From: lukoff@stein.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff)
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist hypocrites
Date: 28 Dec 92 21:20:49 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

In article <1992Dec28.002401.1938@ra.msstate.edu> wkl1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Wing-Keong Loke                                               the consummate chronic prevaricator) writes:
>In article <1992Dec27.174634.18263@u.washington.edu> lukoff@carson.u.washington.edu (Fred Lukoff) writes:
>>
>>Sure, the suffix may seem like the words make men the norm and women
>>'deviant', but what are we then to do, make up words like 'waitron'?
>>Or make up words than end in -person? I actually saw a Washington State
>>government notice for 'fisherperson' licenses and nearly died. So does
>>anyone have any suggestions as to how we can fix this situation, BESIDES
>>-person words?
>>
>>Ben Lukoff
>
>	How you reacted to the word "fisherperson" is exactly how many
>women feel about the suffix "man."  Anyway, why is "fisherperson" so
>revolting to you?  Other than it sounding funny, does it make you feel
>less of a person?  Consider "fisherMEN" instead.  For a female, there
>might be some feelings of dissatisfaction based on the inability to
>identify with the "masculine" suffix.  More importantly, attempts to
>change it to a gender neutral word is met with resistance by some
>people, which makes it seem more concrete tha males have it better.
>	The problem of wording has a whole lot to do with how one
>feels.  It's also important to take notice that, for an example,a
>spouse generally makes concessions to the other spouse as a show of
>affection and caring, similarly, an inability to make concessions
>on the part of males could be interpreted as not caring or giving a
>damn.  The result of this might be the rise of radical feminism or
>intolerance on the part of females when dealing with traditional
>male structures of whatever (discourse, decision making, etc.)

"Fisherperson" certainly does not make me feel less of a person. One, it
sounds funny, as you said. Two, it is made up, and is not a natural
construct. I don't know who previously referred in this group to
"linguistic engineering" but that is a perfect example. I have said that
the most sexist person in the world can use the most politically correct
language in the world, and the least sexist can use the least PC, and what
words you use do not necessarily show how you think. -Men is *not* a
masculine suffix. Sure, the primary meaning of the word 'man' *is* male
human being, but the suffix means human. Perhaps it is the inability of
people to deal with this fact....
"Attempts to ***change*** it to a gender neutral word is met with
resistance by some people"...Who can "change" the language? As long as
most people object to a change, it will not go forward.  If you truly want
to change the prejudiced society we live in you must educate first, and
the language will follow. You're going about it completely backwards.
Besides, we will end up with words such as 'ombudsperson', which used to
be 'ombudsman', which is a direct steal from Swedish, so the -man suffix
isn't the same English -man suffix you people object to.
While I'm on this, any thoughts on 'waitron' or 'womyn'? :)

Ben Lukoff
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english