Conference thebay::joyoflex

Re .0:

"Man" has no _denotations_ of gender when used as the name of the species.
It does have connotations.


				-- edp

I believe that the term "man" is a shortening of the word "human".  I would
think that it is only a sexist term to those looking to make up sexist terms.
(I'm surprised Webster hasn't been sued yet for including these words and
encouraging sexism.  Why not, people are suing for everything these days.)
Those thinking that "man" is sexist must also realize that the word "woman"
is sexist since it includes the word man.  I think the term originally came
from wif+man or the wife of a man.  Certainly there are many woman who are
not wives of men, and there are even a few men who are.

Re .2:

Except for the etymology, "woman" is not sexist when referring to a particular
woman (with a non-sexist reason for doing so).  But neither is "man" sexist
when referring to a particular man.  But using "man" for the _entire_ race
is sexist.

Typically, when people hear about a new person, they form some sort of image in
their minds.  For example, when hearing about "the president of XYZ corporation
is", many people think about a man.  When hearing about a secretary, many people
think about a woman.  This bias is present everywhere, in almost everybody.
When hearing about "man's accomplishments in science", it is hard not to think
of prototypical men doing science. 

As I have said already, the sexism is _not_ in the word.  It is in you, me, and
everybody else.  And using "man" for the race does not help to eliminate it. 


				-- edp

 Re: .2:  "I think the term originally came from wif+man or the wife of
 a man."

 Perhaps you have etymology behind you, but I think it makes a lot more
 sense that the term "woman" came from 'womb man,' that is, a human with
 a womb (to bear children).  Thus, a female human being becomes a woman
 by attaining the capacity for bearing children, not necessarily by marrying 
 a man (a human without a womb).

 I agree with those that assert that, lacking a gender-specific context,
 the word "man" *should* refer to humans generically.  But how can we
 stem the current tide of hypersensitivity, and move toward this more
 reasonable and rational position?

 Neil

Re .3

>  But using "man" for the _entire_ race is sexist.

So is using "man" to refer to an individual whose sex is not known.  This is the
grammatical "common" gender.  In English, common gender pronouns invariably have
the same form as the masculine gender.  At least, that's the way it was when I
went to high school and college in the dark ages. Some writers are beginning to
substitute feminine gender forms and some combinations (_e.g._, 's/he,'
'his/her') for common gender usage.  Use of the third person plural (they,
their, them), which doesn't inflect for gender, in place of the singular is also
becoming more common.  ("Each person will use their own computer account.") 
Such usage excuses the writer or speaker from having to use a pronoun which
connotes sex because it has a determinable gender.

Dave C.

Re: .5 -- "Each person will use their own computer account." is an 
abomination.

Not to be taken seriously:  "woe" to "man" = woman.

Tom

Re .6

Yes, I agree.  "Each person will use their own computer account," should be
"Each person will use HIS own computer account [emphasis added]," according to
any grammar I've ever read and according to every English instructor I've ever
studied under.  However, these days, some people take offense at a statement
like the example I gave and wish to conclude that only men may have computer
accounts because the common gender singular third person pronoun 'his' looks
like it's masculine gender.

Dave C.

Re .4:

Merriam-Webster's _Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary_, 1976, gives the
etymology of "woman" as Middle English from Old English's "wifman" which
is in turn from "wif" for woman or wife and "man" for human being or man.


Re .5:

_Why_ is "man", "he", and "his" the common gender?


				-- edp

Re .8

>  _Why_ is "man", "he", and "his" the common gender?

Well, you can't say that a word has or has not a particular attribute (part
of speech, gender, number, tense, what-have-you) out of context.  You can
say that a word *usually* has a particular attribute.  In particular, the
words 'man,' 'he,' and 'his' are usually masculine gender, but it depends
upon the usage.  If the pronoun 'he' is used in a way such that its antecedent
is in the common gender, then the pronoun 'he' itself will also be in the
common gender (remember that pronouns agree with their antecedents in person,
gender, and number).  

However, you can say what attributes a word has in a particular instance.

  Example:  "Each person will use his own account."

The subject of the sentence is 'person.'  The subject refers to a being which
is presumed to have a sex, hence, is not neuter.  The sex is unknown, however,
so neither masculine nor feminine gender is appropriate.  This is the "common"
gender.  "Grammar schools" don't usually teach about common gender, ironically,
but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  (I learned about it as a freshman
in *engineering* school!)  But I digress.  The rule for determining gender
of a substantive (noun or pronoun) in English (with some exceptions) is
that if the referent has no sex, then the noun or pronoun is neuter gender;
if the referent has sex then the word is masculine for male referents and
feminine for female referents.  If you don't know, use the masculine FORM.
Again, this is common gender -- the referent has sex, but the sex is not
known.  (Some common exceptions:  names of ships are feminine and anonymous
ships are feminine.  I've heard this extended to other modes of transportation
("She won't go any faster than 95.").)

The personal pronoun 'his' refers to 'person,' therefor it agrees in person
(third), number (singular), and gender (common); the case, of course, is 
determined by its use in its own clause (possessive).

If the above example were known to refer to all women, then the pronoun would
have to be changed to 'her;' if it were known to refer to all men, then the
pronoun would be 'his,' but it would be masculine gender.  You can't tell
by inspection, though.  It would be nice if we could create a set of common
gender personal pronouns different in form from both masculine and feminine,
but we can't do that overnight.  Just try using the neuter form sometimes
and see what reactions you get!  "Each person will use its own account."

Dave C.

In some cases, "its" is the right pronoun..

Tom

> In some cases, "its" is the right pronoun.

An example is the word "child" which is, correctly speaking, neuter: "The
child plays with its toys".  Hangover from the language's Germanic roots,
I suppose.

French has an easier time of it, since "son, sa, ses" takes the case of the
following noun.  They also don't seem to have to much problem with the fact
that "they" (ils, elles) has both masculine and feminine forms.  There are
strict rules for their usage, which don't leave room for accusations of
sexism!

I guess we're stuck with (or benefit from?) a language which is more flexible
in its use.

Jeff.

Re .9:

You missed the point.  I was not asking how you determine if something is
common gender or when it is used.  I was asking for the historical reasons
that the common gender has the same form as the male gender.


				-- edp

Re .11

>> In some cases, "its" is the right pronoun.

>An example is the word "child" which is, correctly speaking, neuter: "The
>child plays with its toys".  Hangover from the language's Germanic roots,
>I suppose.

I disagree.  "Child," correctly speaking is common gender.  Only referents
which have no sex are neuter in English.  I would say, "The child plays with
his toys," or "The child plays with her toys," depending upon whether the
child were male or female.  If I didn't know, I would use 'his.'  If I were
concerned about offending someone (probably the child's mother), I would
say "his or her," I would NOT say "its."

