From: mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: History
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 21:53:44 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec22.031553.26069@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) writes:
>In article <BzMx11.HCE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>
>>Reference : Robin Lakoff : "Language and Women's place". 45-80.
>>
>>Lakoff considers the argument for changing the word "history". The
>>argument goes as follows. A part of the word "history" is the masculine
>>"his" (you can read the word as "his story") but women also make history; 
>>therefore, the usage demeans women.
>>
>>      
>>     Yes, I agree that *most* women don't find "history" demeaning. But
>>I place before you the irrefutable proof that *some* women, very
>>obviously, do find it demeaning.  
>
>You provide ONE quotation, then argue that *some* women seriously object
>to the word "history".  

I beg your pardon, how many quotations do you want? Are you trying
to refuse the fact just for the sake of it? Besides, the second 
quotation for "herstory" itself speaks for the fact that the
authoress found the word "history" sexist (in fact she does, I
urge you to read the book). What is *your* definition for "some"?


>Then, in a later post, you argue with great
>feeling that "they" (a very global "they", including everyone who
>doesn't share your narrow views on language) take this view.
>
The topic I provided was "radical feminists" and "they" referred
to "them"! A deliberate attempt to misinterpret the context??

>I might as well say that "Mandar is an ass, therefore some Indians
>are asses, therefore *they* are asses."  Would you be impressed by
>such illogic?  Yet you use it with the greatest of ease!
>
I didn't. Did I say that ALL feminists agree with this view? Did
I say that ALL feminists are of the radical type?
Learn to READ.

>A hint, Mandar - has ANYONE who favours non-sexist language in this
>debate argued for "herstory"?  No - it has only been raised as a red
>herring by those who defend the use of "men" to (sometimes) include
>women.  

It *isn't* a red herring. There *are* radical feminists who agree
that "history" is sexist.


>(But it is easier to put words in people's mouths, then attack
>those words, then to pay attention to what they are really saying, isn't
>it Mandar?)
>

Do you really think that I am putting words in people's mouths? How
ridiculous can you get?? Show me ONE instance where I have forced
people to say something they didn't believe in.

>>Now for the word "herstory". It will surprise you H. Brown that there
>>is a BOOK entitled Herstory.
>
>It doesn't surprise me - I've heard of it.  So what?  It's a pun.  Do
>you really take all puns that seriously?  

For your information, it *isn't* a pun. Could you take the trouble of
reading that book?



                                                          Mandar.
-- 
"Imagine there's 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 I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some
 day you'll join us, and the world will be as one." - John Lennon.
Newsgroups: alt.usage.english