From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:15:38 GMT

In article <BzBtqy.9tL@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.183908.27702@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec13.194608.22045@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:

>>>[long list of references deleted]

>>>Remember, prejudice never exists in language, but rather, in the minds
>>>of people. 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. 

>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>words such as "womankind"?

>But they aren't!  

"Mankind" isn't a counterpart to "womankind"?  If it isn't, then what is?

>I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up by rabid feminists. 

Why don't you stop suspecting for a moment, Mandar, and look in a 
dictionary?  As usual, you're wrong.

And in this case, you're also using a stupid, insulting stereotype of
"rabid" feminists.  Care to name one who might have done this?

>Mankind encompasses *both* men and women. 

In some senses and uses, yes.  Other times, no.  Note that the 
word "humankind" is not a recent coinage, either.  

>You are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of 
>the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
>the context of its usage. 

And yet, it conveys the association with men-and-not-women in all
its uses.  This has been demonstrated over and over again. People
who eschew its use in the sense of "human" are, generally speaking,
writing *carefully* and *precisely* and *consideratly.*  They don't
want to give mistaken impressions or allusions.

>If you let your prejudices cloud your
>ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.

Look who's talking!  YOUR prejudices have lept you from even looking
up the words in question.  They've led you to fantasies about "Rabid
feminists" and to claims about the contexts of usage that are demonstrably 
false.  Your prejudice needs a good dose of fact.  Go read some of the 
references already given here on the subject.

>>>     Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>little purpose. As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>>>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language. 
>>>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. Attack the
>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.

>>But language reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems!

>No! 

Try again.  Try finding out before responding reflexively and in 
ignorance.  Do you do your homework this way, shouting NO! at problems
that confuse you or lead to a result you don't like?

>*Society* reinforces the attitudes which cause the problems. These

And society uses language to do so.  Society has all kinds of choices
in language use.  Some of us make those choices responsibly.

>attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.

So what happens to those of us who *don't* have those attitudes?  Must
we use language that nonetheless reflects attitudes we reject? 

Roger

Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english