From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 12:09:30 GMT


From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
8 Sep 1992 20:32:45 GMT
state.edu> <AWERLING.
        <1992Sep8.203245.11460@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>


JSL:Let me see if I understand you:
    1) Man, in English, is male in any context.
 
AW:  Yes, if you look at how it is perceived and used.

JSL:2) Freshman refers to first-year students.
    3) You never inferred anything else about #2.

AW: I don't know what you mean by "infer."

JSL:4) Freshman is decidedly male in the word's gender.

AW: Not exactly, but I think we're at least communicating here.  
    Freshman *in*and*of*itself* is genderless.  *But*, how it is 
    perceived and the way our culture is today (i.e., attempting 
    to equalize itself in terms of gender), the word *looks* 
    male, therefore *becomes* male.  I hope I didn't make that 
    too confusing.

JSL:5) Freshman somehow indicates that women are not really main
    stream freshman. 

AW: I cannot speak for women.  All I can say is that, to me, the 
    word seems to have its exclusionary effect upon women.  I 
    wonder about how female readers in this newsgroup feel, if 
    any of them are reading the thread!

Mr. Werling, I hate to get into the "you said this", "no, I 
didn't," mode but I feel that I must.  The five listed items are 
all things that you have said in your previous post.  

You said that the word MAN in any context is male.  That is not 
true.  To claim that MAN only refers to the masculine is absurd.
You said that you never intended to infer that "freshman" only 
refers to male students, but yet to turn around and say that the 
word "freshman" is somehow exclusionary and "decidedly male" in 
gender. Who "decided" this?  You?  Freshman, in meaning and usage 
refers to a first-year student, not a first-year male student or 
a first-year female student.  What is so terribly hard to under-
stand about that.  It is a fact.  It has no inherent shades of 
meaning.  

In this post you say that freshman is genderless, but because 
those three little letters appear in it, it is somehow not gender-
less.  It can't be both.

JSL:Woman means that you are female human.
    Man means you are male human.
    Mankind refers to humans.
 
AW:The root of all three is "man," the word for male human.  
    Perhaps the way to solve this is to find a prefix *before* 
    the word man that indicates is masculinity, one that is 
    parallel to "wo-."  Linguists?


So what?  Open you eyes and your mind and look past those three 
letters to what the word means.  

JSL:Most of us can make that distinction very easily.  Some 
    people see the letter "MAN" and freak out.

AW: I haven't seen anyone freak out about it, but it is a rather 
    annoying thing with our language that will most likely be 
    weeded out with time.

I would say that your irrational (almost paranoid, and yes, 
ridiculous) response to words with the letters M-A-N could be 
classified at freaking out.

JSL:I am not demeaning your arguments, I am refuting them.  

AW: No, for the most part you have been mocking them.  Until now, 
    you  have  added very little in terms  of  useful  discourse.  
    It's difficult for people to discuss anything when  automati-
    cally  their arguments are called "ridiculous."  That is  not 
    "refuting," as I said, it is mocking.

[Gee, you almost had me believing I was demeaning them :) ]

JSL:If you can show that what you say is true than I will admit 
    that words like "freshman" somehow apply only to males. 

AW: My  goal is not to get you to admit anything.  My goal is  to 
    solidify  my arguments, but more importantly it is  to  learn 
    and  discover.  That's what discourse should be all about;  I 
    prefer it not to be a contest.

If your goal was not to get to admit to anything, why did you 
demand that I do so?

JSL:It is ridiculous to apply meanings to words that do not 
    apply.

AW: There's that word "ridiculous" again.  You *cannot* support a 
    word like "ridiculous."  You cannot teach me or anyone else a 
    damn thing that way.  Show me the flaws you perceive,  rather 
    than tossing out blanket insults.



I have tried to point out the flaws in your arguments many times 
but you seem to want to take this to a personal level.

JSL:There is no "kernel of truth" in you arguments.  

AW: Of course there is.  Every argument has a kernel of truth in 
    it.  The truth is the desire to explore.  That's what I wish 
    to do.  But when I'm insulted, I tend to strike back, and the 
    whole thing can end up as muddier water than when we began.

There is NOT a kernel of truth in every argument.  Example: 
Abraham Lincoln was a woolly mammoth.  Do you feel a desire to 
explore that statement?  
   

JSL:To ask someone to prove the negative is also ridiculous.  

AW: I didn't ask you to prove any negatives.  Proving anything is 
    not the point.  I asked you to support your view.  I asked 
    (in a rather reactionary way) that if you considered the 
    discussion ridiculous that you leave argument alone to those 

    of us who are interested in it.  Proving a negative had noth-
    ing to do with it.  Supporting your assertions has everything 
    to do with it.

I feel that I have supported my assertions repeatedly, fully and 
successfully.  There will always be people however, who cannot be 
swayed.   

JSL:It concerns me when people will take things out of context 
    and use them to advance their cause.  

AW: I have no hidden agenda.  It's all out in the open.  

Your agenda is not hidden.  I never said it was.  Your agenda is 
to change the English Language because you can't seem to use it 
properly.

JSL:It also concerns me when  people try to infer labels upon me 
    because I use words like freshman, chairman, mankind, police-
    man and assume that I am somehow referring to males only.  

AW: You are not referring to males only.  You are using exclu-
    sionary language.

Those two statements are mutally exclusive.  If the word I use is 
exclusionary and therefore does not refer to to women then I am 
only refering to men.  You better get a dictionary and use it.

JSL:I will suggest once again that it is people who see only the 
    letters "MAN in a word and assume that anyone who uses or 
    condones the use of that word is sexist, are the ones with a 
    problem.

AW: Total explosion of what we're discussing here, Jeff.  Over 
    and over again, I have stated that the language is exclusion-
    ary and alienating.  That is all.  "Sexism" has to do with 
    the individual.  I'm not saying that you're sexist for not 
    changing your language habits.  I'm only trying to show what 
    I think happens when people use language in that way.

Stating something over and over again does not make it true.  
Your attempts to support your statements are contradictory, at 
best.  You seem to be confusing the way you view the language 
with the way the vast majority of people view it.  It is not up 
to us to change something that is correct in form and use so that 
you are happy.

AW: I think it's important to get away from the limited mindset 
    you're espousing here (not meant as an insult).  You are 
    making logic leaps about my intent and are taking what is 
    criticism of society as a personal attack on yourself.

To attempt to use the English Language correctly is espousing a 
limited mindset..... HMMMmmmmm?

Jeff [not a English Expert, just a user].
Newsgroups: alt.feminism