Re .12

> ... I was asking for the historical reasons that the common gender has 
> the same form as the male gender.

I don't know.  I'll posit, though, that back in the bad old days, for fear
of insulting someone by calling them female, a speaker would use words which
connoted masculinity.  So, maybe it *is* sexist, after all.  (I'm sure someone
will want to flame at me for this theory.  Please don't.  I've only taken
a guess at what people's attitudes were in the past; I don't subscribe to
those attitudes.)

Dave C.

It has been extablished that the origin of use of the masculine for
the common gender is sexist; as is the derivation of the word woman.  
It has not been established that the use of this terminology today is
a conscious act of sexism. I think it's paranoid, clumsy, and
unnecessary to use "his/her"; I think it's insulting to the object to
use "it". 

The use of slashes and evasive syntactic tactics only serves to draw 
unnecessary attention to an historical inequity that would have been
accepted as proper (if archaic, sexist) English.  It makes the writer
or speaker sound self-conscious.  However, if you insist on
eliminating the common gender as we know it, you should probably
invent a new, non-sexist word for a female person. 


Susan

"syntactic tactics"  -  pretty clever, eh?

In one organization I belong to, one of the rules (moved, seconded,
debated, voted on, and passed) is that the third person singular
indefinite is feminine: she, her, hers.

When I inquire about a stranger, I assume that is a woman.  This has
embarrassed me less than assuming the stranger is a man.

When I write instructions, I use the feminine.  Why?  Because it is
a metaphorical two-by-four that says "Hey!  Remember, we're not just
talking about male-type persons here!"  I've never received any
negative comments for doing this, and I have gotten several positive
ones.  (No, I'm not a tech writer.)

    					-- Ann

I conducted a brief survey here on the use of "its" with "child".  Two
out of three agreed with me.  Including me, that's 75% of the sample :-}

I guess it's just one of those linguistic differences between "you" and
"us".  We're both right.  I didn't mean that if we *knew* the sex of a child,
we wouldn't refer to it as "he" or "she".  We may have funny ways, but we're
not *that* pedantic!

Jeff.

I remember reading a couple of years ago, that someone proposed a neologism
to provide the general purpose, non-sexist, pronoun equivalent of "he or
she or it."  With apostrophes in the appropriate places, it could be contracted
into "h'orsesh'it"  -:)

Larry

re. 15
I don't want to busrt you bubble but I would feel insulted if I received
correspondance which refered to me as "she", or  "her".  There are two reasons
I disagree with this.  First, it is not the "standard" way.  I would therefore
assume that the person writing thought that they knew that the person referenced
was female.  Since they would be wrong, I would form the opinion that the
person has a habit of thinking that they know and are sure of a fact that
in reality they know nothing about.
	Secondly, I don't believe in double standards.  Therefore using "she"
is just as bad as using "he".  In fact, it is worse since the person making
the reference is going out of their way to use the "non-standard" reference
and therefore is not doing so out of ignorance, but with malicious intent.

	KT
p.s  These are probably only my opinions; feel free to go on however you
used to, but now you'll my opinion of you if you refer to me as "she".

Referring to a child as "it" is primarily a British usage, which is why the
Yanks find it peculiar and why a straw poll taken in Reading finds nothing wrong
with it. 

Sorry, Ann, but if you sent me instructions that said "she" in them, while I
wouldn't be insulted, I would quietly raise an eyebrow and mentally mark you as
the sort of person who does that for whatever reasons. 

I, too, think that it would be nice to have a pronoun that does assume things.
The problem with inventing a word is that it is impossible to get enough people
to agree on the word to have any hope of getting it in standard usage, by normal
means. The reason for this is that the people who don't like our word aren't
going to see what gives us the right to create words, so they're create their
own word (which is oh, so much better).

This means that we either have to use non-standard means to get our word into
the language, or some other subterfuge. The problem with using non-standard
means is the unreliability of them. I can think of one good way: use is wittily
in a *very* popular movie. Just as "Star Wars" put "The Force" into the
language, we could cleverly sew our word into the blockbuster movie of the next
decade. Alas, though, if I could predict the next "Star Wars," I'd give up the
software biz. As an aside, the movie "Star Trek N" (2?) had a woman (Vulcan)
officer who was called, matter-of-factly, "Mister Soandso." 

Failing this, the next best subterfuge is to use a word that already exists. My
personal favorite is "it," following the British usage for children. The
advantage of using an extant word is that while people will moan, kvetch, and
whine that "it" means neuter sex instead of an unspecified sex, if we keep at it
diligently for ten, fifteen, twenty, thirty years, that will become the accepted
usage. Because no one has to learn anything new (the real reason a person abhors
change in the language, no matter what it says or what high horse it rides),
simply a new (and rather obvious) interpretation, we are fighting simply the
shock of a new usage instead of the shock of a totally new (or revamped old)
word. Are there any takers out there?

	Jon

Re: .18

> ... I would feel insulted if I received
> correspondance which refered to me as "she", or  "her".

Yes!  I get really ticked when I get a form letter which begins "Dear Sir".
I always check the envelope in such cases, and, yes, it is always addressed
to "Ms. Ann A. B...".  There is no excuse for that.

Addressing letters to strangers of unknown gender is an agony to me.
Should it be "Dear Mr. Fishbinder" or "Dear Ms. Fishbinder"?  Can I
cheat and overstrike the "r" with an "s"?  A friend of mine in the
scientific equipment business told me what he does:  He uses the form
of address of "Dr. Fishbinder".  Who could be offended by that?  I am
resolved to try this in the future.

You see, we are dealing with two problems, 1) the individual third person
and 2) the generic third person.  I was talking about the latter case,
and you brought forth the former.

Let's face it -- in Case 1., you have to guess.  You can gloss it over,
but that is what you're doing.  A true male sexist is not guessing; he
really believes that all people are male unless and until he knows
otherwise, but only because *it doesn't occur to him to consider the
alternative*.  It isn't malice, or stupidity; it's mental blindness
brought about by his cultural matrix.  A true female sexist (I don't
think this type is possible in our current society, but a female sexual
chauvinist is.) is also guessing; she *knows* not everyone is a woman.
(She may louse up in specific situations (NOW meeting attendance, WW
subscriptions, etc.) -- but unless she has the hide of a rhinoceros,
she will only do it ONCE.  Per situation.)

>	Secondly, I don't believe in double standards.

Um, I don't think of this as a "double standard" situation.  After all, I
do *try* to be consistant.  It is more of an "alternate standard" situation.

