Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site peora.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!petsd!peora!jer From: jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) Newsgroups: net.women Subject: Re: Now is the time for all good men... Message-ID: <1054@peora.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11-Jun-85 13:21:38 EDT Article-I.D.: peora.1054 Posted: Tue Jun 11 13:21:38 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 12-Jun-85 20:24:07 EDT References: <742@oddjob.UUCP> <388@mtxinu.UUCP>, <1041@peora.UUCP> <647@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Organization: Perkin-Elmer SDC, Orlando, Fl. Lines: 128 You're right, it has no metrical problems. That is because, frankly, I can never REMEMBER the words to the poems that have been changed; it is sufficiently disconcerting to suddenly encounter a line in a 200-year-old poem that is not as you remember it (and, I think, not as the poet would ever have written it) that it is just not memorable. Well, then, let's get back to your complaints about communism. What you are trying to do is effect social change by changing the language. The goal here, regardless of what you may say, is not to "eliminate" biases from the language; because the semantics of the language are externally imposed. When I read "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country" (and we'll look at that in a few minutes in more detail), I read "people" where you read "male-type-people". It would appear the bias is yours, for seeing "males" where the words say "men". What you want to do, rather, is what you have done by changing the poems. You have disconcerted people, shaken them up, and made them look at you. But what you have done is not necessarily what you intended. True, you have managed to catch the attention of the fairly large subset of people who are always willing to do something new in order to show their social status, and gain the approval of others; but you have sumultaneously offended those who are closest to the language. And this is no way to effect change; if you are going to effect a change, it should hold up under ANY scrutiny, no matter how thorough. Change that breaks down under close scrutiny is superficial and false; and that is exactly what your attempts to change the language are. And, as I pointed out, the method you are using is an old one. You will recall that George Orwell pointed out this method-of-totalitarianism as being a prevalent one in 1948, in his book _1984_. One of the ways to effect a major ideological change is to undermine people's sense of stability. This is the technique used in "brainwashing"; this is also the technique you are proposing here. Ironically, I do advocate in some sense the principles you are trying to advocate yourself. Many people who know me are somewhat amused at the fact that I generally avoid using any word for female people at all, and when I do, generally say "female type person." As for the use of the word "man" to denote both men and women; when I was young, I always felt it was somewhat unjust, that women had a word all to themselves, whereas men were without their own identifying word. But I say "advocate in some sense," equally ironically, largely as a result of the idea behind the phrase in the subject line of this message. Prior to the revival of draft registration, I was a considerably stronger advocate of the principles of feminism than I am now. However, I noted with an extreme degree of irritation how many congressMEN made the blatantly sexist remark, "obviously no one feels women should have to go into combat;" and even more, I noted that no women I knew challenged this statement. They generally agreed with it. If you are only going to advocate a principle as long as it does not remotely endanger you, as long as it only gives you good things, then I will not support you at all. I have come to perceive that, to a large number of people, the principles of the feminist movement are simply a means of advancing women's already privileged state in the world, by eliminating some of the remaining tradeoffs. When I perceive that the majority of women continue to fall back on their privileges and their traditional social roles whenever it does not inconvenience them, I find it difficult to conscientiously support their cause. I have long supported the rights of women; but have found that it more often than not only lead to adversity. So in the end, you must defend yourself, and I will defend poetry. The problem with the poetry is that "man" is a word with one syllable, whereas "person" has two. Consequently, you cannot simply replace "man" with "person" in well-written poetry or prose. Both poetry and prose are metrical, and it is this metrical property that makes good writing appealing. I have seen firsthand attempts to appease those who object to the use of "him" and "man". The example I gave is in the Lutheran Hymnal, which, led by the Missouri Synod, was modified and reissued recently. They simultaneously did away with some writings and music centuries old; and modified many hymns. You must remember that many of the hymns were originally poems; and though some of them are not particularly good poetry, nevertheless the people that wrote them went to great pains to write them just so. It is unjust to change them, because the poems are in no way at fault. In the example I gave, which unfortunately is metrical after the change (and thus is not a good example), "Pleased as man, with Man to dwell" (a verse from the christmas carol "Hark, the Herald Angels Sing") does not in any sense suggest that the person referred to was pleased to be male, or to be dwelling with male people. Considering that the culture in which he lived considered women as "cattle" (read the OT law if you do not believe this), he had an unusual view of women, and treated them as people. Thus in this example, at least, we see that your claim that the words are "sexist" are unjustified. But they were changed, nevertheless. It is unfortunate that in today's society, so few people have an appreciation for the metrical properties of poetry; modern poetry is often not even prose. (Yet, I myself have written poetry like this sometimes.) But even the modern poetry is often metrical; consider Taeoum's poem, There's a stillness in the wind tonight, A still smooth cold that whispers the edge Of vast expanses of sea into the night. * * * which is certainly metrical. Try replacing the word "cold" with "coolness" and you will see the effect of substituting words of a different metrical length into the poem. It just doesn't work. And this is my complaint. I wish I had time to write more, but the lunch hour is over. Oh... to answer your question: >>Es muy triste, es todo. > >You sure are, son. > >> "Zl FB vf n xvyyre junyr." > >No comprendo eso. ?Como se dice en Ingles? >(?O en Esapanol <>?) I'm no sexist, nor humanist either. The line, when ROT13 decrypted, says >> "My SO is a killer whale." PS - I'm not your son. -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Gnyx gb gur fhayvtug, pnyyre..."