From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:41:23 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA
Followup-To: soc.college,alt.usage.english

In article <1992Dec17.160756.29485@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <BzDu5I.LGF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>    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.
>
>OK, so nuclear energy can be used destructively, however many safeguards
>one puts into place.  No point in putting in any safeguards then, is
>there?  No point trying to design safer nuclear plants, no point in
>non-proliferation treaties, no point in keeping nuclear technology out
>of the hands of Khaddafi and Saddam Hussein.
>
>Is this really what you believe?

What you are attempting to do is replacing nuclear energy with another
(not necessarily as effective) form of energy. There is no guarantee that 
this source will not be abused, either. What I believe is that people
should be made to understand the destructive use of nuclear energy
and be taught to use it only for constructive purposes.

>
>Just what *is* wrong with seeking to use non-sexist language?  Just what
>*is* wrong with people saying "people" instead of "men" (as I do in this
>sentence)?
>
Nothing, but then, there is nothing wrong in saying "men" either (as
long as the context resolves the ambiguity).

>If I'd said "men using" instead of "people using", people might have
>thought "men and women"; then again they might not.  By using "people",
>I safeguard myself against a possible misunderstanding.
>
Correct, but that doesn't mean that we discard the generic use of "men".
We *teach* people to appreciate its other meanings too.

>
>BTW, I started reading "Five Children And It" by E. Nesbit last night -
>a book written years ago, in very English English.  
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So *someone* does accept the existence of English English.   :)


>On the first page,
>I read:
>
>   Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the scramble
>   to get out of the carriage that very minute, but no one seemed to
>   mind.
>
>Do you consider this bad writing, Mandar?  Would you really have been
>happier if Nesbit had used "his" in that sentence?
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

Hmmm...tricky question. I am not sure if that grammatical usage is
standard. If it is, then I do not see anything wrong with it; but
then, nor do I do so had he used "his".

                                                            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