> Therefore using "she"
> is just as bad as using "he".  In fact, it is worse since the person making
> the reference is going out of their way to use the "non-standard" reference
> and therefore is not doing so out of ignorance, but with malicious intent.

Does the intent *have* to be malicious?  As I wrote, I use it when I am
writing instructions.  I use a style of the form:  "... If that happens,
you should ask her for..."  I do not assume the gender of the person I am
addressing (who is a Case 1.), but only of person M in a series from 1 to N
(a Case 3.).  And when I write instructions I try to make them entertaining,
*so that they will be read*.  Unorthodoxy here is a feature -- all the more
so because I know my audience is (are?) admitted fans of science fiction.
(Aha!  A special case situation!  You didn't know that.)

Y'unnerstan' what I'm gettin' at?

    							-- Ann

I was told ( by Tony Lewis "who is the only bald man I know who continues
to grow hair on the top of his head, so he must know eveything" ) that
the form of address, "Mr. Savik" (from ST2), is standard military: that's
how you address the First Officer.  I think it's charming that the
military has these little conventions that fly in the teeth of reality,
but only because I believe that it's because they sat down (sometime in
the past few decades), thought about women officers, and decided that
tradition was more important.  I just don't want it to be unthinking!

    						-- Ann

Ann, it sounds like you write FRP games..

It seems that we are trying to get around clumsy notations such as 
"She/He/It" (don't want to leave out those neuters, after all), so I 
propose that we shorten it to "S/h/it", which, with common usage, will 
no doubt get shortened even further..

Quite frankly, I think this is a pointless debate -- common usage is not 
deliberately discriminatory of gender (why do we call it "sexual" 
discrimination when the question whether or not the person participates 
in sex is rarely considered -- merely the gender of the person).

Tom

You are probably right that this is a pointless debate, but I feel I must
pick a nit. Words have gender, people do not. People have sex, words do not.

	Jon

Re .22:

It does not matter whether usage is deliberately discriminatory or not.  It used
to be that not permitting women to vote, that treating them as property was not
deliberately discriminatory.  Intention has little to do with it.  What matters
is whether the actions _are_ discriminatory or promote or sustain discriminatory
ideas.
                                      

				-- edp

Re .24

Something that is sexist in _origin_ is not necessarily sexist in _nature_.

Eric, are you a closet chauvinist?  Me thinks he doth protest too much! :-)

Susan

Re .25:

In addition to the origin of the various words, they still have an effect
_now_.  The use of the male form as a "common gender" form propogates thinking
of this sort:  "When you think of a person, think of a man.".


				-- edp

The neologism referred to in .17 for non-sexist connotational pronouns is 
"ir", and I read the original article proposing it.  I've heard nothing more 
of it since.

At risk of incurring the wrath of the feminine sexists among you, I'd like to 
quote from Simon Gruff's Curmudgeon's Dictionary regarding the use of 
"-person".


	-PERSON:  A suffix sometimes substituted for '-man' in words such as
	'chairman' and 'draftsman' as a sop to certain weak-minded feminists
	who, having little or no self-assurance, require continual reminders
	that they are not members of the race of Man.  Also used as a prefix,
	often with results disastrous to communication:  e.g., PERSONHOOD for
	MANHOOD. 

The point is, when does such silliness go too far?

Cheers,
Dick

Re .20

>Addressing letters to strangers of unknown gender is an agony to me.
>Should it be "Dear Mr. Fishbinder" or "Dear Ms. Fishbinder"?  

I use "Greetings:".

Re .23

>...Words have gender, people do not. People have sex, words do not.

This almost deserves a new note.  A friend of mine studying psychology tells
me that the word 'gender' is now being used to specify that attribute which
we used to call 'sex' because 'sex' now connotes the ACTIVITY.  The names
of the sexes ('male' and 'female') are still used, though, to refer to beings,
not 'masculine' and 'feminine,' which are the names of grammatical genders.

Dave C.

Re: .22

> ... common usage is not
> deliberately discriminatory of gender ...

Right.  But let me tell you a story...

A few generations ago, if you asked a schoolchild to draw a picture of
"some cavemen", the child would have produced a drawing showing men,
women, and children in crude garments, performing primitive actions.
With the current generation, if you asked a schoolchild to draw a
picture of "some cavemen", the child would have produced a drawing
showing a bunch of adult men in crude garments, etc..

Some people see this as creeping (or rampant) sexism.  I see it as a
sign that we are not teaching grammar and its nuances properly, and
early enough in the schooling process, and I think that changing this
would help to reverse the above symptom, and other, more invidious
results, and I see it being a temperate day in Hell before this happens,
because I see no signs that professional educators (is that an oxymoron?)
understand that earlier is better, and that little kids can really
grasp these things, and this is a run-on sentence deliberately.

So what happens in the (perhaps indefinite) meantime?  Some people
maintain that current usage is fine, and since they were well taught,
they are correct, but since they are unaware that others are not being
well taught, they are not correct.  Others suggest methods, firmly
anchored in current usage, which evade the problem case; "Ms." had a
tutorial of these a few months ago.  Then there are those, like me, who,
with a mischievious gleam in their eyes, brandish a metaphorical two-by-four
to remind people that alternate viewpoints are possible.

What's the right thing to do?  Beats me.

> Ann, it sounds like you write FRP games.

No, but thank you for the implied complement.  I work on science fiction
conventions, and that's where I'll be tomorrow through Tuesday -- at
Boskone at the Sharaton Boston.

Most of my instructions have been for registration, and for handling
the cash boxes.  My favorite line:  After a short, but dry discussion
of the correct people and procedures involved in removing money from
a cash box, I pointed out, "Anyone may add money."  This kept readers
going for two or three paragraphs, by which point the instructions had
ended.

    						-- Ann B.

RE: .26

propogate?  

Re .27:

That's easy; the "silliness" goes too far when it is insisted upon even though
equality has been achieved, including:

	equal pay for equal work,
	equal representation in a representational government, and
	equal positions in society.

Since we have none of those, the "silliness" has not gone too far.


Re .30:
                    
propogate	verb	to control access (or to gate) by means of an airplane


				-- edp

At the risk of having the broom brought firmly down on my head (:->), I
think "Ms." is yukky.

On the cavemen drawing, I would have thought that a drawing of "men" rather
than of "people" is indicative of a growing awareness of the word "man"
meaning "a male person", rather than "a generic person".  This is quite the
opposite of what Ann is saying.  The children were asked to draw "cave men",
not "cave people".

Jeff.

PS. Please, when will this file be converted?  I've also noticed that it's
    now even lost the notes server.

Why do you think "Ms" is yukky?

~/~ Because it's an invention to satisfy militant feminism ~/~.
:-) Because it's an Americanism (-:
    Because I don't know how to pronounce it.

