Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site oddjob.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!oddjob!cs1
From: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.nlang
Subject: Re: Gender-neutral indefinites: who's arguing what?
Message-ID: <813@oddjob.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Jun-85 14:29:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: oddjob.813
Posted: Thu Jun 20 14:29:56 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 21-Jun-85 01:22:18 EDT
References: <706@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP>
Reply-To: cs1@oddjob.UUCP (Cheryl Stewart)
Organization: U. Chicago, Astronomy & Astrophysics
Lines: 65
Xref: watmath net.women:5963 net.nlang:3214
Summary: 

In article <706@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> mmar@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Mitchell Marks) writes:
>
>[][][]
>
>I hope it's obvious to all that there are two different debates going
>on about gender-neutral[ized] indefinite pronouns:
>
>       Debate # 1     WHETHER to adopt & encourage changed usage
>
>       Debate # 2     HOW to adopt & encourage changed usage
>

      Gender-neutral pronouns are one thing--but there is yet a third
debate:  

        Debate # 3    How & whether to adopt and encourage changed usag
                      as regards to gender specific NOUNS.

Clearly, the way we reference a person directly in a sentence (man, woman,
person, joker, master, mistress, etc. etc.) has much, much more cultural
implications than the way we reference a person indefinitely with a pronoun.
WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE GENDER-NEUTRAL NOUN?  PERSON!!!  RIGHT???!!!

RIGHT. The suggestion to use the word "man" as a gender-neutral noun
(cf. Now is the time ...) has quite a few merits, in that there would
be fewer opportunities for men to rub women's faces in phrases like
"this is a man's job" and "we're looking for a repairMAN".   If people
just started using the word "man" UNIFORMLY as a gender-neutral noun,
as it is already in many contexts, we could lexically outwit and confuse
the enemy.  If a woman refuses to be CALLED a "woman" in the same way a black
refuses to be called "[that offensive n-word, that I won't repeat]" men
would be hard-put to find the phraseology to refer to [work typically
done by females?] in order to discuss the differences between work 
typically done by males and work typically done by females.  The idea is
not encourage the most tactfully correct change in usage, but rather the
most tactically effective change in usage...to use their own words agianst
them.  You see, as it stands now, sexists have an advantage.  They can use
all of the cultural connotations of the word "man" to "inadvertently" or
"jokingly" or "seriously in private"  reinforce traditional roles in
society.  My suggestion that the word "man" be used uniformly as a gender-
NEUTRAL noun is intended to take away from sexists the power to use this
word like a weapon against women.  It is not intended to glorify masculine
character attributes or anathematize feminine character attributes.   
It is intended to allow any man, male or female, to be as feminine or
masculine as he so desires.

But it's also just a suggestion...I do not expect that the idea will catch
on, or even be discussed widely.  I'm just tired of having my face rubbed
in half-baked notions about "women's work" and "men's work".  If I had MY
way, NOBODY would have to work ever at all!  

                                            Cheryl Stewart


P.S.  A rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

      so why not call it a jackhammer?

      A jackhammer is a jackhammer is a jackhammer.

-- 

There's one kind of favor I'll ask of you: 

  Just see that my grave is kept clean.