From: mmmirash@banshee.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:51:17 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

In article <1992Dec17.070021.2835@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>In article <BzDu5I.LGF@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec16.183351.2058@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>In article <BzBxxG.BL1@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.192718.21511@Princeton.EDU> roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>>>In article <BzABs3.37r@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> mmmirash@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Mandar M. Mirashi) writes:
>
>>Prejudice does affect language, but language doesn't affect prejudice.
>
>How do you know this?  More wishful thinking, I bet.  Did you ever 
>study the matter?
>
>>Prejudices are built by societal attitudes and personal experiences.
>
>Most of which involve language, and many of which involve language 
>choices that reinforce or even lead to prejudice.  If you'd read a few
>of those articles instead of deleting the references, you'd know this.
>
>Instead, you just prattle on, without any arguments.
>
The references mentioned provide evidence to the fact that the word
"mankind" and "man" when used generically, tend to bring up images
of male people only. I do *not* dispute this fact. What  I disagree
upon is the role of language in forming prejudices. These prejudices
are formed from the way we are taught to associate meanings with words;
not from the words themselves.

>>>>>>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?
>
>>>>How can the fish be responsible for the thought? *You* are responsible
>>>>for the thought, as the complex process of determining that
>>>>the object viewed is indeed a fish and not something else, carried
>>>>out by your brain, belongs to you and *not* to the fish. 
>
>>>Would I have thought the thought ifthe fish hadn't been there?  No.  
>
>>You can *imagine* a fish. Anyway, you digress. 
>
>Nice try.  I *could* imagine the fish, but I'd be unlikely to. After
>all, in the vast majority of situations when I *don't* see fish,
>I don't think about them either.  But when I see them, I tend -- atl
>least -- to think "fish" or something similar.
>
>
>And, no, it's not a digression.  Stimulus *does* have something to
>do with the response to it.  You were arguing that it does not.
>
I wasn't arguing that stimulus doesn't produce a response. What I was
arguing about was your classification of "stimulus". 

>>>>Hey Roger.....you *must* read Lauren's article. It's simply hilarious!
>>>>It demonstrates how ridiculous these chauvinists really appear when they
>>>>apply their beliefs to language. 
>
>>>Isn't chauvinism the word that means unrealistic, patriotic attachment
>>>to a nationality?  Like claiming that only the English are native speakers
>>>of English, and that their spelling is necessarily correct in a sense
>>>that that of Americans can't be?  
>
>>If you look up "chauvinism" in your dictionary, it also means :
>>"unreasoning devotion to one's race, sex, etc. with contempt for
>>for other races, the opposite sex, etc."
>
>Fair enough.  How was I to know that from your context?  Especially
>since you'd already given such a wonderful impression of a chauvinist
>(other definition).  
>
>>Hmmm....if you can't realise this meaning of chauvinism, no wonder
>>you have problems in dealing with "mankind".
>
>Sorry -- YOUR responsibility.  You communicated lots of chauvinism,
>and so I thought of you when I saw the word.  See how it works?
>

Haven't I given you the context - LAUREN'S ARTICLE. It conveys *nothing*
about the former kind of chauvinism. Now who's spouting statements
without looking up the appropriate reference? Be gracious enough to
admit your mistake. 
      About the meaning of chauvinism which conveys "patriotism", I
do not see how my articles have conveyed a "chavinistic" view. I haven't
posted articles which say "India is the best country in the world". In
fact, I am NOT chauvinistic. I like to think of myself as a world
citizen (look up my .sig). I have also elucidated upon the fact that I
do not consider myself as a "subject of the British Empire". 