I know the argument: why should a woman have to reveal her marital status,
whereas a Mr. doesn't?

Why should she mind?  My wife is "Mrs.", my daughter is "Miss".  All the
women I know are one or the other.

Jeff (some of my best friends are women (-:)

"Ms" is an abbreviation of "Mistress" which is not an Americanism and was an
honorific for women analogous to "Mister" until it acquired its present
connotation. When Mistress Nell Quickly married, she became Mistress Nell
Pistol; she was also Mrs <whatever his first name was> Pistol. The pair "Mrs"
and "Miss" are independent of and orthogonal to the term "Ms." 

"Ms" is pronounced like "Miss" except that a "z" or "zh" sound replaces the "s"
sound. Which one you use depends on your accent; I've heard both. Common
courtesy would dictate its use for women (especially colleagues) whose marital
status you don't know. These days, (at least in the enlightened parts of the
U.S.) very few women will be offended by being called "Ms," and those that
prefer a different honorific will politely tell you. 

re: Ms.

>why should she mind?
	Why do you care?

Many women who are married but use their maiden name professionally
prefer Ms.  This seems quite rational to me.

I use Ms. unless I am specifically requested to use Mrs. or Miss.

...diane

Please keep in mind my original comment on Ms. was very :-) and very ~/~.
Glad not to see flames coming out of my terminal!

I'm interested to see Ms. claimed as an old form.  It was common until a few
years ago to see married actresses etc., who use their maiden names
professionally, described as "Miss" in the press (when they were being
polite!).

Come to think of it, I've never had to address any woman verbally as "Ms."
as either I'm on first-name terms with them, or I know they are called "Mrs."
or "Miss".
         
Jeff.

PS: Please convert this file: EVE is a sexist editor - she discriminates
    against me :-)

Neither of my dictionaries list "Ms." as having any origin except 
to pacify feminists.  Please list your source.  Mistress = Miss =
unmarried lady; Mrs = Madam = married lady

Susan

My source is Judith Martin, a.k.a. Miss Manners.

	Jon

re .38  "Mrs." is a contraction of "Mistress"  (don't know where Miss comes
	from).  In the 16th. century, at least, "Mistress" was the form of
	address for a married woman (see Shakespeare).

Jeff.

	I had always understood that a Mistress was someone who was
	between a Mister and a mattress. :^)

	5 sexist penalty points, Mr. Fraser.

	(for explanation, see SEXCETERA)

	Jeff :-)

RE:  .39

Ok.  I'll buy that.  Miss Manners is my role model for life!

Susan

	Re: .41, .42

	Would it help to define a Mister as being between a Mistress and
	a mattress, at least some of the time?

	I don't want those sexist points! :^)

	andy..:^)

It would appear that we have a no-win situation.  No matter how one chooses
'his' words, 'he' runs the risk of offending someone who may perceive 
intended "sexism" where none actually existed.

As in .3: 

>...sexism is _not_ in the word.  It is in you, me, and everybody else.

That's a mighty broad assumption!!!!  It is certainly in the nature of
the species to be aware of the "sex" of an individual (which is 
particulary pronounced by the distinctive dress, hair-style, and use
of sex-associated cosmetics and toiletries).  But to make
assumptions about someone else's opinions and attitudes concerning 
a particular representative of either sex is over-generalization and
possibly bordering on paranoia.  Unfortunately, I also recognize my own
negative reaction to people who insist on using (in my opinion) artificial
words such as chairperson, mailperson, and person-hole-covers.  They may
or may not have good intentions, but my own reaction is as though they
have just thumbed their nose at my years of education in the use of
"correct" grammar.  /End of Flame!/

Relative to addressing correspondence as "Dear Mr./Mrs./Ms. So-and-so," or
worse yet, "Dear Sir;", when the sex of the recipient is unknown, I have
simply stopped including a greeting line.  Who needs it?  I will type the
business address, skip a couple of lines, then simply begin my message.  I
seriously doubt that anybody could be offended by that!

Re .45:

You do not have to interpret things so literally.  I simply meant that sexism
is widespread.  This is not an assumption.


				-- edp

Re: .45  I am led to believe that "personhole cover" is a joke - at least
my possibly warped sense of humour tells me that.  It's a comment on the
way some people will at all costs avoid using the word "man" in case they
offend somebody.  We have a "postman" (US read "mailman") - simply because
ours is male, and here at least they stick to regular delivery rounds.  I'm
sure other people have "postwomen", or more likely "post ladies".

But I wasn't going to write about that.  My son has reached the point in
his schooling where he has to choose the subjects he will take for his
examinations.  In a booklet issued by the school, in the section on modern
languages, it says "A modern language is not only useful to the businessman,
but equally to the hotel receptionist and long-distance lorry driver".

Jeff.

Re: .45 & .47

Agreed that personhole-cover is an exaggerated example of carrying a
ridiculous idea to extremes.  The fact that it can be interpreted as
a double entendre may be humorous to some but offensive to others.  But then,
so is the original idea of substituting "person" for "man" simply to avoid
offending those who fail to recognize that they are synonymous.

Interesting to note Jeff's example of "post women" and "post ladies".  It
is my understanding that many "women" are not necessarily "ladies" although
we generally tend to give them the benefit of the doubt until actions or
reputation demonstrate otherwise.  Likewise, not all male men are 
necessarily "gentlemen"!

Does Jeff's son's school differentiate between "modern" language and some
other which is identified as "traditional", "standard", "generally accepted"
or whatever?  And how do we resolve the British "lorry", "bonnet", "boot", and
"hooter" vs. the American "truck", "hood", "trunk", and "horn"?

Roy

This topic has probably dragged on for too long.  Perhaps we can end it with a 
reading from the gospel of Strunk and White:

	The use of *he* as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a 
	simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English
	language.  *He* has lost all suggestion of maleness in these circum-
	stances.  The word was unquestionably biased to begin with (the
	dominant male), but after hundreds of years it has become indispen-
	sable.  It has no pejorative connotations; it is never incorrect.  
	Substituting *he* or *she* in its place is the logical thing to do
	if it works.  But it often doesn't work, if only because repetition
	makes it sound boring or silly.  Consider the following unexceptional
	sentences from *The Summing Up*, by W. Somerset Maugham:


		Another cause of obscurity is that the writer is himself
		not quite sure of his meaning.  He has a vague impression
		of what he wants to say, but has not, either from lack of
		mental power or from laziness, exactly formulated it in his
		mind, and it is natural enough that he should not find a
		precise expression for a confused idea.


