From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 17 Dec 92 02:41:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: constell.BzDu5I.LGF
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

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.
>
>>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?  
>
Prejudice does affect language, but language doesn't affect prejudice.
Prejudices are built by societal attitudes and personal experiences.

>>>>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. 

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

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

>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).
    As long as ambiguity exists in English, it is always possible
for people to deliberately use incorrect meanings. This usage
also has given us the "pun". In fact, if you think that changing
a word will help remove deeply built prejudices, you're wrong.
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. 

>>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
>

Because language isn't anyone's ally. It is an expression of the
thoughts of people. If you cannot change the way people think,
fiddling with language isn't going to achieve much.
    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.

                                                           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