From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Density and Sexist language (was...
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 08:40:24 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <bjones-171292101549@130.13.26.204> bjones@denitqm.uswest.com (Brent Jones) writes:
>In article <BzFKJz.B90@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>,
>mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) wrote:
>> 
>[snip]
>> 
>> Why doesn't "human" not convey "man" any more than "mankind" does?
>> *And*, just *how* far do you propose to carry out this "reform"?
>> Please propose a solution which eliminates "man", "his", etc. and
>> replaces them with "truly non-sexist" words. Also, please be kind
>> enough to elaborate how you propose to educate people to accept
>> these new words. Not just that, please convince me how this 
>> "sexless" language will eliminate prejudices.  Should you succeed in 
>> such an attempt, I will gladly accept that my opinion is incorrect.
>> 
>>                                                     Mandar.
>> 
>
>Are you being this dense willfully? Is it really that difficult to
>understand the various positions in this discussion and to think your
>own position through in relation to them?
>
>Not *one* person in this *entire* thread has said, "let's eliminate all
>words that relate to specific gender." NOT ONE PERSON! NOT ONE PERSON
>wants to eliminate "man" and other specific-sex referents from the
>language.

Maybe not. But everyone agrees that there are words which evoke male
images more frequently than female images, and the vice-versa. 
Furthermore, some persons want to drop these words from usage and 
replace them with other words. Well, why stop at "sexist" words?
Why not resolve ALL ambiguity?? I challenge anyone to do that.


>WHERE ON EARTH do you get that idea? WHY ON EARTH are you so prescriptive
>and insecure about your viewpoint?
>
>The point is simple, and I fail to see how it can be so difficult to
>understand. Language is a tool for communication, and the more precisely
>you use language, the more effectively you communicate. I don't say
>"Jim Johnson is unhappy" when I mean to impart the meaning "Everyone
>is unhappy." I don't use a specific referent to identify a general group.
>I don't say "Mankind is annoyed with Mandar Mirashi" unless I 
>*specifically* mean all males, which is definitely not the case.
>

In that context, mankind includes *both* men AND women. Shed your
prejudices, Brent. You'll find HUNDREDS of books where mankind has
been used generically.

>Happily, English provides me with a simple solution: If I mean all males, I
>say "mankind." If I mean all females I say "womankind." If I mean all
>people
>I say "all people," "everyone," "humankind," etc. But perhaps that is too
>precise or too logical for Mandar Mirashi. Perhaps he prefers the ambiguity
>of "mankind." Perhaps he enjoys his elitist, arrogant attitude that if he 
>uses an unclear, ambiguous term like this and people misunderstand, then
>the people are boneheads unable to think with the same prejudices ("contexts")
>that he does. Bah.
>
>--
So you do NOT like ambiguity, huh? Let me tell you something. Ambiguity
is an INHERENT part of the English language. It is so widely interspersed
in the language that the task of removing all ambiguity from the language 
is well nigh impossible. Consider the sentence "Bill shot Bob". Now, did
Bill take a photograph of Bob OR did Bill shoot Bob with a bullet. Most
people when presented with this example will assume the latter. Later on
comes a person who claims that the meaning "shoot with a camera" isn't
being conveyed. So, the word "shoot/shot" should be dropped all together
and a different word should be substituted for shot. Which word? Fired?
Incidentally, "fired" has many meanings too. Can you see how ridiculous
you look when you try to wage the "battle of the sexes" on the English
language?

      Besides, words which have been suggested for replacement, have
been euphemistically looked upon as substitutes for the very words they
substituted. So, chairperson came to be looked upon as an euphemism for
a female chairman. In the references that Rosemary provided, none of
the authoresses has been able to conclusively prove that a change in
language has brought about a change in thinking. People will go on
thinking and speaking the way they do. Changing mere words will not
change their prejudices. These prejudices will find their outlet in
other words/connotations/etc.

                                                            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,alt.flame.spelling