>>I would say *most* rather than *some*. Look up Dennis'(The previous
>>spelling mistake was a typo  :(  ) article where he mentions that
>>apart from "saleswoman", and subsequently "salesperson", few of
>>the -person innovations have been treated seriously. Perhaps Dennis
>>would be good enough to elucidate once again. 
>
>I'm sure he would -- but note that "person" doesn't constitute more 
>than a small portion of the area we're talking about.  Many other
>efforts have succeeded.  Dennis has written a book about some kinds
>of language reform; I suggest you read it.
>
I would gladly do that. Could you name the book please?
Anyway, does it show how the elimination of prejudices is linked to
language reform? Does it conclusively prove that language is an
indisputable factor in the elimination of prejudices?

>
>>>Wishing won't make it so.  For one thing, we've already succeeded in
>>>more ways than one.  Racial and ethnic hatreds are not what they used
>>>to be, and awareness of language has had something to do with that.
>
>>No. Language had nothing to do with it. 
>
>Stamp, stamp, stamp!  Say it often enough and we'll believe it, eh?
>
*You* haven't come across as convincing, either.

>You *Still* haven't read the books whose refs you deleted...
>
I agree with their results. But I dispute the link from language to
prejudice.

>>It has been more of a concerted effort on the behalf of all men.
>
>Huh?  What does this mean?  What kind of effort?  
>
I meant an increased level of awareness in the minds of men about
the condition of women in society.

>Not that you've told us *why* the efforts that included use of
>lanugage were necessarily ineffectual.
>
Dennis amply illustrated the failure of most  of these efforts. People
will continue to associate new meanings with words, whether they
already exist or whether they have been newly formed. They may
even contrive neologisms to further their prejudices.

>But then, you've probably never heard of rhetoric, either.  That's 
>the 3000-year-old art of choosing and using words to sway listeners
>more effectively.  What we're talking about is a modern application
>of rhetoric.  
>
Has mere rhetoric (the way you choose and use words) ever eliminated
*fundamental* prejudices in the minds of men? These were eliminated
by *their* realisation of the  fact that the way they thought and
acted, was no longer considered acceptable by society. What changed
their minds? Society, and not "words".

>Does language *never* have anything to do with societal change?
>I'd like to see you support that assertion.
>
I do. In fact, societal change affects language.

>>>Besides, your Farsi example is irrelevant -- because the issue was
>>> not where the prejudice came from, but how it was perpetuated.
>>>Farsi did not contribute to that; English -- demonstrably -- did.
>
>>*English* didn't.  People who deliberately misconstrued statements,
>>did (just as you deliberately assumed the incorrect meaning of
>>"chauvinist" used in the context above).
>
>What about people who deliberately used statements they knew would 
>be --- or could be -- misconstrued?  What of those who *assumed*
>that a word meant one thing and not another, not considering the 
>ambiguity that in fact was there?  

If these statements couldn't be resolved by context, then these
people are at fault. For e.g., when I state "Evil lurks in the
minds of men", it is clear that I am referring to the generic
meaning. However, should I state "Those men belong to the football
team", I use the more common meaning of "men". If the context is
clear but is deliberately misconstrued then the reader/listener
is at fault.

>What of those who exploited
>the convenient congruence between the "inclusive" words and the 
>patterns of thought regarding the status and place of women?
>
Narrow minded bigots!  :)

>These people shaped the language.  These people  -- who spoke and
>wrote the language -- *were* the language, in effect; because the 
>language doesn't exist outside of the poeple who use it.  It is
>utterly meaningless if considered as an abstract code, as you seem
>to wish to; its use and purpose and nature are inextricably bound
>up with the set of its speakers.
>
Exactly! These people shaped the language; the language didn't shape
them.

>
>
>Stamp, stamp, stamp.  

Do you work in the post office, btw?   :)
I would like some good stamps, please; especially the one which has
Elvis on it.                 ;)

>
>>People will simply invent new terms to express their prejudices,
>>or, assign new meanings to existing words. The crux of the problem
>>lies with the people themselves. 
>
>So tell me -- how will we reason with those people, if not with words?
>How will we sway thm, if not with rhetoric?  How will we make them
>aware of their use of words, if not with our own use of words that 
>makes them conscious of their ways?
>
By teaching children to associate words and meanings differently. 
By condemning deliberate abuse of words.
By inculcating a higher sense of values in people.
By teaching them the role of women in society and the hardships
they have endured.

