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: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:00:21 GMT

In article <BzDu5I.LGF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <1992Dec16.183351.2058@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>In article <BzBxxG.BL1@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.192718.21511@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) 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. 

>>>>Funny, but that's where language exists, too!  What a coincidence.

>>>If A belongs to C, and B belongs to C, then A need not belong to B! 

>>OK, now keep talking.  You're not done yet.  Are you claiming that they
>>*don't* overlap?  That they're not interrelated?  That prejudice doesn't
>>affect language?  That language does not affect how one thinks about
>>things?  

>Prejudice does affect language, but language doesn't affect prejudice.

How do you know this?  More wishful thinking, I bet.  Did you ever 
study the matter?

>Prejudices are built by societal attitudes and personal experiences.

Most of which involve language, and many of which involve language 
choices that reinforce or even lead to prejudice.  If you'd read a few
of those articles instead of deleting the references, you'd know this.

Instead, you just prattle on, without any arguments.

>>>>>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. 

>>>>So?  When I see a fish, and think "fish," am I responsible for the thought,
>>>>or is the fish?  Or could it be that BOTH share responsibility for 
>>>>the thought?  Or perhaps that "responsibility" isn't a very useful
>>>>term in this case?

>>>How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
>>>for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
>>>the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
>>>out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish. 

>>Would I have thought the thought ifthe fish hadn't been there?  No.  

>You can *imagine* a fish. Anyway, you digress. 

Nice try.  I *could* imagine the fish, but I'd be unlikely to. After
all, in the vast majority of situations when I *don't* see fish,
I don't think about them either.  But when I see them, I tend -- atl
least -- to think "fish" or something similar.


And, no, it's not a digression.  Stimulus *does* have something to
do with the response to it.  You were arguing that it does not.

>>>Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
>>>It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
>>>apply their beliefs to language. 

>>Isn't chauvinism the word that means unrealistic, patriotic attachment
>>to a nationality?  Like claiming that only the English are native speakers
>>of English, and that their spelling is necessarily correct in a sense
>>that that of Americans can't be?  

>If you look up "chauvinism" in your dictionary, it also means :
>"unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt for
>for other races, the opposite sex, etc."

Fair enough.  How was I to know that from your context?  Especially
since you'd already given such a wonderful impression of a chauvinist
(other definition).  

>Hmmm....if you can't realise this meaning of chauvinism, no wonder
>you have problems in dealing with "mankind".

Sorry -- YOUR responsibility.  You communicated lots of chauvinism,
and so I thought of you when I saw the word.  See how it works?

>>>>>Attack the
>>>>>root cause of the problem, instead of attempting to cure its symptoms.

>>>>The root causes include unawareness of the problems.  This is a great
>>>>way to attack that.

>>>Denis has amply illustrated that these attempts to efface prejudices
>>>by effacing gender in language, have failed miserably. Please look
>>>up his article, especially the portion where he states that "person"
>>>has come to be regarded as an euphemism for "woman", in certain
>>>contexts.

>>Correct--in certain contexts, but not in others.  Here in America, 
>>it does *not* mean that.  Dennis (note spelling) did NOT make the 
>>claim you attribute to him (Hey Mandar, learn to read yet?); he 
>>merely noted that *some* efforts of this type, because of the way 
>>they were applied, failed. 

>I would say *most* rather than *some*. Look up Dennis'(The previous
>spelling mistake was a typo  :(  ) article where he mentions that
>apart from "saleswoman" and subsequently "salesperson", few of
>the -person innovations have been treated seriously. Perhaps Dennis
>would be good enough to elucidate once again. 

I'm sure he would -- but note that "person" doesn't constitute more 
than a small portion of the area we're talking about.  Many other
efforts have succeeded.  Dennis has written a book about some kinds
of language reform; I suggest you read it.

>>>>>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.

>>>>So?  We want to *use* the language to effect change.

>>>And thou shalt fail again, and again, and again....  :)

>>Wishing won't make it so.  For one thing, we've already succeeded in
>>more ways than one.  Racial and ethnic hatreds are not what they used
>>to be, and awareness of language has had something to do with that.

>No. Language had nothing to do with it. 

Stamp, stamp, stamp!  Say it often enough and we'll believe it, eh?