	Rewritten to affirm equality of the sexes, the same statement verges
	on nonsense:


		Another cause of obscurity is that the writer is herself
		or himself not quite sure of her or his meaning.  He or she
		has a vague impression of what he or she wants to say, but
		has not, either from lack of mental power or from laziness,
		exactly formulated it in her or his mind, and it is natural
		enough that he or she should not find a precise expression
		for a confused idea.

	No one need fear to use *he* if common sense supports it.  The furor
	recently raised about *he* would be more impressive if there were a 
	handy substitute for the word.  Unfortunately, there isn't - or, at 
	least, no one has come up with one yet.  If you think *she* is a 
	handy substitute for *he*, try it and see what happens.  Altern-
	atively, put all controversial nouns in the plural and avoid the
	choice of sex altogether, and you may find your prose sounding
	general and diffuse as a result


From *The Elements of Style* pp 60-61 by William Strunk Jr. and E. B. White. 
Copyright 1979 by MacMillan Publishing Co., Inc. - New York 

Re .49:

Strunk and White may be authorities on grammar and style in language, but
that does not make them authorities on the other factors involved in this
dispute, such as history or discrimination.  Others might have written:

        The use of *he* as pronoun for nouns embracing both genders is a
        simple, practical convention rooted in the beginnings of the English
        language.  However, *he* has not lost all suggestion of maleness
        in these circumstances.  The word was unquestionably biased to begin
        with (the dominant male), but after hundreds of years, it must be
        disposed of.  Proponents of the usage of *he* for both genders often
        support such usage on the basis that substituting *he or she* in
        its place often doesn't work because repetition makes it sound boring
        or silly.  However, other possibilities exist.  Consider the following
        unexceptional sentences from *The Summing Up*, by W. Somerset Maugham:
        
        	Another cause of obscurity is that the writer is himself
		not quite sure of his meaning.  He has a vague impression
		of what he wants to say, but has not, either from lack of
		mental power or from laziness, exactly formulated it in his
		mind, and it is natural enough that he should not find a
		precise expression for a confused idea.
       
        This statement may be rewritten to correspond with equality of the
        sexes: 
       
                Another cause of obscurity is that the writer is not quite sure
                of the meaning.  There is a vague impression of what is to be
                said, but it has not, either from lack of mental power or from
                laziness, been exactly formulated in the author's mind, and it
                is natural enough that a precise expression should not be found
                for a confused idea.
        
        Objections about the absence of a substitute for *he* fall short
        when skilled writers are quite capable of avoiding sexist terminology.
        
        
        				-- edp

    How much the language has changed, at least in the United States,
    can be shown by a quote from a speech by Eleanor Roosevelt.  She
    was an ardent feminist, among other things, but here's her speech:
    
    "Man must certainly take into account the hostilities [Germany vs.
    Poland] as he contemplates the possibility of a world organization.
    These setbacks cannot deter him from his goal; man is a universal
    animal, and he must behave in a universal fashion..."
    
    That's the gist of it, but she was referring to humans, not men.

Re: .48 (written before file converted and before 49-51 seen)
    
The key point of my extract from the school brochure was the use of the
word "businessman", which one would expect to avoid in today's egalitarian
climate.  Interesting, though, that it threw up the other comments, which
to me were "background"!  A "modern" language is one spoken today, as
opposed to Latin and (Ancient) Greek.  When I was a lad, a "truck" ran
exclusively on rails, and was often called a "wagon".  Today, truck is
used sometimes to mean lorry, and motor manufacturers British Leyland
(shortly to become American Leyland, amid vociferous protest) have a
"Truck and Bus division".

Jeff.

From today's VNS  (Hackney is one of the left-wing London councils which
    constantly amuse the media with their more outlandish activities
    and dicta):
    
>   Hackney Council workers have been forbidden to use the word "manhole"
>   (I don't know what they call it in the USA, but it means a hole - usually
>   in the road - with a lid, for access to sewers etc.). Nor are they allowed
>   to use "personhole"; they must use "access aperture" or "access opening."

(I hope Richard's parenthesised explanation is useful to you :-) )

    And the mailman is officially termed a "letter carrier" to
    avoid unintentional referrence to gender.

    re .40
    
    Precisely who I saw (Shakespeare, that is). "Mistress" was used to
    denote both married and unmarried women (like Mistress Quickly). My
    dictionary, albeit not the best in existance, lists it merely as "a
    title of courtesy." It also lists the plural as "Mmes" which leads me
    to suspect that it really comes from the French "Madame," another
    perfectly respectable term that has acquired a not-entirely-respectable
    connotation. There is a problem that there is no "title of courtesy"
    for women that does not contain information that others have no right
    to know. Privacy is important; much of English (and American) law
    revolves around questions of privacy. I grant that "Ms" might not be
    the best term that could be created, but it has the advantages of
    existing, filling the requirements, and having at least a little age to
    it. 
    
    Half-seriously opening up another can of worms:
    
    Technically speaking, there are no ladies in the United States as
    its government recognizes no titles.
    
    	Jon

    I would say that .50 provides an excellent demonstration of the
    necessity of the pronoun.  The revision could probably be be recast to
    get rid of the passive voice and retain the emphasis of the original,
    but you would be fighting the language in doing so.  English has a
    natural flow from subject to object, from actor through action to
    acted-upon; the original paragraph is clear because it makes use
    of this flow to express its ideas, where the revision does not.
    
    	HRB

    Re .56:
    
    You're right, let's retain the active voice and continue paying
    women 75% of what men are paid.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re. .57
    
    Or in the case of engineering, continue paying women 125% of what
    men are paid.
    
    	-Kurt*

Re: < Note 143.34 by VOGON::GOODENOUGH >


>I think "Ms." is yukky 
>I know the argument: why should a woman have to reveal her marital status,
>whereas a Mr. doesn't?

I like the term "Ms." myself. I appreciate the fact that it does not force me 
to reveal my marital status, something I think is inappropriate in a business 
context. (Do you put "Married" on your resume?). 

>Why should she mind?  My wife is "Mrs.", my daughter is "Miss".  All the
women I know are one or the other.

As a matter of fact, some of us are in-between. I am in the middle of a divorce 
and living alone. Legally I am a "Mrs" but since my husband is now only a spouse
on paper I feel like a "Miss". I imagine the men I date would not be thrilled 
if I went by "Mrs" either. So the term "Ms" has come in handy.

>~/~ Because it's an invention to satisfy militant feminism ~/~.
>:-) Because it's an Americanism (-:

>~/~ I also like it BECAUSE it is a recently invented term. It may give the 
impression that I am a 'modern woman'. For me it does not connote 'militant 
feminism' but rather an attitude that ALL people are equal regardless of 
gender, race, religion, economic status, etc. I'd call myself a 'humanist' 
except that some philosopher already laid claim to that term! 