>>>>Try removing the prejudices deeply rooted in the minds of men. 
>>>>The need to modify existing usage for this reason, will disappear on
>>>>its own.
>
>>>Why make things harder?  Why *not* use one of the most compelling
>>>avenues of thought -- language -- as an ally?
>
>>Because language isn't anyone's ally. 
>
>I was right -- you *don't* know what "rhetoric" means.
>
I *do*. And coming back to the issue of language, people will always
find ways to circumvent your "barriers". 

>>It is an expression of the thoughts of people. 
>
>WHAAAAT?  This is your worst howler so far, Mandar!
>
>Language is no such thing -- it is a *means* of such expression.
>
Oooops....sorry...I meant *means* of expression.  :)

>
>>If you cannot change the way people think,
>>fiddling with language isn't going to achieve much.
>
>How do YOU change the way people think, Mandar?  
>
>How did your teachers do it?  
>
>How does an effective orator do it?
>
>They use words.  They *choose* words.  They choose words that, by
>the very fact of their presence in the speech or writing at hand,
>draw attention to some matter outside themselves in a way that 
>other words cannot.  
>
>Rhetoric, Mandar.  The effective use of language.  Not "fiddling"
>(can't drop the insults...) -- but careful use.
>
It is *not* the words, but the *meaning* behind those words which
draws their attention. Now if you can make people associate the
word "mankind" with men and women, this entire controversy wouldn't
exist at all.

>>    Compare the use of the so-called "sexist" words to the use of
>>nuclear energy. Nuclear energy can be put to *both* constructive
>>and destructive purposes. If people are taught to eschew the
>>destructive use of nuclear energy, "nuclear-free" zones will not
>>be necessary. The problem lies *not* with the tool/weapon, but rather,
>>with the wielder of that tool/weapon. Besides, any amount of
>>"constructive improvement" on this tool/weapon can always be circumvented 
>>by an equivalent "destructive design", by the abuser.
>
>What took you so long?  I *knew* we could get another silly analogy
>out of you.  
>
>Yes, the problem lies with the users.  How do we get the users to 
>use words/nuclear energy responsibly?  Many ways.  By example.  By 
>law.  Force.  Whatever.
>
>Of course, the goal here is not to get people to use certain words
>(here the analogy collapses) but to get them to think and act differently.
>
It doesn't collapse. People *should* be taught to think and act
differently. They should be taught about the dangers of nuclear
energy and constructive ways to harness it. Should we use another
source of energy (not necessarily as effective) just because this 
form of energy can be put to destructive use? No, because there
is no guarantee that this "new" form of energy will not be abused,
either.

>On the other hand, people must *continually* be taught to eschew
>bad uses of nuclear energy; each generation must learn all over again
>what's good and bad (not that people agree on wht those things are,
>either.  
Yes...that's true.

>Prejudice, on the other hand, must be taught; the default
>is no prejudice.  
>
Correct, and should we not attempt to thwart efforts which foster
prejudice?

>In any case, we achieve the end we want, whether it's responsible use of
>atomic energy or the end of bigotry, by changing the way people think.
>And we have found no better way to do that than to speak and write
>effectively.  

Exactly. Not only that, but also *teaching* others how to speak, write
and UNDERSTAND effectively.

>Doing this requires awareness of the resonance of words,
>and sometimes means avoiding this word or that, even if *we* know what 
>we want it to mean.
>
>Roger

Shouldn't people be made aware of the meanings of words and the way
they have been abused? This will instill a far greater sense of 
awareness in them, than forcing them to avoid certain words ever will.

                                                           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:5602 alt.usage.english:9571