From: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Keywords:   INSIPID WIMP
    AW:
    Heavy editing going on here...this one's getting  murkey 
    to follow
    In article <1992Sep14.120930.6879@magnus.acs.ohio-
    state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S 
    Linder) writes:
    JSL:
    You said that the word MAN in any context is male.  That 
    is not true.  To claim that MAN only refers to the 
    masculine is absurd.
 
    AW:
    Yes.  But look at its affect.  What it looks like.  
    "Woman" looks like there's an appendage on "man."  When 
    you say, "A student should watch that he says about his 
    teacher," it sounds like you're tossing the women in too 
    as if they wouldn't mind at all being a subclass of the 
    category "men."
     
    JSL:
    You said that you never intended to infer that "fresh-
    man" only refers to male students, but yet to turn 
    around and say that the word "freshman" is somehow 
    exclusionary and "decidedly male" in gender. Who "decid-
    ed" this?  You?  
    AW:
    Welcome to the 90s.  Society is much more gender-
    conscious.
    JSL:
    Freshman, in meaning and usage refers to a first-year 
    student, not a first-year male student or a first-year 
    female student.  What is so terribly hard to understand 
    about that.  It is a fact.  
    AW:
    No doubt it is.  But I will say yet again, look at its 
    affect.
    JSL:
    It has no inherent shades of meaning.  
    AW:
    Yes it does.  Now what do we do?
    
    JSL:
    In this post you say that freshman is genderless, but 
    because those three little letters appear in it, it is 
    somehow not genderless.  It can't be both.
    AW:
    Genderless in intent and usage.  Not genderless in 
    affect.
    JSL:
    So what?  Open you eyes and your mind and look past 
    those three letters to what the word means.  
    AW:
    It's short-sided to imply I'm doing otherwise.
    JSL:
    I would say that your irrational (almost paranoid, and 
    yes, ridiculous) response to words with the letters M-A-
    N could be classified as freaking out.
    AW:
    Bullshit.  It's called analysis.  Discussion.  INQUIRY 
    AND CONSIDERATION.  Your approach to this is to call me 
    paranoid and to make fun of what I'm stating.  My ap-
    proach is to continue to try to express my view on the 
    topic.
    JSL:
    I have tried to point out the flaws in your arguments 
    many times but you seem to want to take this to a per-
    sonal level.
    AW:
    And I have been attempting to answer to these criticisms 
    as well as I can.  I have also taken offense at your 
    word ridiculous (and "freak out" and "paranoid").
    JSL:
    There is NOT a kernel of truth in every argument.  
    Example: Abraham Lincoln was a woolly mammoth.  Do you 
    feel a desire to explore that statement?  
    AW:
    *Sigh*  Fine.  I take back the word "every."  What I 
    should have said was "there is a kernal of truth in 
    every seriously-considered argument."  Unless you wish 
    to prove to me that you were seriously considering that 
    Lincoln might have been a woolly mammoth.
    JSL:
    Your agenda is not hidden.  I never said it was.  Your 
    agenda is to change the English Language because you 
    can't seem to use it properly.
    AW:
    Your flamage is getting tiresome.  You don't understand 
    my agenda because you are reading into it.  You *choose* 
    to see me as paranoid, you *choose* to see me as not 
    understanding the langauge.  I have been attempting to 
    discuss something a bit more philosophical than "proper 
    grammar rules."  If I didn't understand those rules, I 
    wouldn't be arguing about how a change in grammar rules 
    -- or more accurately, grammar usage -- might improve 
    the state of gender relations.
    AW:
    You are not referring to males only.  You are using 
    exclusionary language.
    AW:
    This must have been a typo.  I don't remember what I was 
    trying to say here.  8-S.
    JSL:
    Those two statements are mutually exclusive.  If the 
    word I use is exclusionary and therefore does not refer 
    to women then I am only referring to men.  You better 
    get a dictionary and use it.
    AW:
    Flame # 20948375.
    JSL:
    Stating something over and over again does not make it 
    true.  Your attempts to support your statements are 
    contradictory, at best.  You seem to be confusing the 
    way you view the language with the way the vast majority 
    of people view it.  It is not up to us to change some-
    thing that is correct in form and use so that you are 
    happy.
    AW:
    Me happy?  I'm arguing philosophically, here Jeff.  It's 
    called considering the damned issues.  I'm male.  I 
    *don't* feel excluded by the language.  
    JSL:
    To attempt to use the English Language correctly is 
    espousing a limited mindset..... HMMMmmmmm?
    AW:
    Not a limited mindset about language.  A limited mindset 
    about my intent.
    If you're not willing to discuss this issue without such 
    excessive flameage, I will have no choice but to pull 
    out of the conversation.  
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:58:54 GMT

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism