cosmic Defrangibrators. Applicant must demonstrate his
	ability in the following areas: .....

Though such an ad can easily be rewritten to avoid the male references,
the sad fact remains that such ads appear far too often. If I were a 
qualified woman, I'd certainly be hesitant to check out this job. The
suggestion that only a MAN should reply is all too strong. 

Furthermore, most people, especially those in personnel departments,
are aware by now of the controversy surrounding `he' and `man'. Should
such terms continue to be used generically, the natural conclusion for
a woman to make is that the company is run by sexist pigs, so why apply?

A common misconception about nonsexist language appears below:

>Not only that, but the whole notion of abolishing sexist (or racist,
>or ageist or..) language has rather strange overtones of Orwell.  Granted, 
>enriching our language so that we can avoid gender reference if we
>care to is a good idea, but not at the sacrifice of losing useful
>aspects of our language.  

When I see stuff like this in net.women, I cannot help but feel that this
newsgroup should be renamed `net.conservative.attitudes'. What does Orwell
have to do with anything, given that feminists are hardly in control of
anything? And just what useful feature of our language is about to be lost?
Please note:

1. Those who wish to use `man' and `he' as before are hardly being prevented
   from so doing. Such people will simply be perceived as insensitive
   to the women's movement, since they insist on using language that may
   ambiguously exclude women! The older language INVITES HYPOCRISY, as
   in `All men are created equal' (Did that mean women too? apparently not).
2. Conservatives who find newer language constructs awkward, but do not
   wish to offend women, are free to do as Marcel suggests by carefully
   rephrasing all sentences to avoid singular anaphoric pronouns, &c.
3. Those who are comfortable with the newer sex-ambiguous language
   constructs (they/person &c.) should be encouraged to continue using
   them. This is net.women, A FORUM FOR WOMEN"S ISSUES, and it astounds
   me that the rabid conservative male enginerd viewpoint has been allowed
   to predominate in so many debates.

>Re: Perchild and other Stupidity
>	I will note, however, that I've heard just about every one of these
>stupid constructs already; that like most jokes, their humor decreases with
>repetion; and that they weren't \all/ that funny to begin with. -- Jym Dyer

Amen!

-michael