From: jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Ohio State University
 writes:
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 12:50:10 GMT

Ahhhh.... The infamous 'typo' defense.

>I'm referring to all the words derived from man that are used as umbrella term
s
>for female and male.
>Particularly offensive are words that are used at times for just male.

These words are not derived from man as a male but from 'man' meaning 'one'.
Please give me an examples of words that mean male and female but at times
are used only for males and I will show you words that are used (at times)
for just females.

>
>>Unnoticed because man hadn't yet been beaten into submission by 'politcally
>>correct thinking'.
>
>I am not trying to beat you into submission by PC thinking.
Then why are you trying to change the English language because of your
percieved notion that the majority of people find these words 
objectionable?


>Unnoticed because it is such a minor thing taken one instance at a time.  It i
s
>only when you think about the effect of continual usage that the problem is
>seen.
>

This is a classic case where the sum of the parts is less than the whole.

>>
>>I may not like to be called a technician, but that is what I am.  Should I
>
>So if a woman says "I do not like to be called a man, because I'm not"...

No one is calling a woman a man in these situations..

>
>>carry around a questionairre full of terms and hand it to someone so they can

>>check off the 'labels' they may not like?  Seems rather ludicrous.
>Your suggestion is indeed ludicrous.
>However, if many, many technicians didn't like the term 'technician',
>shouldn't you consider not using it?

No, because there is nothing deragatory about 'technician'.

>For example, if you had a friend who didn't like being called 'tech-weenie' or
>'tech-geek', wouldn't you avoid calling him/her that?

I would consider those 'words' deragatory and would not use them unless I
was trying to jab them.  You are taking one type a word (i.e. 'technician';
'freshman') and trying to compare them to deragatroy words and phrases...It
doesn't work.

>You don't have to go around with a questionairre.  You already modify your
>language to fit the person you are speaking to.  I'm sure your brain is capabl
e
>of maintaining many more entries in this mental map.

Very good.  Freshman is an example of a word I would use to and audience of
first year students.

>You are also perfectly capable of separating labels that are somewhere in
>between or that depend on the closeness of your relationship to somebody.
>
>If you seriously were to say that you don't like being called technician, I
>wouldn't call you that.  I don't think I'd stop using the term in general unti
l
>a significant body of people said they didn't like it.
>
Hmmmmm?  Sounds familiar.

>>
>>Usually, only labels that are deragatory, do I object to.  But I always
>>consider the source.  Now if you want to try and convince me that
>>'freshman' is deragatory I am all ears.
>
>Derogatory is in the eye of the recipient.

Not a very practical outlook.  That is why we have dictionaries.  I am not 
going to stop using a non-deragatory term just because it might offend one 
person.... That is PC thinking at its most disgusting.

>
>I would presume that you do not go around using 'nigger' on a regular basis
>when speaking to strangers.  There is nothing inherently derogatory about the
>derivation/meaning of 'nigger';  you don't use it because a lot of people who
>could be labeled as such (and others) found it objectionable.

'Nigger' has become a very inflammatory word when use in that context.  to 
compare its use to 'freshman' is ludicrous.
>
>While I gave suggestions as to how you might come to understand why it's
>considered objectionable, my main contention is that you don't have to.
>If I don't like being called "tech-geek", I expect you to respect that.
>Same goes for all those people who don't want to be called "man".
>
Stop confusing the issue.  'Tech-geek' is deragatory and no one is calling
any one a man when those three letters appear in a word.

>>You, like many posters, who are on this "I have reached enlightenment" kick
>>and then take a condescending view of those you have considered "left in the
>>dark", really irritate me.
>
>I am sorry if I came across as preachy.  It was not intentional.  I was really
>hoping to make you understand why it was derogatory, which you just asked for
>above.  If you've tried the above, and it didn't work...what can I say, I
>couldn't have known that.

But you assummed I hadn't tried because if I had I would think your way!!

>
,
>>
>>Maybe, I already have.
>
>Already have what?

See how it could bother other people.
>
>>>I know this is hard to do.  It's hard for a male to see why it matters.  Eve
n                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>Are you a spokesman for all men?
>
>No, of course not.  I can't even guess how you reached that hypothesis.

See above ' ^^^^^^^^ '
>
>
>What exists:
>A whole class of words derived from man.

Wrong assumption.

>A usage of some of said words in two meanings, one excluding females, one not.
>A large number of people who are offended by these words.

Never been demonstrated.
>--
>"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu

JerkfaceJeffy  :^]