NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/soc/feminism/2978

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-22 | 3.5 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!news.service.uci.edu!ucivax!gateway
From: [e-mail] (Michael Rawdon)
Subject: Re: Motivations for Gender-Neutral Terminology
Nntp-Posting-Host: alexandre-dumas.ics.uci.edu
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Reply-To: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept., Madison, WI
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 63
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:37:10 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>

This will be my nth go-round in this debate on USENET.  Oh, well.  :-)

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (beth diane garfinkel) writes:
>In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Jon Wagner) writes:
>>1) Gender-neutral terminology attempts to establish equality by
>>    using the same words to describe both sexes.  In my opinion,
>>    this motivation is invalid.  Aren't there other ways to
>>    achieve equality?

>The idea is to INCLUDE both sexes, when one is discussing properties of
>HUMAN BEINGS, male and female.

Ah, but perhaps it is the females who are *making themselves* feel
excluded by the use of the word "he" in a gender-neutral sense, by
failing to perceive the *intent* being conveyed?

(It only took me a short time to get used to the word "she" used in a
gender-neutral sense.)

>>3) Gender-neutral terminology attempts to change the attitudes of
>>    today's society by promoting the equality of sexes via
>>    language.  The equality of terms will affect perecption and
>>    communication, and can have (subtlely?) effect on our culture.
>>    I feel that this is a worthwhile motivation.

>It has been shown (through marketing surveys, for example) that
>language does indeed affect perception.  For a good example of a book
>that uses non-inclusive language, see Clifford Geertz,
>_Interpretation of Cultures_.

This is the best argument I've ever heard in favor of gender-neutral
pronoun use.  But it eventually occurred to me that the essence of
this argument is: "Many people are just too stupid or apathetic to
bother concentrating on the meaning rather than just focusing on the
individual words."  And I have a problem with being asked to
compensate for others' deficiencies in that way.  (Unless, maybe, if I
were being paid...)

As I said at the beginning, I've gone through all this many times
before on USENET (and not just on soc.feminism).  I've pretty much
decided at this point that the issue is not one I wish to tackle
consciously at this time.  (Maybe in twenty or thirty years...)  So I
just use whatever pronoun happens to come out - whether it be "he", or
"she", or "one", or "they", or whatever.

Strangely enough, I don't remember the last time someone actually
objected or "corrected" me.

--
Michael Rawdon                  [e-mail]
University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Department,  Madison, WI
( Coming soon to a Massachusetts near you! )

"If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
                                                      -John Stuart Mill

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to [e-mail].
Questions and comments should be sent to [e-mail].  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.