From: roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig)
Subject: Re: Frosh (was Re: Sexist language (was...
Originator: news@nimaster
Reply-To: roger@astro.princeton.edu (Roger Lustig)
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 04:46:59 GMT

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.

>>>>>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. 

>>>>Or is it because words such as "mankind" are the masculine counterparts of
>>>>words such as "womankind"?

>>>But they aren't!  

>>"Mankind" isn't a counterpart to "womankind"?  If it isn't, then what is?

>>>I suspect that the word womankind was drummed up by rabid feminists. 

>>Why don't you stop suspecting for a moment, Mandar, and look in a 
>>dictionary?  As usual, you're wrong.

>>And in this case, you're also using a stupid, insulting stereotype of
>>"rabid" feminists.  Care to name one who might have done this?

>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.  

>I didn't intend to insult feminists. 

You certainly meant to insult *someone.*

>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"?

>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.

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.

c) Do you suppose that's why there *are* feminists, including the 
radical ones?

>>>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.

>>>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.

>>>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.

>Seriously though, I haven't anything against feminists, except those of
>the radical kind!   ;)

Who are they?

>>>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 dissappear, 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?

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.

Roger

Xref: sparky soc.college:5620 alt.usage.english:9599