Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Mon, 17 Aug 1992 21:26:46 EDT
From:         Frank <ST403231@BROWNVM.BROWN.EDU>
Subject:      On Gender and Such
Comments: To: words-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

I just wanted to throw in a word or two and maybe a bucket of icewater
onto the discussion of gender.  I think I have enough longevity here to
be able to point out that we have been through most of this stuff before.
I hope to summarize what the main points have been so far and incorporate
the best of them into my explanation of how I see the matter.

Now, if I've got it right, Carol, like many feminist thinkers, finds
the unmarked use of he (or man) to represent all or any specific member
of the set of <all homines sapientes> to be objectionable because in
the minds of many speakers of Modern English that use connotates a
male member of the set, instead of a member unmarked for sex.  Something
in the way she expressed that thought (something about "sexism embedded
in the language") got Michael ka's hackles up, and he and Carol began
to have it out, with added commentary from Natalie and Bayla.

I suspect that Michael's objections stem from the knowledge he has
as a linguist (I'm guessing he's had linguistic training, as has
Natalie) that language was not created by a bunch of evil white
men in a smoke-filled room in order to oppress non-male, non-white
persons.  He used the images of playing first-ball-in in tennis
and something about leading clubs in bridge (sorry; I didn't get
that one, as I don't know the game) as analogies for his willing-
ness to use non-gender-specific language.  The analogy is good
except for one thing.  He alluded to the possibility of saying
that FBI in "not the way the game is played."  But the difference
between tennis and language is that in language, if enough of the
speakers decide that FBI, or NGSL is the rule, then it actually
*becomes* the rule.  Not immediately, to be sure, but in time.

Bayla made a point about language having laws, and those laws
being subject to change, just as civil laws are.  She is right,
except that there is no legislature.  Language, you might say,
is the ultimate democracy, where the speakers alone and collectively
decide what the laws are.  The compilers of dictionaries and
grammar books and the National Academies, despite all their
pretenses, are merely recorders of that reality, or at best,
exercise only some influence over what the speakers decide
to enact in their language.

Now the way English has worked up to now, "he" and "man" have
in some cases been acceptable to designate people without
being specific about sex.  For most educated speakers of the
language, the difference should be evident in some cases
(e.g. Man is mortal), somewhat ambiguous in others (e.g.
Neanderthal Man, adduced by Carol) and nonambiguous again
when sex is implied and the marked meaning is meant (e.g.
Men's Room).  I suspect that, just as language naturally
hates synonymy, or one meaning being shared by two forms,
it also dislikes having one form do double duty for more
than one meaning, most especially when the meanings are
semantically close, as man:  human  and man:  male human
are.  (These are a lot closer than, say, well:  adverb of
good and well:  source of water are.)  If this situation
is disturbing enough to enough speakers of English, then
the language will change to accommodate their discomfort.
Personally, I have no discomfort with the two meanings of
man and he, as long as the implication is nonambiguous.  Remember
that the genitive of "it" used to be "his" until the form
"its" was created to soothe the awkwardness some speakers
of English felt with that useage.  Those who feel differently
should try to come up with an alternative that is not more
awkward than simply using he/man.  Most of the alternatives
suggested (and in some circles mandated) to date have been
more awkward, and so there is little chance that the great
unwashed masses of speakers of English will adopt them as
easily as they did the more elegant "Ms."  Of course the
great unwashed masses have little use for the unmarked
noun or pronoun in question, so perhaps that is why no last-
ing solution has been found to date.  The resolution of the
problem largely rests in the hands of the authors and academics
who use the form and need it in their writing, and so it is
among them that the discussion has largely been carried out.

Bored you to tears yet?

To those who asked about my trip to upstate NY, it was lovely.
I got both a lot of sleep (for some reason I don't usually
sleep well in Providence) and a good chunk of work done on
my d*******ion (in deference to Karen, Bill Merrill and myself
I won't actually write the word).  And after that I went to
Buffalo to visit a beautiful and talented actress and singer
who just graduated from here and who for some reason I can't
fathom wanted me to visit her for the weekend.  It was fun.
BUT I nearly drowned in the flash flooding in western Mass.
on my way back.  I had to stop in West Springfield when the
water on the road got to be over two feet deep.  I watched
as it rose to three feet, then slowly abated.  It was ex-
citing, as I had only seen floods in news footage before.

Till next time,
Frank
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU