From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:06:18 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <bjones-151292140047@130.13.26.216> bjones@denitqm.uswest.com (Brent Jones) writes:
>In article <BzBxxG.BL1@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men. 
>> The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>> its own.
>> 
>>                                                    Mandar.
>
>Gee, how will we remove these prejudices? Using mime? Probably not too
>effective. With big clubs? Nah, violence turns me off. I guess I'll have
>to use (gasp) *language*.
>
Use the *meanings* behind those words, not those words as mere
placeholders.

>Mandar constantly contradicts himself. He states that this usage is not
>sexist, and then in the above paragraph states that there is no point in
>modifying usage, as the prejudiced attitudes that usage *reflects*
>need to change, not usage itself. If usage is a reflection of attitude,
>as Mandar states, and the attitude is sexism, then the usage is sexism.
>Seems obvious to me.

The usage would be sexism/racism/whatever-ism if the word unilaterally
carried the same meaning. But it *doesn't*. Mankind doesn't mean men
*only* in ALL contexts.  If it did, dropping its usage would be
justified (just as we did that with the word "nigger").


>
>Mandar also states that the need to modify this usage will go away as 
>prejudice disappears. So if some people find "mankind" sexist when used as
>a general tag, after deeply rooted sexist prejudices disappear they will 
>perceive it as a good, generic, non-sexist term? 
>
Of course.
That is how the word "woman" has ceased to mean "companion of man" ONLY.
The word woman comes from "wife of man" - ME, fr. OE wif-man.
 
>I think not. The fact is that as sexism fades, so will the sexist usage 
>that springs from it. And like it or not, that is what is happening
>now.
>
You *must* read Dennis Baron's article on alt.usage.english for a 
clearer picture of how people have circumvented efforts to make
the language "non-sexist".

>Have you no emphathy? Isn't it strange that only men speak up for "he"
>and "mankind," saying that "everyone" knows that it is meant in a
>generic sense? Isn't it enough for you that a number of women have told
>you clearly and openly in this thread that it *does* offend them to be
>lumped under the term "mankind?" 

These women do not realise that they are being hypocritical. The
word woman itself has its roots from man. Why don't they object
to its usage as well? And if we stretch to ridiculous limits,
why do they not object to "this"? It should be rewritten as "tits",
shouldn't it? ;)


>Can't you imagine how you would feel if
>the situation was reversed? 
>
I would have absolutely *no* reservations if I were to be clubbed
under some term as "womankind", assuming of course that "womankind"
encompassed both men and women. 


>--
>Brent Jones, Lead Tech. Editor, U S WEST IT, bjones@denitqm.uswest.com

                                                         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,alt.usage.english