From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 03:36:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.044659.150@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzDLxF.I1M@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.181538.416@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBtqy.9tL@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.183908.27702@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>>>In article <1992Dec13.194608.22045@cdf.toronto.edu> g9rwaigh@cdf.toronto.edu (Rosemary Waigh) writes:
>>>>>>>From _The_Handbook_of_Nonsexist_Writing_ by Casey Miller and Kate Swift:
>
>>>>>>[long list of references deleted]
>
>Try undeleting them, Mandar.  You might learn something.
>

As I said earlier, I do not dispute their results.

>
>>Hmm..ok...I concede that womankind is a counterpart to mankind. But
>>this is *only* when mankind is used in a context that includes *only*
>>men.
>
>Which is more often than you think.  In many of those philosophical
>and proverbial contexts you're referred to, the authors in question
>*do* essentially mean men only, because they then turn around and 
>come up with a whole separate, subordinate category of"female" as 
>an afterthought.  
>
Prove this.

>
>>But you realise that there *are*
>>feminists who believe that the female race is superior to the male
>>race, don't you? 
>
>In your previous posting, you refered to "the male species."  Now
>it's "the male/female race."  Do you have a hangup about "sex"?
>
Of course not! I LOVE sex.   :)
Seriously though, I didn't deliberately avoid reference to the word.
I could have used female sex, female humans, female people, female
species, female race or just plain "females".

>>Not just that, they allow this prejudice to distance
>>themselves from men.
>
>a) I have no idea what this has to do with the discussion.
>
*They* are responsible for this ridiculous and misguided "reform".

>b) Hundreds of millions of men think that they're innately superior to
>women, too.  We don't call them "masculinists," or anything like that;
>most places, that's simply accepted as normal.  Including the distancing.
>
Haven't you heard the term "MCP" ?

>c) Do you suppose that's why there *are* feminists, including the 
>radical ones?
>
Of course. If men had treated women equally, *everyone* would be
"feminists".

>>>>Mankind encompasses *both* men and women. 
>
>>>In some senses and uses, yes.  Other times, no.  Note that the 
>>>word "humankind" is not a recent coinage, either.  
>
>>Yes, but that doesn't make "humankind" a *better* word than "mankind".
>
>Correct.  What DOES make it a better word in many contexts is its
>lack of ambiguity and its explicit inclusion of all humans -- not 
>the implicit one in "mankind," which sometomes turns out not to
>be there after all.

The word "human" itself stems from "man" - from the Latin homo man,
ME humain, etc. Besides the dictionary states the meaning of human
as "of, relating to, or characteristic to man".  :)
     How do you ensure that human won't convey the image of man?

>
>>>>You are trying to associate the prefix "man" with the general usage of 
>>>>the word "man". The meaning conveyed by the word "man" depends upon
>>>>the context of its usage. 
>
>>>And yet, it conveys the association with men-and-not-women in all
>>>its uses.  This has been demonstrated over and over again. People
>>>who eschew its use in the sense of "human" are, generally speaking,
>>>writing *carefully* and *precisely* and *consideratly.*  They don't
>>>want to give mistaken impressions or allusions.
>
>>Exactly!  *Mistaken* impressions or allusions.
>
>Doesn't matter.  We're not here to place blame; we're here to communicate
>effectively.  People believe all kinds of things that you do't like,
>or that you know are wrong.  You can't go around pretending they don't; that 
>will get you into all kinds of trouble.  You have to improve your
>communication by becoming aware of what your readers and listeners 
>may be thinking when they hear this or that word.  You can do this 
>by studying the history and usage of the word, and the things that 
>have led people to pay attention to it.  Simply pounding on a 
>dictionary will not help.
>

And the solution lies in changing the way people learn to associate
things and the elimination of their prejudices by *reasoning* with
them. By teaching them the way sentences can be misconstrued. This
is much simpler than attempting to make them change the way they
write.

>>>>If you let your prejudices cloud your
>>>>ability to recognise this context, then I cannot help you.
>
>>>Look who's talking!  YOUR prejudices have lept you from even looking
>>>up the words in question.  They've led you to fantasies about "Rabid
>>>feminists" and to claims about the contexts of usage that are demonstrably 
>>>false.  Your prejudice needs a good dose of fact.  Go read some of the 
>>>references already given here on the subject.
>
>>Hehehee....I wouldn't term those "fantasies". They would be "nightmares"!  :)
>
>Well, I'm sorry they scare you so much.  Perhaps if you figured out 
>that women were neither species nor race, it wouldn't be so spooky 
>out there.
>
I don't find *women*(in general) spooky! I find "rabid feminists" spooky!  :)

>>Seriously though, I haven't anything against feminists, except those of
>>the radical kind!   ;)
>
>Who are they?
>
You contradict yourself, Roger. You have acknowledged their existence
in this very article. (look back a few lines.....point (c) ).

>>>>attitudes get reflected in language. It is *not* the other way around.
>
>>>So what happens to those of us who *don't* have those attitudes?  Must
>>>we use language that nonetheless reflects attitudes we reject? 
>
>>Those of you who *don't* have those attitudes can do better than just
>>fiddling with words. Help the rest of the world realise the detrimental
>>effects of such attitudes. When these attitudes disappear, the need to
>>change language will no longer exist.
>
>You keep saying that, but you aren't willing to enlist  the help of 
>words in the struggle!  Words are very powerful things; why *not*
>use them toward changing attitudes?
>
Use the *meanings* behind those words, rather than the words themselves.

>Again, you're being insulting by trivializing serious efforts as 
>"fiddling with words."  In fact, what you're objecting to is the 
>result of serious study of words -- you deleted the references to
>some of the studies -- and the observaion that word choice *is* 
>powerful and can be a means toward change.
>
Those studies proved that words like "mankind", when used generically,
tend to bring up images of men more often than women. They did not
prove what you claim.

>Roger
>

                                                          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