From: awerling@nmsu.edu (WERLING)
Subject: Re: Freshm*n
Organization: NMSU Computer Science
	<1992Sep8.203245.11460@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 05:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Sep8.203245.11460@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jlinder@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Jeffrey S Linder) writes:

-   There seems to be some confusion about "man" and "Mann" in 
-   German.  "Mann" is male gender and means a male person, 
-   usually an adult. "man" means one or you and is not gender 
-   specific.

Yes.  Thanks for the correction.  It's been a couple years since my
German class.

-   [from previous post]
-   AW: Man in English is male, in any context.  We as a society 
-       are very gender conscious when we look at language, so 
-       this Freshman thing is very important.

-   Let me see if I understand you:
-   1) Man, in English, is male in any context.
 
Yes, if you look at how it is perceived and used.

-   2) Freshman refers to first-year students.
-   3) You never infered anything else about #2.

I don't know what you mean by "infer."

-   4) Freshman is decidedly male in the word's gender.

Not exactly, but I think we're at least communicating here.  Freshman
*in*and*of*itself* is genderless.  *But*, how it is perceived and the
way our culture is today (i.e., attempting to equalize itself in terms
of gender), the word *looks* male, therefore *becomes* male.  I hope I
didn't make that too confusing.

-   5) Freshman somehow idicates that women are not really 
-   mainstream freshman. 

I cannot speak for women.  All I can say is that, to me, the word
seems to have its exclusionary effect upon women.  I wonder about how
female readers in this newsgroup feel, if any of them are reading the thread!

-   Woman means that you are female human.
-   Man means you are male human.
-   Mankind refers to humans.
 
The root of all three is "man," the word for male human.  Perhaps the
the way to solve this is to find a prefix *before* the word man that
indicates is masculinity, one that is parallel to "wo-."  Linguists?

-   Most of us can make that distiction very easily.  Some 
-   people see the letter "MAN" and freak out.

I haven't seen anyone freak out about it, but it is a rather annoying
thing with our language that will most likely be weeded out with time.

-   I am not demenaing your arguemnents, I am refuting them.  

No, for the most part you have been mocking them.  Until now, you have
added very little in terms of useful discourse.  It's difficult for
people to discuss anything when automatically their arguments are
called "ridiculous."  That is not "refuting," as I said, it is mocking.

- If 
- you can show that what you say is true than I will admit 
- that words like "freshman" somehow apply only to males. 

My goal is not to get you to admit anything.  My goal is to solidify
my arguments, but more importantly it is to learn and discover.
That's what discourse should be all about; I prefer it not to be a contest.

- It 
- is ridiculous to apply meanings to words that do not apply.  
   
There's that word "ridiculous" again.  You *cannot* support a word
like "ridiculous."  You cannot teach me or anyone else a damn thing
that way.  Show me the flaws you perceive, rather than tossing out
blanket insults.

- There is no "kernal of truth" in you arguements.  

Of course there is.  Every argument has a kernal of truth in it.  The
truth is the desire to explore.  That's what I wish to do.  But when
I'm insulted, I tend to strike back, and the whole thing can end up as
muddier water than when we began.

- To ask 
-   someone to prove the negative is also ridiculous.  

I didn't ask you to prove any negatives.  Proving anything is not the
point.  I asked you to support your view.  I asked (in a rather
reactionary way) that if you considered the discussion ridiculous that
you leave argument alone to those of us who are interested in it.
Proving a negative had nothing to do with it.  Supporting your
assertions has everything to do with it.

-   It con-
-   cerns me when people will take things out of context and use 
-   them to advance their cause.  

I have no hidden agenda.  It's all out in the open.  

-   It also concerns me when 
-   people try to infer labels upon me because I use words like 
-   freshman, chairman, mankind, policeman and assume that I am 
-   somehow refering to males only.  

You are not referring to males only.  You are using exclusionary language.

-   I will suggest once again 
-   that it is people who see only the letters "MAN in a word 
-   and assume that anyone who uses or condones the use of that 
-   word is sexist, are the ones with a problem.

Total explosion of what we're discussing here, Jeff.  Over and over
again, I have stated that the langauge is exclusionary and alienating.
That is all.  "Sexism" has to do with the individual.  I'm not saying
that you're sexist for not changing your language habits.  I'm only
trying to show what I think happens when people use language in that
way.  

I think it's important to get away from the limited mindset you're
espousing here (not meant as an insult).  You are making logic leaps
about my intent and are taking what is criticism of society as a
personal attack on yourself.

--
Andrew Werling    awerling@nmsu.edu    yip@acca.nmsu.edu
"Jesus is coming, look busy."
          --from a button I bought in an Albuquerque bookstore.
Newsgroups: alt.feminism