From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:23:43 GMT

In article <BzBsyn.9IH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.161343.6867@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:

>>>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. 

>>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>>definitely a function of language.  "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>>is normal that this is the image it raises.

>Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>image of a man? 

Who cares?  The point is that it *does.*

>After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
>somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
>men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
>totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women. 

More insults.  More nonsense.  More presumption.  Less comprehension, as
usual.  Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated.  It's *not* unrelated
to the *continuation* of these hardships.  

>If you object
>to the usage of "mankind", your argument holds for "woman" too. It

Why?  You're making no sense, especially in light of your overt
acknowledgement that "Woman" does *not* inlcude males.

>is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.

That is, these terms have *meanings.*  The problem is that "man" has *two*
meanings, and that they overlap in problematic ways.

>Learn to associate "mankind" with the human race as a whole, and
>help efface your prejudice. 

Or simply use a different word so as not to confuse people who don't
know what you mean otherwise.  After all, it's not just a matter of 
learning to read -- it's a matter of learning to communicate.

Before we go on, remember that in the past, the ambiguity of "man" 
has been used specifically in the oppression of women.  Some legal
codes included women explicitly in any refrence to "man" -- but
courts nonetheless excluded women in some cases because "man" meant
"man."  

>>>     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.

>>No one is claiming language is the sole factor, but it is a factor.
>>No one wins a "war" by ignoring some battles as irrelevant . . .

>How ridiculous can you get? What you term "battle" isn't a battle at
>all. 

And yet some people get hurt in this non-battle.  

>I feel pity for the poor, misguided, narrow-minded souls who let
>their mind be clouded by their prejudices, when interpreting language.

Like prejudices about "native speakers" and the "standard" of a language?
Like prejudices about "proper" spelling?  Like prejudices about what 
linguists are, where they reside, and that they do?  Self-pity is bad
for you, Mandar.


Roger