From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 16 Dec 92 02:07:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzBxxG.BL1
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec15.192718.21511@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>of people. 
>
>Funny, but that's where language exists, too!  What a coincidence.
>
Maybe some set theory will make the distinction clearer  :    :)
If A belongs to C, and B belongs to C, then A need not belong to B! 


>>So, when terms such as "mankind" conjure up masculine images
>>more often than female images, it is actually the PERSON who's responsible
>>for the thought. 
>
>So?  When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>or is the fish?  Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for 
>the thought?  Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>term in this case?
>
How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish. 

>>
>>     Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>little purpose. 
>
>Bad faith will not further your argument, either.  Nobody's "waging
>war on language," whatever that might mean.  Influencing usage *is*
>possible, and *can* be done under some circunstances. Examples: we 
>don't say "nigger" anymore, and we do say "Ms."
>

Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
apply their beliefs to language. 


>>Attack the
>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.
>
>The root causes include unawareness of the problems.  This is a great
>way to attack that.
>
Denis has amply illustrated that these attempts to efface prejudices
by effacing gender in language, have failed miserably. Please look
up his article, especially the portion where he states that "person"
has come to be regarded as an euphemism for "woman", in certain
contexts.

>>Besides, when I presented similar views last summer on a.u.e, one 
>>gentleman provided us with the example of Farsi. Farsi is a "sexless"
>>language. Yet, *men* dominated and the nature of the language did little
>>to alleviate prejudices.
>
>So?  We want to *use* the language to effect change.
>
>Roger
>
And thou shalt fail again, and again, and again....  :)

Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men. 
The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
its own.

                                                   Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college