HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:03:25 GMT

In article <BzAE0r.4w8@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>In article <101955@netnews.upenn.edu> pezzillo@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Amy J. Pezzillo) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.163456.9037@hobbes.kzoo.edu> k044477@hobbes.kzoo.edu (Jamie R. McCarthy) writes:
>>>Because, after all, the use of the third person plural as an ersatz
>>>third person neuter singular is ungrammatical, right?  And
>>>awkward-sounding besides, right?
>>
>>But infinitely preferable to hearing "he" used all the time.
>>
>NOT!

Regardless how you feel about "he" or "she," either are infinitely
preferable to "NOT!"  Let's face it -- any turn of phrase that both
George Will and Dan Quayle use is no longer hip.

>>using TRULY gender neutral terms wherever possible, "she or he" where
>>appropriate, and just plain old "she" once in a while to shake you all
>>up.  
>
>An exercise in futility. "Woman" encapsulates "man", as does "humankind"
>"mankind". As Tim S. pointed out, if "his" were "its", "this" would be 
>"tits"!  :) 

Boy, it really furthered the debate when he said it.  Nowhere near
as much as when you repeated it.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
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: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 19:27:18 GMT

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.

>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?

>
>     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."

>As long as certain traits are primarily associated with
>either sex, it is impossible to efface these distinctions in language. 

Utterly irrelevant to the discussion of "mankind" or "freshman."  
Especially since more than half of each category are women.

>I commend your egalatarian efforts, but they are misdirected. 

Another authoritative statement from Mandar.  Do you suppose you'll
get one right one of these days?

>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.

>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.

Roger

Newsgroups: soc.college
From: ptrei@bistromath.mitre.org (Peter Trei)
Subject: Re: Fraternity Desegregation
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 05:07:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.110258.2822@gacvx2.gac.edu> censtad@nic.gac.edu writes:
>Ok, but my original question was about hazing or initiation, what about  
>that Mr. Trei?  Do you have the right to be criticizing Greek  
>organizations when you yourself are a member of an organization which  
>hazes?

     Actually, the original question pointed out the relatively high
rates of injury and death in fraternity initiations, and asked to compare
it to problems in initiations in the Masons, among others. I responded 
that the rate was effectively zero.

     I don't recall criticizing anything, unless you call pointing out
that a ceremony run by "unsupervised college kids" had a better
possibility of getting out of hand than one run by mature adults, who
have something to lose in a lawsuit, criticism.

     I've seen 90-year olds on crutches go through Masonic ceremonies.
I've never seen anyone endangered or embarassed by them.

     Why not ask a member of your family who is a Mason if he thinks
the word "hazing" is appropriate.

     I've been asked by a number of people for more detailed
information about Freemasonry. Those who have written me will get
responses. I'm on a business trip for the next several days, so there
will be a delay.

							Peter Trei
							ptrei@mitre.org
Xref: sparky soc.college:5797 alt.usage.english:9786
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 14:48:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.104607.1@wombat.newcastle.edu.au> eepjm@wombat.newcastle.edu.au (Peter Moylan) writes:
>In article <1992Dec15.144252.22445@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:
>> 
>> English does have the genderless word 'one', but very few people seem
>> to use it.
>> 
>Even when one does use it, he soon finds that it doesn't solve
>this particular problem.

Of course it won't solve this particular problem, if you're going to
switch horses in midstream!

   When one does use it throughout, one finds it does solve the problem.

What with "they" and "one", and a bit of care in constructing our
sentences, we need never use "he" to mean "he or she".

Would that last sentence had been any better if I'd written:

   What with "they" and "one", and a bit of care in constructing his
   sentences, a person need never . . .

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: soc.college,soc.net-people,news.answers
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:42:52 GMT
 <1992Dec14.205206.4540@cdf.toronto.edu> 
 <1992Dec15.002645.1684@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>  
 <1992Dec15.021930.7866@midway.uchicago.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec15.021930.7866@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) quotes me:

> >Except that this usage is correct.  Look it up in a usage book.
> 
> Depends on your usage book.

True, but the only usage books I've seen that say the usage is wrong
are from the last ten years or so, ie. the time in which women have
become an 'oppressed minority'....

English does have the genderless word 'one', but very few people seem
to use it.


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Xref: sparky soc.college:5809 alt.usage.english:9798
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 21 Dec 92 00:49:31 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec20.165029.15348@news.eng.convex.com> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes:
>From the keyboard of mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi):
>:Take a spot poll, Tom. Find how many native speakers find the following
>:exchange of conversation natural :
>:
>:         "Is Joan there?"
>:         "No, they went to the market."
>
>Wrong.  By stating a femenine name you disambiguate it.
>
>You go spot check these:
>
>    "If anyone shows up, tell them to go away."
>    "Ask your SO whether they're interested."
>    "Each employee must sign their own form."
>
>--tom

Well, how about :

      "That person isn't here, is they?"
  
      "That person aren't here, are they?"

      "That person isn't here, are they?"

      "That person aren't here, is they?"


