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: generic man
Message-ID: <444@ttidcc.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 24-May-85 17:11:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: ttidcc.444
Posted: Fri May 24 17:11:15 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 25-May-85 09:17:01 EDT
Organization: TTI, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 21


>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".
>
>And dammit, this is a good idea, a new idea, and a lot more worthwhile than
>What, will it put you professional
>feminists out of business?  Let's hear the yeas and nays.
>
>It just makes too much sense to argue with, doesn't it?
>
>                              Cheryl Stewart, BMOC

No, it doesn't.  See prior posting about inclusive and exclusive terms.
If we had A standing for one type, B for another, and C indicating both,
fine.  But the use of "man" for all doesn't serve this function without
a noun for male men (vs. "woman" for female men) which I think would be
harder to instigate than the singular "the" and "person".

So count this one as a nay.

Adrienne Regard