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!linus!decvax!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: The Great Sexist Language Debate
Message-ID: <268@spar.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-May-85 06:55:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.268
Posted: Wed May 29 06:55:03 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 31-May-85 05:08:22 EDT
References: <2221@decwrl.UUCP> <> <145@galbp.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 67

In response to Bing Bang:

>first of all, i  think changing the language is curing the symptoms
>and not the problem. the real problem with words like "fireman" and
>"postman" is that the image they create in most people has a great
>sexual bias. 

    Can you really separate `problem' from `symptom' in something so
    subjective as language perception? 

    Maybe there are people who are not affected by their own language, 
    but for most of us the very words we use reinforce or alter
    our future attitudes and perceptions. Language is both symptom
    and problem.

    I agree that a deeply prejudiced person will not be significantly
    affected by any language change. 

    But the Orwellian mind engineering of determined chauvinists is hardly
    the purpose behind the proposed language constructs. The newer language
    is of greatest utility to those who support the women's movement, in
    such cases as the wording of nondiscriminatory jobs or laws.

    For instance, a job ad for a `repairman' is more likely to discourage
    a qualified women than one for a `repairperson'. If you are a fair-minded
    employer, using the newer language makes this point clear at a
    minimum expense of words.

>i suggest changing these words so that they do not have "man" suffixes will
>not change this sexual bias.

    I disagree. The word `chairperson' certainly does not carry a strictly
    male image in my mind. 

>i can attempt to back my claim by asking which sex do most people think of
>when words like "taxi driver" or "cop" are used.

    True. But after 50 or 100 years of women cops and taxi drivers, this
    perception will vanish. `Repairman' will still contain the same stem
    as {manly, mannish, men's room}. 

>the real problem is and always has been one of perception, not merely what
>letters a word is composed of. and the real cure is a change in the
>perception of the words, not the words themselves. in other words, if a word
>is perceived to stand  for both sexes equally, then who cares how it is
>spelled?

    The trouble with `man' is one of MEANING, not spelling, as you suggest.
    `Man' has two meanings, one, as in `men's room', the other as in `all
    men are created equal'. 

    And the problem is permanent, or will remain as long as `man' can be
    perceived as `male, not female'. 

    Do you propose convincing people to use some other word in the phrases
    below?

	for men only
	a man's deodorant
	a man's point of view
	a manly pursuit
	a mannish woman
	men's room
	men's clothes
	...

-michael