      "Ask your doctor if they are interested."

      "That employee should sign their form".


                                                        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
From: g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh)
Subject: Sexist language Re: Comments on F/S (was Re: Comments on Gxxxx Life)
Organization: University of Toronto Computing Disciplines Facility
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:28:55 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.031911.63804@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> mlsa@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (MICHAEL LAUREN SHERMAN) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.110032.2784@gacvx2.gac.edu>, censtad@dion.gac.edu (Topher
>the Gustie) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.142759.13000@cdf.toronto.edu>  (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>> (At UofT we don't use the sexist term "Freshman" any more.)
>>
>>At Gustavus we officially use the term First-Year Students.
>>
>UUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH, why don't you all get a fucking life, any woman
>who is offended by such a fucking benign term is just trying to be a fucking
>pain in the ass, how can you all sit by idly and watch as PC destroys our
>language and reduces normally sane individuals into screaming psycopaths,  I
>am not anti-woman or for that matter anti anything but this shit just pisses
>me off.  A freshman is a freshman.  Sorry, I am a Upper Middle Class White
>Freshman Male, I don't feel guilty about it, Just drag me out in the street
>and shoot me now.  Y'all are impossible,  do people who work in the sewers get
>in through person holes?
>
It's kind of funny to have someone lecture us about other people destroying
the language, when he himself uses a massive run-on sentence and highly
repetitive vocabulary.

Language changes all the time.  Some of us prefer to use terms which are
accurate and do not have sexist connotations.

There is nothing wrong with being an upper middle class white male, my
husband was one, but there is something wrong with mindlessly clinging to
tradition, using inaccurate language, and being inconsiderate, especially
when it is trivially simple to use inoffensive language.

(Utility holes, not person holes.)

-- 
Rosemary Waigh             Undergraduate, Computer Science / Linguistics
g9rwaigh@cdf.utoronto.ca   University of Toronto
	"Looking at the Earth from afar you realize it is too small
	for conflict and just big enough for co-operation."  Yuri Gagarin
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 06:20:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.150412.27919@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <BzDMLy.IGE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>>are.
>
>"Guns don't shoot people, people shoot people."
>
Yes, and sometimes people don't wish to shoot one another AT ALL. Yet
they misunderstand each other. The responsibility of the misunderstanding
lies in the speaker/writer as well as the listener/reader. It is the
listener/reader's responsibility to infer the meaning of a word from
its context. In cases where the meaning cannot be resolved from the
context of the word, it is the speaker/writer's responsibility to
include an explanatory note.

>But people do use guns to hurt each other, and people use language to
>hurt each other.  Just as I would not approve of someone going down the
>street shooting at people, I do not approve of people using language
>that diminishes others - and this includes language that implies women
>are subsidiary to men.

Nor do *I* approve of it. People who deliberately misinterpret words
are the ones at fault as are the ones who deliberately use these
words out of context.
>
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

                                                           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.
Xref: sparky soc.college:5566 alt.usage.english:9514
From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Date: 15 Dec 92 06:31:25 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec15.022145.24684@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <1992Dec14.171017.2005@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu> mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu writes:
>>In article <1992Dec14.164222.27808@news.eng.convex.com>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM> writes:
>>> From the keyboard of gmw1@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Gabe M Wiener):
>>> :True, but "freshman" indicates that the student is in the first year of his
>>> :or her undergraduate tenure.  
>>> 
>>> A second-year student could still be a freshman -- they (or do you 
>>						     ^^^^
>>> prefer "he, she, or it"?) might not have reached sophomore status 
>>> yet due to insufficient credits.
>>
>>	Oh God, not this!  Can't everyone just accept the generic "he" 
>>and get on with their lives?!
>
>OK, you've convinced me - "he" is gender-neutral.  We have our desired
>unsexist terminology, so henceforth I shall use "he" and its variants
>always, and drop the redundant "she".
>
>"Is Joan here?"  "No, he's not."  "How about Bob?"  "Yes, he's over
>there."
>
>Generic enough for you?
>
>       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself

"He" is generic DEPENDING UPON THE CONTEXT OF ITS USAGE!

If you *must* lean towards absurd extremities to put forth your argument,
how about "tits" for "this"?  :)

                                                           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
From: Tom Christiansen <tchrist@convex.COM>
Subject: Re: Sexist language
Originator: tchrist@pixel.convex.com
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:34:49 GMT
Reply-To: tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen)
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Colorado Springs, CO
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

From the keyboard of mix@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu:
:	Oh God, not this!  Can't everyone just accept the generic "he" 
:and get on with their lives?!

Because it sucks for lots of reasons, and "they" is perfectly fine.
In fact, I assert without proof that it's more commonly used.

--tom
-- 
    Tom Christiansen      tchrist@convex.com      convex!tchrist

One word sums up probably the responsibility of any vice president,
and that one word is 'to be prepared'.  --Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau)
Subject: Re: Sexist language 
Organization: Bell-Northern Research Ltd., Ottawa
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 19:44:59 GMT

In article <Bz6snr.o8@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU> streater@unixhub.SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Tim Streater) writes:
>
>Well as we know, "chairman" is a non-sexist word, and there is thus no need to
>replace it with anything ("chair" being something you sit on).

