Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site galbp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!akgub!galbp!bing
From: bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: The Great Sexist Language Debate
Message-ID: <160@galbp.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Jun-85 01:45:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: galbp.160
Posted: Sat Jun  1 01:45:39 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 2-Jun-85 00:21:17 EDT
References: <2221@decwrl.UUCP> <> <145@galbp.UUCP> <>
Reply-To: bing@galbp.UUCP (Bing Bang)
Organization: Lanier Business Products, Inc., Atlanta, Georgia
Lines: 60
Summary: 

In article <> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes:
>In response to Bing Bang:
>
>>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}. 

my point exactly. don't you think after 100 years of women repairman,
the perception for this word will change also? or am i being too idealistic?
>
>>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.

isn't the meaning of a word the same thing as how it is perceived?
i guess my real suggestion was that in certain context and words
'man' must loose it's reference to the male sex. This is the real
change in perception that is needed.
                
>    `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'. 

the english language (perhaps unfortunately, perhaps not) is full of contra-
dictions. i don't think it is too far fetched to suggest that 'man' be
perceived as 'male' only in certain context, and not automatically.

>
>    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
>	...

of course not. in all of your examples above, it is (or my point is that
it should be) clear in what context 'man' is being used.

>
>-michael


-- 
----------
"Is anything really real?"
...akgua!galbp!bing