Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site wateng.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!wateng!jamcmullan
From: jamcmullan@wateng.UUCP (Judy McMullan)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: now is the time for all good men...
Message-ID: <2459@wateng.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-May-85 14:56:02 EDT
Article-I.D.: wateng.2459
Posted: Fri May 31 14:56:02 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Jun-85 01:11:49 EDT
References: <749@oddjob.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 51

---

	>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"

I think there is a lot of merit to Cheryl's idea in that women, instead of being
second-class citizens, are included in the terminology of the higher-status men.
They are promoted to first class. It is difficult terminology to accept, though,
as I think of myself as a woman and I enjoy being a woman. I think it would be
a useful exercise or device to use in certain group meetings or role-playing
execises or discussions.

The difficulty, of course, is that the way Cheryl has defined it, only current
male values of good qualities would be considered good qualities. She says:

	>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".

Under that scheme, the valuable traits of women are still second-class. We
could perform our duties as parents "like men" but I think it would be better
if all parents became more "womanly" than "manly" (using traditional definitions
of the words). For that matter, the whole world, including the world of business
might improve a little if some of the kinder values of women were lauded.

It seems that Cheryl has no intention of putting her own proposal into effect:

	>If you want to discuss this topic man-to-man, grow up.
	>You can save your childish backbiting for sorority-house
	>meetings or wherever it is that kind of thing is deemed acceptable.

as she obviously does not treat the woman she is addressing, as a "man".
The woman cannot talk man-to-man because she is not "grown up". She is only
suitable for a "sorority house". This is exactly the same as men calling
each other "woman" as an insult. It is NOT bringing adult women "manhood" it
is the same old thing -- valuing men and de-valuing women. The choice of words,
by Cheryl, for her insult shows that even SHE believes this. A female "man" can
never be a "real man" because she is female and never allowed to forget it.

I don't care about the semantics, ultimately. If women and men were accorded
the same respect and opportunities we could all be called men (then I assume
the word "woman" would go away and we would use female man and male man when
it was necessary to distinguish), women or wombats. That's not so important, to
me. I WOULD like to see the valuable aspects of the women's world gain respect.

Meanwhile, I'm just going to go about, as I usally do, racking my brains for
sentence constructions that don't imply all people are male and using the
dreaded "s/he" construction when I'm really stuck. The world doesn't seem to
be ready to have female men.

		--Judy McMullan