NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/bi/17006

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-21 | 2.9 KB

Xref: sparky soc.bi:17006 soc.motss:53221
Newsgroups: soc.bi,soc.motss
Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!spdcc!joe
From: [e-mail] (Joseph Francis)
Subject: Priorities
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Organization: S.P. Dyer Computer Consulting, Cambridge MA
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 11:25:47 GMT
Lines: 51

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Melinda Shore) writes:
>>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>>That leaves me wondering why you missed the point of the posting.
>>
>>I didn't miss the point of the posting.  I've heard the
>>same "point" over and over and over and over and over and
>>over and over.
>
>Not from me, since I'm new to these parts .....
>
>
>>  And what leaves me wondering is why, when
>>someone tells you that she feels excluded and isolated by
>>your choice of language, you say "tough" and go on using
>>the same language.  It speaks volumes about your
>>priorities, even if your reasons for disagreeing with her
>>have any validity whatsoever.
>
...
>Secondly, you're absolutely correct about one thing:  I don't
>think this is a very big priority, in my life.  No, I'm not
>insensitive or boorish or stooopid --> I'm pretty sensitized
>by discrimination (and hence my not-too-subtle allusion to
>my daughters && spousal significant other).  In fact, I don't
>think its a big priority in ANYONE's life - that's why I
>proffered the suggestions I did (i.e., use marketing strategy).
>One way to MAKE it a priority is to make it attractive, etc.

It is such a low priority that The Netherlands altered the Dutch
language to remove gender-bias, officially - what is taught in
schools, what is acceptable for government purposes, and what is
published in journals. Not quite 100% (there are a few stray feminine
forms, and a few stray masculine forms, but even they are noted in my
textbooks as being 'old'). It doesn't require much more, from the
beginning, than a revision of English standards for newspapers, (the
standard manuals changed) magazines, and television. Secondarily, a
change in national guidelines for the teaching of English. It won't
happen overnight, and it doesn't have to be forced down throats. 15
years would be adequate for a turnaround (1 generation).

Our entire treatment of Chinese language in the U.S. was changed in 2
years or so. I think conceptually inclusive treatment of a little over
half the world's population (women) merits higher priority than
phonological treatment of Chinese language. It takes very little on
the part of journals to do so, to begin.

(what an idea: modern literature has 'antiquated' english, while Jane
Austen becomes current usage)
--
US Jojo; damp, slighly soiled, but tasty nonetheless.