I think liberation is when we are all "free to be you and me". The use of the
word "Ms", and this discussion on sexist language are steps in that movement 
for social change. Another step may be when other men feel free to choose, as 
my soon-to-be-ex-husband did, to be full-time parents, and when other women 
feel free to elect, as I did, to be full-time career-women who make weekly 
visits and child-support payments.

Ms. Susan LeVan

I always thought it would be a good thing to either drop the honorific 
entirely, or else just reduce it to the one thing that they all have
in common, "M."  M. Taber or M. Smith would satisfy the need for a 
formalism and would provide the most anonymity for the subject, giving
niether marital status nor sex.  In fact, it is common in business to
address things "M/M Smith" rather than "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" these days, 
although I think that has more to do with it's third and fourth 
benefits; it takes fewer keystrokes and it's harder to misspell.

					>>>==>PStJTT

    I sort of favored Mx., using the computer convention that "x"
    stands for a letter, but there was this missile idea....
    
    "M." sounds good to me.
    
    							-- Ann B.
    

    except that in French, M. carries the masculine form, and too many
    English words are of French origin.  Also, how do you pronounce
    it?  "Em Smith, here, works for Em Jones."  No.  And Mx. is even
    worse!

    Tell ya what:  Whatever we (as arbiters of fashion) declare to
    be the correct gender-free address form, let's pronounce it
    "Um".  It's realistic, and it's tempting.
    
    						-- Ann
    

    I'll consider the possibility of there being equality of the sexes
    when I start hearing a few 'Father-in-Law' jokes and when they take
    the signs off of rest room doors!
    
    Viva la difference!
    
    

    re: -1 and rest-room doors: the bathrooms in Japan are unisex. 
    Japan is hardly what I would call an egalitarian society.
    
    On the subject of Ms: the New York Times is linguistically
    conservative: they refer to "Mr. Reagan" when other papers just refer
    to "Reagan".  However, they were in a quandary over what to do if
    Geraldine Ferrarro won.  "Ms. Ferrarro" was her preferred title;
    but the Times considers "Ms" a passing fad.  They never did decide
    what to do: most of the time they referred to "Candidate Ferrarro".

re: Ms Candidate Ferarro.

And then there was Johnny Carson's comment that most people would
have liked Ferarro to be vice president; that way, we would not have
had to pay her as much!

(I don't make 'em up, I only repeat 'em)

    Well I *finally* slogged through all of the previous replies.
    Kudos to Strunk and White for summing it up!  And a tip of the hat
    to Dave Cantor for explaining  Common Gender.  It appears to be
    missing from the curriculum of too many schools in this illiterate
    country of ours!  But it is definitely part of the language!
    
    But *I*, as a male person (not a mail carrier), think that the
    pseudolinguistic feminist types have it all backwards.  Women at
    least have pronouns of their own!  What do we menfolk have?  Warmed
    over pronouns of the Common Gender, that's what!  There must be
    some paranoid feminists out there who saw males being deprived of
    their own word and _assumed_ that the intent must have been to hurt
    females!  (Didn't mothers typically spend more time with children
    during the language-learning stage, anyway?)
    
    I see nothing wrong in the following sentences:
    
    	One of the most successful businessmen I know is the mother
    	of three grown children.
    
    	When you dial 411, give the operator his due; he works hard.
    
    Now on to the more recent digression, the use of "titles".
    Linguistically, the neologism "Ms." is utterly redundant.  It is
    a perfect synonym for "Miss".  The fact that most people today
    (grammar not being taught worth a hot damn) believe that "Miss"
    carries some implication of marital status does not mean that it
    does.  "Miss" is a title meaning "woman whose name is:".  "Mr."
    is a title meaning "male person whose name is:" (unless, of course,
    it's used to refer to a First Officer or a British surgeon).
    "Mrs." means "wife of" or, more recently, "woman who has adopted
    a husband's surname".  One need not *still* be married to be a Mrs.;
    widows may use the title just as well.
    
    I take this to mean that a woman who identifies herself via her
    husband (i.e., the "traditional wife") is properly addressed as
    "Mrs.", i.e., Mrs. Nancy Reagan.  A woman who has her own identity is
    "Miss", i.e., Miss Jane Byrne, former Chicago Mayor.  (Byrne, btw,
    was her first husband's name, but she was long widowed before entering
    politics.)   A 17th century synonym for Mrs. was Goody (or Goodwife).

    "Mrs." of course goes with that preposterous form of address,
    as in "Mrs. John Chomondeley Smith".  I always wonder why the Boston
    Symphony Board of Directors has so many women on it named "Robert"
    and "George"!  I wouldn't name *my* daughter "Robert"!
    
    The New York Times screwed up too; they rather pointedly insulted
    Miss Ferraro by sometimes calling her "Mrs. Ferraro"; that latter
    term properly referred to the candidate's mother.  
    
    I don't object to using "Ms." in writing; it looks more like "Mr."
    than its synonym "Miss".  But I pronounce "Ms." "Miss", and consider
    the former to be an abbreviation of the latter.

    Summary:  Fix society.  Don't break the language.

Re .67:

>     Kudos to Strunk and White for summing it up!

Strunk and White hardly summed it up properly.  Check out the material in
155.0 and 155.3.

> "Miss" is a title meaning "woman whose name is:".

Do you have a reference for this?  Merriam-Webster's _Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary_, 1976, disagrees with you:

	miss	1 a -- used as a title prefixed to the name of an
		unmarried woman or girl  b -- used before the name of
		a place or of a line of activity or before some
		epithet to form a title for a usually young
		unmarried female who is representative of the thing
		indicated <Miss America>  2 : young lady -- used
		without a name as a conventional term of address to
		a young woman  3 : a young unmarried woman or girl

> The fact that most people today (grammar not being taught worth a hot
> damn) believe that "Miss" carries some implication of marital status does
> not mean that it does.

The conventional philosophy of meaning is that words mean what people generally
think and use them to mean. 

>     Summary:  Fix society.  Don't break the language.

Changing the language is not "breaking" it.  The language is a tool, and, like
any other tool, it should be properly constructed for the job it is to do.  If
it has been used to harm people and we wish to stop harming people, we should
change the tool to do the new job we want it to do. 


				-- edp

    Re: .67  Over here, when a married woman elects to take her husband's
    name, she takes it lock, stock and barrel, at least when formally
    addressed.  So when Mary Jones marries John Brown, she becomes
    Mrs. John Brown.  It is, in fact, a rarity here for a married woman
    to continue to use her unmarried name (fact).
    
    When Sarah Ferguson marries Prince Andrew (and aren't we all just
    about bored to death by all that?), her title will be "Her Royal
    Highness, the Princess Andrew".
    
    Aren't you just glad to know?
    
    Jeff.
    

    Re. .69
    
    Do you suppose that she will get equal pay for an equal title? ;-)

    re:.68
    It wouldn't be the first time that that dictionary was wrong!
    At least a sin of omission.  "Common usage" in that case stems
    from Mrs. Frogbreath, the first grade teacher at Riverdale Elementary
    School, who gave it as a reason why Miss Chickenlips became Mrs.
    Porkliver.
    
    "The princess Andrew" -- now we know why the English are so often
    considered to be barbarians!  What a repugnant title!
    
    BTW some of you might prefer the Chinese form, roughly romanized
    as Ta.  This is the ONLY pronoun -- it means he, she or it, all
    in one word.  (Tamen is plural.)  Such a word would be nice in English,
    but it ain't there.
    
    I read a novel a few years ago which prefaced itself by explaining
    that Chinese had that word, further stating that many instances
    of "he", "him", etc. in the book were expressing the same idea as
    "Ta" and were not to be taken as sexually discriminatory.  Having
    gotten that out of the way, the author proceeded to write in English.

Re .71:

>     It wouldn't be the first time that that dictionary was wrong!

Well, let's see.  By your own admission, most people think "Miss" is used for
unmarried women.  Webster's agrees with that.  To add to that, I have now
checked the American Heritage Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary,
and they also agree.  So what makes you think that's not the correct use for
"Miss"?


				-- edp

    Wow, what flamage! Where to begin?
    
    What is barbaric about "Princess Andrew"? Personally, I think that the
    English have carte blanche on modifying the language. Anything they do
    is definitionally English. It's the rest of us who have to justify our
    actions. Why is it more barbaric than "Mrs. John Smith"? 
    
    Manners dictates that you call people what they want to be called.
    If Eric doesn't want to be called "Mr," then don't call him "Mr."
    We all have a right to small amount of personal dignity. As Oscar
    Wilde said, "Manners before morals." I would add, "Morals before
    linguistics."
    
    	Jon

    Morals are not in conflict with linguistics.  A language is a means
    of communications.  Eric simply finds offense in the English language
    as it exists, and wishes to mung it.  I wish to preserve the language
    and use it properly, which may involve clarifying the meaning of
    some terms which have been mis-taken to be sexist.
    
>     Why is it [Princess Andrew] more barbaric than "Mrs. John Smith"?
    
    It isn't.  Both are utterly barbaric.  Perhaps I should have made
    myself clearer.  This is a case where a word (Mrs.) carries a definite
    sexist meaning.  Its use should thus be limited to cases where that
    meaning is appropriate -- a woman who considers herself to be a
    husband's inferior.  Alas, this situation still exists.  I merely
    choose not to contribute to it.

    Re .74: 

    Is it possible for a language itself to "conflict with morals"?  Is it
    possible for a language to present any values, or are all languages
    pure forms of communication with no intrinsic values? 


				-- edp

    re:.75
    That probably belongs in a PHILOSOPHY conference, if there is one.
    
    Without arguing the point, my guess is "maybe".  Some languages
    contain some values.  Perhaps all languages contain some aspects
    that have values, and some that do not.  In the latter case, usage
    is the critical element -- one can use the elements that do not
    carry undesirable values, and eschew the others except where they
    may prove appropriate.

    Re: .74
    
    So what title would you use for a married woman who considers herself
    equal to or superior to her husband, yet still wishes her associates
    to know of their expressed devotion or association with each other?
    
    The use of _any_ title is merely a courtesy based on an accepted
    code of etiquette.  For other than close friends, to not use any title
    would imply a familiarity which may not exist or may not be appreciated.

    Re: .75
    
    >Is it possible for a language itself to "conflict with morals"?  Is it
    >possible for a language to present any values, or are all languages
    >pure forms of communication with no intrinsic values? 
    
    Yes. Witness the language of George Orwell's classic, _1984_.
    The language *did* present values (the party line). It was not a
    pure form of communication; it was a tactic for behavior control.
    
    In this world, the government controlled the language as a means
    of modifying behavior. Certain actions were difficult to express
    because there were no suitable words. (Imagine trying to express
    the difference between compilation and interpretation in some
    primitive languages with extremely limited vocabularies.)
    
    In particular, as best I can remember, "individuality" and
    "freedom of foo" (foo is from {religion, expression, assembly,
    speech,...})  were two concepts that were difficult to express.
    
    Sam 

	re:.77
    
>        So what title would you use for a married woman who considers herself
>   equal to or superior to her husband, yet still wishes her associates
>  to know of their expressed devotion or association with each other?
                                              
	I'd use "Miss" or "Ms.".  Why should a woman use her husband's 
    name instead of her own?  That particular custom (which has nothing
    to do with "common gender") dates back to the period when surnames
    were being invented, a time when women and slaves were viewed as
    chattel and thus used their owner's name.  Ever notice that women
    are supposed to be devoted to their husbands just a bit more than
    the opposite :^) .
    
    Personally I'm not too enamored of surnames anyway.  My English
    surname is entirely a fiction of Ellis Island; my "truename" is
    a patronymic.  (Yes, there's an element of sexism there too -- it
    wouldn't bother me if daughters took matronymics instead.)

    	This note seems to have rather got away from the original topic
    of what should be done about words which happen to contain "man"
    and which had no sexist intent to a discussion of titles.
    
    	My wife can be correctly referred to as M. H. Monahan Esq.,
    and this even includes an honorific. This gives no clue as to her
    sex or marital status. When people know her better, they tend to
    refer to her as Mavis, which unfortunately does tend to indicate
    her sex, but this does not seem to worry her too much. There was
    also the earlier suggestion of using Dr. as a non-sexist honorific
    prefix. Why do not those concerned about such things just stick
    to something like this.
    
    	As for "manhole", if this is considered sexist then I am insulted.
    Why should it be *my* sex that is associated with sewers?
    
    		Dave

    Re .79:
    
    I don't suppose you see anything sexist in daughters taking matronymics
    and sons taking patronymics?
    
    
    Re .80:
    
    > This note seems to have rather got away from the original topic of
    > what should be done about words which happen to contain "man" . . . 
    
    The base note introduces the question of whether the word "man"
    is sexist.  It does not mention, in general, words just containing
    "man".  However, the extension of discussion to other questions
    of sexism is natural.
    
    > . . . and which had no sexist intent . . . .
    
