From: farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf)
Subject: Re: Where did "womyn" come from?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 08:49:55 GMT

In article <C15w5G.41J@mach1.wlu.ca> brea9430@mach1.wlu.ca (breadner ken u) writes:
>In article <1993Jan19.033115.17991@leland.Stanford.EDU> farthing@leland.Stanford.EDU (ljf) writes:
>>What exclusionary language are we talking about?  Personally I think
>>of exclusionary language as being "policeman," "fireman," or "everyone
>>should do his best."  Where are women in such usage?
>>
>I am learning that talking to some feminists is akin to talking to
>religious fanatics. You just can't get a piece of logic in edgewise.

Trust me, Breadner, I get the same feeling talking to you.

>Of course the examples you cite are exclusionary, and ought to be banished.
>"Herstory" is just as exclusionary, though. I know you can't understand
>this, but it excludes the MALE half of homo sapiens, just as "history"
>excludes the female half. In your mind, anyway.

Can you understand the difference between a grammar which says that
"everyone should do his best" is correct and feminists talking about
"herstory"?  Can you see the difference between a canon and feminists
making a pun (or doing a neat trick, as I described it)?

>The truth is, "history" excludes no one. It just sounds like it. We've
>been through the etymology, and there is nothing masculine about the word
>"history". 

Let me give an example.  Let's just suppose that history in English
isn't history, but "straightstory."  Now, some lesbigay people
suggest, "We know about what happened to straights in the past, but
what about lesbigays?  What about our "gaystory" or "queerstory"?"
Can you see the neat trick (or pun) in this example?

>I mentioned this before. Do you think "chisel" is exclusionary? Or even
>something so simple as "this"? After all, they both have the dreaded H-I-S
>in them. The Society to Stamp Out Penises should be getting around to
>proposing politically correct alternatives for the above phrases any day now.

Of course it isn't exclusionary.  And if you realized the pun of
herstory, you'd see what a strawperson (:)) you're setting up. 

>>And you don't think that "herstory" points out that nearly all
>>historians were male and living in a patriarchal society, and so
>>ignored what women were doing?
>>
>Yes, it does. Trouble is, it's
>(a) based on ignorance of the English language

No, it's not based on ignorance of the English language.  Feminists
don't honestly believe that history literally means "his story" (not
unless they're especially dim middle school feminists).  It's the pun,
the neat trick, PLUS the absence of a history that discusses women
which call for "herstory."

>(b) trying to ignore the men in the world. Maybe some of us are shit, but
>I resent the implication that all of us are.

Yes, some men are shit, but herstory doesn't imply that all men are
shit.  Where is the logic in that?

>Why can't we just concentrate on our similarities? I can't see this
>harping about differences promoting any sort of equality. "Equal" and
>"Different" are, after all, antonyms.

Women claiming their lost history (herstory) and naming themselves are
about women defining and empowering themselves.  Do you say similar
things to African-Americans about how they name themselves?

Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct,alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.feminism,alt.sex.stories,alt.activism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.arts.poems