From: lynch@ils.nwu.edu (Richard Lynch)
Subject: Re: Freshman
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 20:07:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.000827.376@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:
>>For years and years and years a woman is continually referred to as a "man".
>>Now it may be because of poor grammar skills, (as you seem to contend is the
>>problem here) but many wome, because man can be exclusively male as well as a
>>blanket term for male and female, feel "left out".
>
>How "for years and years " is a women referred to as a man?  If you are 
>referring to the word 'freshman', you are wrong.  Freshman doesn't mean:
>"first-year male student unless your talking about a women."

The sentence should have ended 'referred to as "man"'.   Typo.
I'm referring to all the words derived from man that are used as umbrella terms
for female and male.
Particularly offensive are words that are used at times for just male.

>>This went unnoticed for the longest time in much the same way that a dripping
>>faucet may only become annoying after lots and lots of drips.
>
>Unnoticed because man hadn't yet been beaten into submission by 'politcally 
>correct thinking'.

I am not trying to beat you into submission by PC thinking.
Unnoticed because it is such a minor thing taken one instance at a time.  It is
only when you think about the effect of continual usage that the problem is
seen.

>>
>>Regardless of WHY women dislike this term, and regardless of whether it's sill
>y
>>or not, don't you think that if somebody prefers not to be called something
>>you should respect that?
>
>I may not like to be called a technician, but that is what I am.  Should I 

So if a woman says "I do not like to be called a man, because I'm not"...

>carry around a questionairre full of terms and hand it to someone so they can 
>check off the 'labels' they may not like?  Seems rather ludicrous.

Your suggestion is indeed ludicrous.
However, if many, many technicians didn't like the term 'technician',
shouldn't you consider not using it?
For example, if you had a friend who didn't like being called 'tech-weenie' or
'tech-geek', wouldn't you avoid calling him/her that?
You don't have to go around with a questionairre.  You already modify your
language to fit the person you are speaking to.  I'm sure your brain is capable
of maintaining many more entries in this mental map.
You are also perfectly capable of separating labels that are somewhere in
between or that depend on the closeness of your relationship to somebody.

If you seriously were to say that you don't like being called technician, I
wouldn't call you that.  I don't think I'd stop using the term in general until
a significant body of people said they didn't like it.

>>Are there no labels for you that you find objectionable?  And isn't it really
>>silly when you get down it that these labels are objectionable?  But wouldn't
>>you appreciate it if people didn't use these labels for you?
>
>Usually, only labels that are deragatory, do I object to.  But I always 
>consider the source.  Now if you want to try and convince me that
>'freshman' is deragatory I am all ears.

Derogatory is in the eye of the recipient.

I would presume that you do not go around using 'nigger' on a regular basis
when speaking to strangers.  There is nothing inherently derogatory about the
derivation/meaning of 'nigger';  you don't use it because a lot of people who
could be labeled as such (and others) found it objectionable.

While I gave suggestions as to how you might come to understand why it's
considered objectionable, my main contention is that you don't have to.
If I don't like being called "tech-geek", I expect you to respect that.
Same goes for all those people who don't want to be called "man".

>>To see why women might object to this whole language thing, (which I, for the
>>longest time, "just didn't get it") perhaps you could try to imagine that you
>>had grown up in a world where it was the exact reverse, ie woman was the
>>umbrella term for male and female.
>
>You, like many posters, who are on this "I have reached enlightenment" kick
>and then take a condescending view of those you have considered "left in the
>dark", really irritate me.

I am sorry if I came across as preachy.  It was not intentional.  I was really
hoping to make you understand why it was derogatory, which you just asked for
above.  If you've tried the above, and it didn't work...what can I say, I
couldn't have known that.

>>Don't just casually shrug it off and say it wouldn't have bothered you.  Maybe
>>you are thick-skinned and it wouldn't have.  But really reflect on this and
>>try to run through your whole life in your mind again, but just imagine it wit
>h
>>this little difference.  You may conclude that it wouldn't have bothered YOU,
>>but I hope you will at least see how it COULD bother some people.
>
>Maybe, I already have.

Already have what?

>>I know this is hard to do.  It's hard for a male to see why it matters.  Even
>
>Are you a spokesman for all men?

No, of course not.  I can't even guess how you reached that hypothesis.

>>if you can't see why, don't you think it's small enough that if somebody
>>doesn't want to be called <foo>, you should respect that?
>
>I will not change my use of a word because someone wants to read something
>into it that doesn't exist.

What exists:
A whole class of words derived from man.
A usage of some of said words in two meanings, one excluding females, one not.
A large number of people who are offended by these words.
-- 
"TANSTAAFL"     lynch@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu