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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:50:13 GMT

In article <BzDMLy.IGE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.182343.1179@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BzBsyn.9IH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.161343.6867@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) 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. 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. 

>>>>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>>>>definitely a function of language.  "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>>>>is normal that this is the image it raises.

>>>Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>>>image of a man? 

>>Who cares?  The point is that it *does.*

>Since we are discussing a pertinent issue, the statement just made is
>germane to the discussion.

Which statement?  That "man" and "woman" evoke what they do?

>>>After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>>>you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
>>>somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
>>>men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
>>>totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women. 

>>More insults.  More nonsense.  More presumption.  Less comprehension, as

>Insults? Nonsense? Presumption???
>Is the supression of women by men for many years, not a recorded fact?

Yes.  So is the relationship between language and oppression -- the 
relationship you deny, the relationship that has been demonstrated
in countless studies, studies whose citations you seem to have deleted
without checking them out.  

The insult is in "cloud your judgment."  You simply don't want there to
be any relationship between one thing and the other, so you insult
people as "clouded" who see such a relationship.  

>>usual.  Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated.  It's *not* unrelated
>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.  

>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>are.

Well, if that's all there is to your argument we can stop right now.

Mandar, people *use* language.  Language is of no interest whatever
aside from its uses by people.  And we're discussing one of those
uses -- its use toward continuing social and cultural situations that 
some of us find unacceptable.  The inclusive uses of "man" and "mankind"
and "he" have indeed been used to justify male superiority; even if 
those arguments don't of themselves hold water, they color the perception
of those words.

Likewise, any other use of a word affects how it will be perceived.  And
unawareness of -- or refusal to consider -- the resonance of a word
means that one may be suing the word to unintended effect.

>>>If you object
>>>to the usage of "mankind", your argument holds for "woman" too. It

>>Why?  You're making no sense, especially in light of your overt
>>acknowledgement that "Woman" does *not* inlcude males.

>If mankind includes only "men", why doesn't women include "men" too?

Huh?  Are you getting down to pettiness about spelling?  Why not 
just quit instead?

>>>is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.

>>That is, these terms have *meanings.*  The problem is that "man" has *two*
>>meanings, and that they overlap in problematic ways.

>And the problem lies in the eye of the beholder.

Right.  And I have to talk to beholders, and write things for them 
to read.  So do you.  You ignore facts about them at your peril.

>>>Learn to associate "mankind" with the human race as a whole, and
>>>help efface your prejudice. 

>>Or simply use a different word so as not to confuse people who don't
>>know what you mean otherwise.  After all, it's not just a matter of 
>>learning to read -- it's a matter of learning to communicate.

>Won't it be better if people learnt the language better? After all,
>nothing else would improve communication further.

Of course it would be nice if we all agreed on what words mean in all cases.
But we don't, and never have, and probably never will.  Accordingly, 
we must pay attention to the situation that exists today if we wish to
communicate today. Saying "wouldn't it be better" is useful only
if you do not intend to communicate anything until such time as 
people actually learn to understand your set of preferred usages.

And judging by the rate at which you post, you're not likely to
wait.

>>Before we go on, remember that in the past, the ambiguity of "man" 
>>has been used specifically in the oppression of women.  Some legal
>>codes included women explicitly in any refrence to "man" -- but
>>courts nonetheless excluded women in some cases because "man" meant
>>"man."  

>This illustrates *exactly* what I wanted to prove. Prejudices are
>harmful.

And words that make people aware of prejudices they might otherwise 
carry with them untinkingly are *useful.*  Substituing "humankind"
for an expected "mankind" conveys just the same amount of information
AND reminds people not to forget about women.  

Just saying "prejudices are harmful and if you misconstrue my correct
English, it's your fault" is irresponsible.  YOU must be aware of the
effects of YOUR words on other people, even if those effects are mediated
by prejudices of which you do not approve.

>>>>>     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.
>>>>>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.

>>>>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>>>>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .

>>>How ridiculous can you get? What you term "battle" isn't a battle at
>>>all. 

>>And yet some people get hurt in this non-battle.  

>They get hurt by prejudices in the minds of men,  by the incorrect 
>interpretation of language, *not* by the language itself.

And yet this language has changed again and again to accomodate the
shifts in perception by those who use them.  Here a shift is taking
place -- why do you object to the corollary changes in language? 

Here people are using language *responsibly*, by being aware of the 
prejudices in the interpretation of language.  "Incorrect interpretation"
misses the point -- sender *and* recipient are responsible for communication.
To claim that the language itself has not been shaped, affected, 
changed by prejudices in the past is to misunderstand the very
nature of a language.

(Not that that would be the first time with you...)

>>>I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
>>>their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.

>>Like prejudices about "native speakers" and the "standard" of a language?
>>Like prejudices about "proper" spelling?  Like prejudices about what 
>>linguists are, where they reside, and that they do?  Self-pity is bad
>>for you, Mandar.

>Hmmm....I have *no* such prejudices. What I argue for are realities.

Big man -- just stamp your foot and say "I'm right."  We'll all be 
convinced.  

Of course, it would help if you could even make a non-contradictory set of 
arguments.  A few weeks ago, you told us that we should use "dialect"
in the sense that the majority of users use it.  Today, you state that 
majorities do *not* determine the meaning of a word.  Which reality
do you prefer today?  

Sorry, Mandar, but your utter inability to produce logical arguments
for your assertions, your internal contradictions, your sheer nonsense,
your refusal to look things up, your deletion of evidence and references
that would argue against your ideas about language, and on and on -- 
all these make it hard for us to believe in your "Realities."  You'll
have to do better than that.  

>There *are* native speakers. There *is* a standard. And there *is*
>a proper spelling.

And you've managed to come up with nonsensical definitions of all
three, and much more of the same.  Several of us have pointed out 
the contradictions in your method, and all we get in return is 
shouting.

Roger