X-To: PO%"WORDS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.words-l
Date:         Fri, 14 Aug 1992 15:21:55 EST
From:         Entropy Warrior <AUSBROOK@UCS.INDIANA.EDU>
Subject: RE: Gender

>>I guess I am driven to the
>>(distasteful) admission that the use of "he" as the unmarked form
>>for "one" or people in general *is* , in fact, sexist in English.
>>I am very uncomfortable with that.  I have ranted and railed at
>>the attempts to teach "gender-neutral" writing in law school.  I
>>might just have to surrender the fort to the indians.
>
>     Breakthrough!  That painful creaking sound you just heard was
>     Mka's consciousness being raised.
>
>     I've never understood the terrific amount of resistance people
>     have to acknowledging the sexism that's embedded in our language.

>     Carol ("oh your mama's rich/and your daddy's good looking...")

I knew that post wouldn't go unsinged.  (Though it probably
should have gone unsigned and NOACKED).  Because *you're*
offended by the use of he/him generically does not mean that
sexism is "embedded" in the language.  It means that the form
bothers you--and countless others.  It also does not bother a
bunch of folk.  It's a *political* argument--more than a
linguistic one, anyway.  If we all agree that he/his isn't
sexist, then it isn't.  If we agree enough, then in the contexts
that it appears generically, "maleness" won't be felt and nobody
will feel slighted.
     The true radfem nazis might rave about they/their as well,
since it does not acknowledge the women in the group and women
generally go altogether too often unnoticed.
     It may be that he/his is marked for sex in some contexts and
not in others--and as native speakers *we* all know the
difference, just as we know the difference between "he has a
right to do that" vs. "he has a great right."  [And now the
lefties of the world are going to start flaring about the right-
handedness of the world and the English language.]
     I think the folks who object to he/his as the unmarked form
arejust picking a fight by wilfully confusing the different
meanings of the same words.  You can make a great political
argument for why he/his developed as the unmarked form instead of
she/her.  The origins undoubtedly have to do with who was doing
the choosing, sexism, etc.  The Brits chose the left side of the
road to drive on so you could hold a weapon in your right hand in
case someone you passed going the other way attacked you.  They
still drive on the left without the reason.  I suppose lefties
could decide that they feel threatened by the state of affairs
and start a political movement to change the convention.  It
would cause a certain amount of unpleasant disruption.  But if
they had enough *political* umph to make it stick, well, why not.
It's just a convention.
     I have been well aware that some folks are offended by
he/him for some time.  And the previous discussion of English
being marked for sex notwithstanding, maybe the cavalry gets to
keep the fort after all.
     I don't know.  I'm just a stiff figuring it all out, making
it all up as I go along.  But I *do* take issue with the idea of
consciousness raising in this context.  It's like saying
someone's consciousness has been raised when they agree to play
first-ball-in in tennis.

-Mka
Entropy is an average kind of phenomenon
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU