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: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:33:51 GMT

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.

>Maybe some set theory will make the distinction clearer  :    :)
>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?  

>>>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.  

>>>     Waging war on language to further the equality of sexes, will serve
>>>little purpose. 

>>Bad faith will not further your argument, either.  Nobody's "waging
>>war on language," whatever that might mean.  Influencing usage *is*
>>possible, and *can* be done under some circunstances. Examples: we 
>>don't say "nigger" anymore, and we do say "Ms."

>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?  

Now, what were you saying?  Does this have anything to do with the 
issue of "waging war on language" or influencing usage?

>>>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. 

>>>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.

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.

>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?

Roger

Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english