From: asurpren@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (aimee surprenant)
Subject: Sexist language
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:26:00 GMT

There has been a lot of talk on this newsgroup about how changing
to "non-sexist" language is/is not something important to work for.
I agree that it should not be the first priority in changing the
status quo towards women.  However, as a psychologist, I'm very aware
of how language and behavior affect our attitudes even if we are not
aware of it.  Let me give you an example (with references).

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959; see also, Festinger, 1957--refs 
below) did an experiment where they asked people to stand up and
give a monologue with a viewpoint that was opposite to their own
(e.g., they were anti-choice [sorry, trying to be scientific here
but my own biases keep peaking through!] and they were asked to 
give pro-choice arguments or vice versa).  Turns out that after-
wards, the people were more likely to rate themselves as being closer
to the other viewpoint than they were before.  The interpretation of
this result is as follows--you see yourself behaving
in one way and change your attitudes to come in line with your 
behaviors instead of the other way around like we usually believe).
Regardless of the "why" explanation, this shows that attitudes can
be changed from changing behavior.  (as an aside, these types of 
experiments are rarely done these days because of the possiblity of
long-lasting changing of people's attitudes without their knowledge!).
I see this as a way for us to change our own personal biases that we
try so hard to get rid of but that are pervasive. A personal example
is my changing to using the word "woman" when referring to female
persons over 18.  At first it seemed quite awkward but then it 
started to change my attitude towards most undergraduates.  When
I was calling them "girls" it rarely occurred to me that they had
opinions that might be valuable.  Now, however, I tend to think of
undergraduates (both men and women) as adults (instead of children
as I believe most faculty do) and treat them accordingly. 

Another observation is that there are no examples (that I'm aware of)
where a feminine prefix or suffix can refer to a male person.  While
"chairman" can refer to a woman, "chairwoman" would NEVER refer to a
man--freshman does refer to both men and women but freshwoman would
never work.  Mankind is all humans but Womankind can only be females.
This type of asymmetry is what is the problem.  The natural
assumption is that "man" is all-inclusive but "woman" is exclusive.
Also, I don't know if this is a general observation or biased by
my limited sample:  Men who are in traditionally female jobs get
a different title, e.g., male nurse or steward.  If a woman must
put up with being called "chairman" then a man should be called
"stewardess".  (ps., I feel bad for male nurses, stewards, secretaries
etc.--they put up with _incredible_ sexism from both men and women).

Just my viewpoint.

-Aimee

References:
Festinger, L. (1957).  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance.  Evanston,
     Ill.:  Row, Peterson.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959).  Cognitive consequences of
     forced compliance.  Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,
     58, 203-210.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism