From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:12:01 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec13.194608.22045@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>In article <101793@netnews.upenn.edu> varhus@lindy.seas.upenn.edu (Kristofor A Varhus) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec12.002855.643@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>->In article <1992Dec11.031911.63804@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mlsa@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN) writes:
>>->>In article <1992Dec10.110032.2784@gacvx2.gac.edu>, censtad@dion.gac.edu (Topher
>>->>the Gustie) writes:
>>->>>In article <1992Dec10.142759.13000@cdf.toronto.edu>  (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>
>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>subliminal level.  Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>and males together." (p 10)
>References:
>"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
>generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
>understood to include females are the following:

[long list of references deleted]

>
>Because it is inaccurate, and perpetuates the myth that being male is the
>norm and being female is exceptional.
>-- 
>Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
>g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
>	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
>	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin


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. 

     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.

                                                          Mandar.

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Space the final frontier" - Star Trek.
"Try to see it my way, only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong"
                                                         - The Beatles
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english