From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 13:35:41 GMT



    AW:
    Heavy editing going on here...this one's getting  murkey
    to follow

    In article <1992Sep14.120930.6879@magnus.acs.ohio-
    state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S
    Linder) writes:

    JSL:
    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.

    AW:
    Yes.  But look at its affect.  What it looks like.
    "Woman" looks like there's an appendage on "man."  When
    you say, "A student should watch that he says about his
    teacher," it sounds like you're tossing the women in too
    as if they wouldn't mind at all being a subclass of the
    category "men."

Here seems to be the crux of the problem.  I, along with
most people, go by what a word means, not by what it "looks
like".  Just because a word refers to a person and has the
letters M-A-N in it does not always mean that it only refers
to males.  Your example about a "student" is a good example
of what you can't seem to understand.  In that sentence you
are, in effect, "tossing" the women in to because it reads
as genderless.  Women are a subclass of the generic "man"
just men are a subclass of the generic "man" (if subclass is
the word you choose, I would prefer subset).

    JSL:
    You said that you never intended to infer that "fresh-
    man" 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 "decid-
    ed" this?  You?

    AW:
    Welcome to the 90s.  Society is much more gender-
    conscious.

Try answering the question Mr. Werling without using cliches
and worn out phrases.  Who decided that freshman is exclu-
sionary and "male" in gender?

    JSL:
    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 understand
    about that.  It is a fact.

    AW:
    No doubt it is.  But I will say yet again, look at its
    affect.

What affect?  You have yet to demonstrate that freshman (or
similar words) means anything other than what is intended.

    JSL:
    It has no inherent shades of meaning.

    AW:

    Yes it does.  Now what do we do?

Saying something is true doesn't make it so.  Where is your
evidence that the word "freshman" has shades of meaning in
this context?  Either it refers to first-year students, male
and female, or it doesn't.  Can you give an example where
the word freshman excludes female students?


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

    AW:
    Genderless in intent and usage.  Not genderless in
    affect.

One more time: What affect?

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

    AW:
    It's short-sided to imply I'm doing otherwise.

I don't believe it is and you have demonstrated that you
can't understand what words mean.  You only go by what they
"look like".  That is short-SIGHTED.

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

    AW:
    Bullshit.  It's called analysis.  Discussion.  INQUIRY
    AND CONSIDERATION.  Your approach to this is to call me
    paranoid and to make fun of what I'm stating.  My ap-
    proach is to continue to try to express my view on the
    topic.

Your views are mostly illogical and inconsistent.

    JSL:
    I have tried to point out the flaws in your arguments
    many times but you seem to want to take this to a per-
    sonal level.

    AW:
    And I have been attempting to answer to these criticisms
    as well as I can.  I have also taken offense at your
    word ridiculous (and "freak out" and "paranoid").

Your attempts have been feeble.

    JSL:
    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?

    AW:
    *Sigh*  Fine.  I take back the word "every."  What I
    should have said was "there is a kernal of truth in
    every seriously-considered argument."  Unless you wish

    to prove to me that you were seriously considering that
    Lincoln might have been a woolly mammoth.

Once again, you only go by what something looks like.  I
offered the sentence as an example of a statement that has
no kernal of truth.  I was not trying to prove that Lincoln
was a woolly mammoth.  Try to comprehend things in context
in which they are presented.

    JSL:
    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.

    AW:
    Your flamage is getting tiresome.  You don't understand
    my agenda because you are reading into it.  You *choose*
    to see me as paranoid, you *choose* to see me as not
    understanding the langauge.  I have been attempting to
    discuss something a bit more philosophical than "proper
    grammar rules."  If I didn't understand those rules, I
    wouldn't be arguing about how a change in grammar rules
    -- or more accurately, grammar usage -- might improve
    the state of gender relations.

I choose these opinions from what you have written. These
are the things you have conveyed.  You have had many chances
to state and clarify my image of you through your writing.
You have presented yourself as paranoid and being unable to
understand words that happen to have the letter "MAN" in
them.  There is nothing "philosophical" about using and
interpreting words incorrectly.  Doing the things that you
are doing only breeds resentment.

    AW:
    You are not referring to males only.  You are using
    exclusionary language.

    AW:
    This must have been a typo.  I don't remember what I was
    trying to say here.  8-S.

I will refresh your memory.  I was trying to show that words 
like freshman don't refer to males only, they are a descrip-
tive term referring to both males and females. 
To say now that you don't remember what you were trying to 
say is no surprise since you contradict yourself repeatedly.

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

    AW:
    Flame # 20948375.

    JSL:
    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 some-
    thing that is correct in form and use so that you are 
    happy.


    AW:
    Me happy?  I'm arguing philosophically, here Jeff.  It's 
    called considering the damned issues.  I'm male.  I 
    *don't* feel excluded by the language.  

Freshman doesn't exclude any gender.  Freshwomen does (no 
such word).  Freshperson would lead me to believe that they 
were referring to a female because they went to pains to 
invent a new word.  By the way, what gender is "they" in the 
previous sentence?

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

    AW:
    Not a limited mindset about language.  A limited mindset 
    about my intent.

Once again, it is up to you to clarify your intent.

    If you're not willing to discuss this issue without such 
    excessive flameage, I will have no choice but to pull 
    out of the conversation.  

Not agreeing with you is excessive flameage?  If you think I 
have been flaming you, you are too sensitive [ spark :) ].

If you feel that you have been treated unfairly in this 
discussion and which to pull out, feel free.  A little 
advice is in order before you go.  GROW UP YOU LITTLE, 
IMMATURE WIMP.  IF YOU CAN'T SEE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 
BEING ATTACK PERSONALLY AND HAVING YOUR OPINIONS AND IDEAS 
ATTACKED, YOUR IN THE WRONG PLACE TO BE ARGUING YOU INSIPID 
POINTS.  NEXT TIME YOU WANT TO DEBATE WITH SOMEONE, TRY 
TALKING TO A MIRROR BECAUSE YOU SAY ENOUGH STUPID, CONTRA-
DICTORY THINGS THAT YOU WON'T KNOW WHO SAID WHAT. [ tiny 
flame ].

Jeff.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism,soc.men,soc.women