You *Still* haven't read the books whose refs you deleted...

>It has been more of a concerted effort on the behalf of all men.

Huh?  What does this mean?  What kind of effort?  

Not that you've told us *why* the efforts that included use of
lanugage were necessarily ineffectual.

But then, you've probably never heard of rhetoric, either.  That's 
the 3000-year-old art of choosing and using words to sway listeners
more effectively.  What we're talking about is a modern application
of rhetoric.  

Does language *never* have anything to do with societal change?
I'd like to see you support that assertion.

>>Besides, your Farsi example is irrelevant -- because the issue was
>> not where the prejudice came from, but how it was perpetuated.
>>Farsi did not contribute to that; English -- demonstrably -- did.

>*English* didn't.  People who deliberately misconstrued statements,
>did (just as you deliberately assumed the incorrect meaning of
>"chauvinist" used in the context above).

What about people who deliberately used statements they knew would 
be --- or could be -- misconstrued?  What of those who *assumed*
that a word meant one thing and not another, not considering the 
ambiguity that in fact was there?  What of those who exploited
the convenient congruence between the "inclusive" words and the 
patterns of thought regarding the status and place of women?

These people shaped the language.  These people  -- who spoke and
wrote the language -- *were* the language, in effect; because the 
language doesn't exist outside of the poeple who use it.  It is
utterly meaningless if considered as an abstract code, as you seem
to wish to; its use and purpose and nature are inextricably bound
up with the set of its speakers.

>    As long as ambiguity exists in English, it is always possible
>for people to deliberately use incorrect meanings. This usage

As long as ambiguity exists, the notion of "incorrect meanings" 
is useless here.  

>also has given us the "pun". In fact, if you think that changing
> a word will help remove deeply built prejudices, you're wrong.

Stamp, stamp, stamp.  What of the cases where this step has
demonstrably done so?  

Besides, "changing a word" isn't the point.  CHOOSING a word is the 
point.

>People will simply invent new terms to express their prejudices,
>or, assign new meanings to existing words. The crux of the problem
>lies with the people themselves. 

So tell me -- how will we reason with those people, if not with words?
How will we sway thm, if not with rhetoric?  How will we make them
aware of their use of words, if not with our own use of words that 
makes them conscious of their ways?

>>>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.

>>Why make things harder?  Why *not* use one of the most compelling
>>avenues of thought -- language -- as an ally?

>Because language isn't anyone's ally. 

I was right -- you *don't* know what "rhetoric" means.

>It is an expression of the thoughts of people. 

WHAAAAT?  This is your worst howler so far, Mandar!

Language is no such thing -- it is a *means* of such expression.

Especially YOUR definition of language -- which involves an 
unchanging thing with "correct" and "incorrect" usages and so on.
Language -- certainly according to you so far -- is a code for 
expressing oneself, not the expression itself.  

>If you cannot change the way people think,
>fiddling with language isn't going to achieve much.

How do YOU change the way people think, Mandar?  

How did your teachers do it?  

How does an effective orator do it?

They use words.  They *choose* words.  They choose words that, by
the very fact of their presence in the speech or writing at hand,
draw attention to some matter outside themselves in a way that 
other words cannot.  

Rhetoric, Mandar.  The effective use of language.  Not "fiddling"
(can't drop the insults...) -- but careful use.

>    Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
>nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
>and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
>destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
>be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
>with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
>"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented 
>by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.

What took you so long?  I *knew* we could get another silly analogy
out of you.  

Yes, the problem lies with the users.  How do we get the users to 
use words/nuclear energy responsibly?  Many ways.  By example.  By 
law.  Force.  Whatever.

Of course, the goal here is not to get people to use certain words
(here the analogy collapses) but to get them to think and act differently.

On the other hand, people must *continually* be taught to eschew
bad uses of nuclear energy; each generation must learn all over again
what's good and bad (not that people agree on wht those things are,
either.  Prejudice, on the other hand, must be taught; the default
is no prejudice.  

In any case, we achieve the end we want, whether it's responsible use of
atomic energy or the end of bigotry, by changing the way people think.
And we have found no better way to do that than to speak and write
effectively.  Doing this requires awareness of the resonance of words,
and sometimes means avoiding this word or that, even if *we* know what 
we want it to mean.

Roger