I wonder what you make of the use of the word "Crown" in England, then.
(You know, "The Crown versus Mr. Jones", and such phrases.)

Like "Crown", "Chair" refers to a position, not to the person who holds
it.  So "Chair" is not only free from the taint of sexism, it's more
accurate.

Just to be sure I make my point clearly - I may well go to a meeting
chaired by Mr. Smith, whom I personally despise, and still show respect
to his position.  Mr. Smith may be the "Chairman", but my respect is
directed at the symbolic "Chair", not at the person.  (Why?  Because
this convention has proven a useful device for running meetings.)

       The Rhealist - nadeau@bnr.ca - Speaking only for myself
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
From: baron@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Dennis Baron)
Subject: Re: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Organization: University of Illinois
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:32:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.144252.22445@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger) writes:


>"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
>'Russian Vodka'."

Would you know it was bad usage if all the title said was, "English
Usage"?

--
Dennis


debaron@uiuc.edu               (\                   217-333-2392
                               \'\             fax: 217-333-4321
Dennis Baron                    \'\           __________
Department of English           / '|         ()_________)
Univ. of Illinois               \ '/          \ ~~~~~~~~ \
608 S. Wright St.                 \             \ ~~~~~~   \
Urbana IL 61801                   ==).            \__________\
                                 (__)             ()__________)
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: "Amy Young Leith" <alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: FratERNITY, please
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 19:43:00 -0500

In article <9212180813.AA17347@polar.bowdoin.edu> cwilbur@polar.bowdoin.edu (Charlton Wilbur) writes:
>Ted et al.,
>
>I don't care about the "would you call your country a cunt" argument. I
>wouldn't call a pineapple a pine, but I have no problems calling a photograph
>a photo. Except that photo has a different connotation than photograph. Just
>like frat has a different connotation than fraternity. True, they both mean
>"campus social organization" -- NOT NECESSARILY "all-male campus social
>organization." However, when people use the word "frat" they're generally
>either independents or active fraternity-bashers. When they use the word
>"fraternity" they're at least showing enough respect to finish the word. 

Oh, ok.  I'll be sure to tell all of the people I know who are members
of various Greek organizations that The Charlton has spoken, and they
must now change their way of expressing themselves, and ban the word
"frat" from their vocabulary.

As I said in an earlier post, most members I know refer to them as
"frats."

amy
-- 
alyoung@kiwi.ucs.indiana.edu for personal mail
			    All business mail to alyoung@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Dislcaimer:I only speak for myself.  Anyone who thinks differently is a fool.
			(This means NOT my employer!!)
Xref: sparky soc.college:5546 alt.usage.english:9500
From: J.Theodore.Schuerzinger@dartmouth.edu (J. Theodore Schuerzinger)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Shaking people up with "she"? (was Re: Sexist language)
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:26:45 GMT
 <101955@netnews.upenn.edu> <1giqo8INNc1u@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU>  
 <1992Dec14.205206.4540@cdf.toronto.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0b1@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec14.205206.4540@cdf.toronto.edu>
g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:

> I agree that the ideal is non-sexist language rather than using "she" to
> "shake people up"; but OTOH if I am with someone who is incorrectly using
                                                         
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> "he" as a for someone of unspecified gender,
  ^^^^

Except that this usage is correct.  Look it up in a usage book.

BTW: Finnish has one word, han (with two dots over the a), to specify
both he and she.


--Ted Schuerzinger
email: .zed@Dartmouth.EDU
"I should have known it would be bad vodka when all the label said was
'Russian Vodka'."
Newsgroups: soc.college
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: observations (frat)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 08:23:57 GMT

(Please note that I'm merely keeping the title of the thread that Dave used.)

In article <1992Dec15.034519.16419@njitgw.njit.edu> dcg5662@hertz.njit.edu (Dave Grabowski (KxiK)) writes:
>wouldn't be beaten with them. Ahh, you say, but baseball bats also serve
>a useful purpose! Yes, they do. And there's no problem with them until
>you beat someone with one. Well, since there's a hell of a lot of
>fraternities that have never raped anyone (and probably never will), why
>should WE be penalized for what others have done?

A far better example would be drunk driving -- the vast majority of
drunk drivers never hurt anyone (I daresay a greater proportion of
drunk drivers never hurt anyone than fraternities that have never raped),
but drunk driving is still penalized.  Why?  Because drunk driving
creates a situation where accidents are much more likely, just as
all-male fraternities create an environment that makes rape much more
likely.  Drunk drivers account for a disproportionate number of accidents;
fraternities account for a disproportionate amount of rape.  Because
of the causal link between fraternities and rape, reform is necessary.

Please define "penalized" for me, because you don't seem to use the
traditional English definition of the word.  I fail to see how stopping
discrimination against women is a "penalty."
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english