From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Newsgroups: soc.college,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: 18 Dec 92 04:39:57 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.065013.29645@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzDMLy.IGE@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.182343.1179@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBsyn.9IH@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.161343.6867@bmerh85.bnr.ca> nadeau@bnr.ca (Rheal Nadeau) 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. 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. 
>
>>>>>I'm sorry, but if "mankind" evokes "man" evokes "male", that is most
>>>>>definitely a function of language.  "Man" does mean "male human", so it
>>>>>is normal that this is the image it raises.
>
>>>>Why does "man" evoke the image of a man only, and "woman" not evoke the
>>>>image of a man? 
>
>>>Who cares?  The point is that it *does.*
>
>>Since we are discussing a pertinent issue, the statement just made is
>>germane to the discussion.
>
>Which statement?  That "man" and "woman" evoke what they do?
>
Yes. It illustrates that the way we learn to associate meanings
plays a major role in shaping our prejudices.

>>>>After all, "woman" does contain "man". It is just that
>>>>you have learnt to associate "woman" with a woman and not a man. Now,
>>>>somewhere in your life, you learnt about the suppression of women by
>>>>men for centuries, and let this cloud your judgement about matters
>>>>totally unrelated to the hardships suffered by women. 
>
>>>More insults.  More nonsense.  More presumption.  Less comprehension, as
>
>>Insults? Nonsense? Presumption???
>>Is the supression of women by men for many years, not a recorded fact?
>
>Yes.  So is the relationship between language and oppression -- the 
>relationship you deny, the relationship that has been demonstrated
>in countless studies, studies whose citations you seem to have deleted
>without checking them out.  
>

Ok....here's a clipping of the original posting once again :

>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:
>>"Recent studies of college students and school children indicate that the broad
>>definitions of *man* and *men* [i.e. to refer to all humans and not just males],
>>although still taught, have to a significant degree become inoperative at a
>>subliminal level.  Phrases like *economic man* and *political man*, or
>>statements like 'Man domesticated animals' and 'Man is a dreamer,' it turns
>>out, tend to call up images of male people only, not female people or females
>>and males together." (p 10)
>>References:
>>"Among studies which report and discuss evidence indication that the so-called
>>generics *man* and *men* (and compounds incorporating them) are not generally
>>understood to include females are the following:
>
>[long list of references deleted]
>

I DON'T disagree with these results. But these studies do NOT prove
that using the word "humankind" instead of "mankind" alleviates 
prevalent prejudices.

>
>>>usual.  Sorry, Mandar, but it's *not* unrelated.  It's *not* unrelated
>>>to the *continuation* of these hardships.  
>
>>Language isn't related to the continuation of these hardships, *people*
>>are.
>
>Well, if that's all there is to your argument we can stop right now.
>
>Mandar, people *use* language.  Language is of no interest whatever
>aside from its uses by people.  And we're discussing one of those
>uses -- its use toward continuing social and cultural situations that 
>some of us find unacceptable.  The inclusive uses of "man" and "mankind"
>and "he" have indeed been used to justify male superiority; even if 
>those arguments don't of themselves hold water, they color the perception
>of those words.
>

"Woman" itself comes from "man". Literally, it means "wife of man".
And, it was constructed when women were suppressed. ME, fr. OE wif-man.
Why didn't we drop the usage of "woman" then? Because, the word 
"woman" ceased to be associated with "companion of man". Similarly,
if we can stop people from associating "mankind" with *only* men, when
used in a different context, the need to avoid its use will be
eliminated.


>>If mankind includes only "men", why doesn't women include "men" too?
>
>Huh?  Are you getting down to pettiness about spelling?  Why not 
>just quit instead?
>
*Sigh*. Read the explanation given above.

>>>>is just that you have learnt to associate these terms differently.
>
>>>That is, these terms have *meanings.*  The problem is that "man" has *two*
>>>meanings, and that they overlap in problematic ways.
>
>>And the problem lies in the eye of the beholder.
>
>Right.  And I have to talk to beholders, and write things for them 
>to read.  So do you.  You ignore facts about them at your peril.
>
Well, DO NOT ignore facts about them. STATE assumptions you make
before you start. (Isn't this a bit like the program/me argument?  ;) )

>
>>>Before we go on, remember that in the past, the ambiguity of "man" 
>>>has been used specifically in the oppression of women.  Some legal
>>>codes included women explicitly in any refrence to "man" -- but
>>>courts nonetheless excluded women in some cases because "man" meant
>>>"man."  
>
>>This illustrates *exactly* what I wanted to prove. Prejudices are
>>harmful.
>
>And words that make people aware of prejudices they might otherwise 
>carry with them untinkingly are *useful.*  Substituing "humankind"
>for an expected "mankind" conveys just the same amount of information
>AND reminds people not to forget about women.  
>
So you expect them to use "humankind" instead of "mankind" everytime.
Aren't you being unrealistic, Roger? People will continue to 
write the way they wish and will continue to misinterpret words (e.g.
-person). In fact, since humankind is a synonym for mankind, it
hardly changes things. You'll find "mankind" in hundreds of books.
And you can't turn back time, you know.

>Just saying "prejudices are harmful and if you misconstrue my correct
>English, it's your fault" is irresponsible.  YOU must be aware of the
>effects of YOUR words on other people, even if those effects are mediated
>by prejudices of which you do not approve.
>
Exactly. And an attempt should be made to concisely state the assumptions
I make, before I start.

>
>>They get hurt by prejudices in the minds of men,  by the incorrect 
>>interpretation of language, *not* by the language itself.
>
>And yet this language has changed again and again to accomodate the
>shifts in perception by those who use them.  Here a shift is taking
>place -- why do you object to the corollary changes in language? 
>
Because the existing language already encompasses this change.

>Here people are using language *responsibly*, by being aware of the 
>prejudices in the interpretation of language.  "Incorrect interpretation"
>misses the point -- sender *and* recipient are responsible for communication.
>To claim that the language itself has not been shaped, affected, 
>changed by prejudices in the past is to misunderstand the very
>nature of a language.
>
>
I never disagreed with the fact that language has been shaped, affected,
changed by prejudices in the past. I disagreed with the vice-versa.

>
>Of course, it would help if you could even make a non-contradictory set of 
>arguments.  A few weeks ago, you told us that we should use "dialect"
>in the sense that the majority of users use it.  Today, you state that 
>majorities do *not* determine the meaning of a word.  Which reality
>do you prefer today?  
>
I didn't ask you to use the word "dialect" ONLY in that sense. I
asked you to recognise the fact that most people don't accept your 
definition of dialect, that's all. And today, I state that majorities
do not determine the ONLY meaning of a word. Do not attempt to
produce contradictions where they do not exist.

>
>>There *are* native speakers. There *is* a standard. And there *is*
>>a proper spelling.
>
>And you've managed to come up with nonsensical definitions of all
>three, and much more of the same.  Several of us have pointed out 
>the contradictions in your method, and all we get in return is 
>shouting.
>
>Roger
>

Since you do not accept my point of view, indeed it appears to you
that I talk "nonsense" and I "shout" for no reason at all. NONE of
you has succeeded in finding contradictions in my methods. I am open 
to further discussion on this issue. Perhaps you can illustrate 
your "contradictions".

                                                           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.