From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 16 Dec 92 23:44:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzDLxF.I1M
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec16.181538.416@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>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?
>
Hmm..ok...I concede that womankind is a counterpart to mankind. But
this is *only* when mankind is used in a context that includes *only*
men.

I didn't intend to insult feminists. But you realise that there *are*
feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
race, don't you? Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
themselves from men.

>>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.  
>
Yes, but that doesn't make "humankind" a *better* word than "mankind".

>>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.
>
Exactly!  *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.
>

Hehehee....I wouldn't term those "fantasies". They would be "nightmares"!  :)
Seriously though, I haven't anything against feminists, except those of
the radical kind!   ;)

>>>>     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!
>
>>*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.
>
Am I not glad to hear that!  :)

>>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
>

Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes dissappear, the need to
change language will no longer exist.


                                                             Mandar.

-- 
"Imagine there are no countries. It isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die 
 for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people living life in peace.
 You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope that some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: soc.college,rec.food.drink