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!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!pesnta!amd!amdcad!decwrl!spar!ellis
From: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: Now is the time for all good men...
Message-ID: <326@spar.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 13-Jun-85 11:36:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: spar.326
Posted: Thu Jun 13 11:36:17 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Jun-85 08:26:40 EDT
References: <742@oddjob.UUCP> <388@mtxinu.UUCP> <1041@peora.UUCP> <647@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <1054@peora.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA
Lines: 113

>{J. Eric Roskos}

>What you are trying to do is effect social change by changing the language.

    To date, it has been mostly the opponents of the suggested language change
    who say that.

    The topic came up in the first place because those who are sympathetic
    to the feminist cause feel unnatural using certain existing English
    constructs. To some of us, the older language seems to imply something
    different from the idea we wish to say.

    This makes sense when you consider that the existing language evolved 
    to handle the problems of a world that is now changing.

    Please note the major reasons for the suggested language:

    1. Language in certain critical cases {laws, jobs ads} should clearly
       and unambiguously say what is meant.
    2. Those who feel uncomfortable with the old language feel the need
       for an alternative.
    3. Young speakers exposed to the new language might avoid whatever
       ill effects, if any, are implicit in the old language. 

    The last point is apparently debatable, though I believe it because I
    subjectively feel the `sexism' in the old language. If you do not, do as
    you wish. 

    I hope the new language will gradually and naturally take over, just as
    all language change occurs. 

>The goal here, regardless of what you may say, is not to "eliminate"
> biases from the language;...

    You haven't the slightest idea what the goal is. You sound as if
    you've only confused the arguments of the new language's detractors
    with those of the supporters.

    The goal is unambiguous language for those who are interested. Period.

>... because the semantics of the language are externally imposed.  

    I do not believe that statement is 100% true. You do. That's why
    we have different opinions.

    If your statement were true, then marketing people would not spend so
    long devising nonsense names for products that suggest certain images,
    for example.

    The words we use have intermeshing connotations determined partly by
    what similar/identical words mean, partly by arbitrary authority.

    The problem with man=human is that there is no way to distinguish
    it from man=male. Likewise generic he. Regardless of the intent
    of the speaker.

>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".

     Then keep using `man' however you wish and leave us alone!

     Again, the problem with `man' is that there is NO WAY
     to determine which of its two uses {male only, human being} 
     is implied. A famous example:

      	      All men are created equal

     As originally stated, it did NOT refer to women. Yet some people
     thought it did. Hypocritical, huh?

     Another example:

         Repairman wanted. Applicant must demonstrate his ability...

     Such ads DO appear, sometimes in cases where the employer does not
     intend to discriminate. And there have been studies that show
     such ads tend to discourage qualified women applicants.

     Of course, if the employer does discriminate, they may as well
     use the male-sounding language. Who cares in that case?

>What you want to do, rather, is what you have done by changing the poems.

     TOTALLY BOGUS!! 

     Nobody has suggested that existing literature be rewritten. Except
     for, perhaps, ambiguous laws that are important to the feminist 
     movement.

     Shakespeare in its original form is read in schools today; similarly
     the King James Bible is still commonly read, in spite of language
     changes that occurred long ago. I fail to see why the acceptance
     of the new language would be any different.

     YOU are the only turkey I know who talks of rewriting poetry!

>You have disconcerted people, shaken them up, and made them look at you.

     It's the DETRACTORS of the newer language who have been suggesting
     outlandish things about the new language.

     I can only infer that you have an ulterior motive for spreading
     such lies.

>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...

    If you insist on flaming in net.women, at least flame at what has
    been proposed, rather than what is in your imagination.

-michael