    That is the matter being discussed; if you assume it so blatantly, it
    is not surprising that it is also your conclusion. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    There would certainly be nothing *sexist* in thr practice of
    daughters taking matronymics and sons taking patronymics.  As
    a symmetric practice, this would be no more sexist than having
    separate restrooms for men and women--that is, it treats men
    and women consistently, albeit separately, and cannot convey
    any suggestion of relative value, worth, importance, etc.
    
    Of course, one might freely find these practices undesirable
    on other grounds--for example, the infringement on personal freedom
    that inevitably comes with denying to everyone the prerogatives
    of the half of the race--but this has nothing to do with sexism.
    
    	-Neil

    Re .82:
    
    There is also nothing racist in the practice of having separate schools
    for black children and white children.  As a symmetric practice, it
    treats whites and blacks consistently, albeit separately, and cannot
    convey any suggestion of relative value, worth, importance, etc. 
    
    
    				-- edp

A proposal on the original topic

	Firstly, the archaic, irregular and sexist plural form 
"men" should be abandonned immediately.

	Then, in addition to "man" with its current gender and 
sexist implications, we can add "min" (heterosexual feminine
gender), "mon" (homosexual feminine) and "mun" (homosexual 
masculine). Each of these will, of course, have their own 
appropriate sexist implications and a regular plural.

	This immediately allows regularising the spelling and 
pronunciation of the word "women", since this becomes "wimins" or 
just "mins".

	This, as far as it goes, is obviously non-discriminatory 
(or completely discriminatory which is the same thing), but what 
should we do about the "neuter" or general case?  Well, for 
example, for a businesmun that one knew well one would obviously 
use the correct form. But for a businesmin that one did not know, 
or for businesmans in general one would choose a gender at 
random. I have noticed that convenient little tetrahedral dice 
are available for use in role-playing games, and could be used 
for this. Perhaps also the SPELL utility could be enhanced to 
ensure randomisation when dice were not available.

	After a number of years, when the original use of "men" 
was forgotten, it could be re-introduced as the neuter gender. 
Most mens would rapidly get used to this, being familiar with 4 
genders already, and its use would rapidly supercede the use of 
tetrahedral dice. As a neuter form, it could also be used for 
something in jeans with a shapeless sweater and hair or dark 
glasses all over the face ("I am not having a men like that 
marrying my san/sin/son/sun") as a term of disgust.

	Apart from satisfying all requirements for sexual 
equality, this proposal also brings more precision to the 
language. For example, you come home late, and your wefe asks 
what you were doing. You reply "Just having a beer with some 
frunds". Think how much more information this provides than the 
current language.


		Dave
    

    re: .81, Several people had agreed that "man" when used in compounds
    like "manhole" or "cavemen" would not in the past have been either
    intended or interpreted as referring strictly to the male sex.
     I am not even convinced that they are now in Britain,
    but in deference to North American trends I explicitly referred
    to the past ... "had no sexist intent".

    Any woman who wishes to dispute with me the right to go down a
    womanhole or live in a cave is welcome to it  :-)
    
    		Dave

    Re .85:
    
    > Several people had agreed ["-man" used to mean people].
    
    I found one response, not several, that said that.  I am not sure I
    believe it. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .83
    
    >  There is also nothing racist in the practice of having separate schools
    > for black children and white children.  As a symmetric practice, it
    > treats whites and blacks consistently, albeit separately, and cannot
    > convey any suggestion of relative value, worth, importance, etc. 

    This is precisely correct.  Due to other social factors, the
    *consequences* of this practice were prejudicial to blacks, but
    the practice itself is not.  (Note that the Supreme Court did
    not assert that there was anything wrong with "separate but equal"
    schools, but rather that, in context, "separate" inevitably resulted
    in "unequal".
    
    This may be picky, but I believe that the distinction between
    an act and its consequences is an important one.  
    
    In the specific example here, I find it difficult to conceive
    of any circumstances under which the passing of surnames by sex
    could be relatively advantageous or disadvantageous to men or
    women.  Thus, I would regard it as farfetched to call such a
    practice "sexist".
    
    	-Neil

    re: .87--
    
    I'm not sure what you mean, Neil.  If you are saying that consequences,
    as well as intent, should be taken into account, then I agree with
    you.  Racial or sexual segregation may be done for noble reasons
    (but I doubt it!); however, the consequences may be something
    unintended.  For [extreme] example: it may be all right to repeal
    all traffic laws on the grounds that they are an impingement to
    freedom, but the consequences I suspect would be horrendous.

    Re .87: 

    It is amusing that you push the prejudicial aspect of the matter _back_
    from the act of separation itself to the consequences.  In fact, the
    prejudicial aspect comes into play _before_ the act itself. 

    Why did the division occur in the first place?  There's certainly a
    reason schools were divided along lines of race instead of lines of eye
    color:  People were prejudiced about race. 

    So, why might there be a division between sexes in the matter of taking
    parents' names?  It makes about as much sense as starting a practice of
    having children take their names from the parent with the closest eye
    color.  The reason the split occurs along sexual lines is the same as
    the reasons splits occur along racial lines:  People are prejudiced.
    Initiating such a practice is a declaration of prejudice, and I don't
    think going along with it is a terrific idea either. 
    
    What's the advantage or disadvantage that might be gained?  It's not so
    significant in our society as I imagine it once was or is in other
    places, but passing on names meant passing on reputations.  That still
    holds to some extent in our society, at least for people such as Carrie
    Fisher, Peter Fonda, and Drew Barrymore.  In any case, the suggested
    practice implicitly says a mother is not worthy of giving her name to a
    son -- unless somebody can come up with a non-prejudiced reason why
    names are passed along lines of sex instead of lines of eye color. 
    

				-- edp

Re: .-1

I think you're reading dark intent where there was none.  Naming 
conventions differ in different times and places, but I don't think 
there was ever an overt sexual discrimination.  Taking the father's last 
name, or making a last name based on the father's first name (the two 
practices still common these days) was based more on proper
identification of the child.  The father was more likely a public figure
and the mother not.  Using the father's name or some derivation of it
thus gave the community a little history on the child. 

Times have changed, and it is possible that a modern child could be 
better know by the mother's name.  And in response to modern times 
people are casting about for better naming conventions. (Like hyphenated 
names.)  At present, I don't think there are any lasting ones, but given 
time, surely something will develop.  
					>>>==>PStJTT

    One GOOD reason for continuing the practise of passing along the
    surname of the father is that it is a workable convention and _most_
    of the people of the world understand it.  To attempt to introduce
    a new convention may be an admirable undertaking for those who must
    espouse their favorite _cause_, but it can only lead to confusion,
    irritation, prejudice, and further divisiveness.
    
    Just look at the problems created between the metric system of
    measurement and the English system.  England finally conceded to
    the metric system, and slowly the U.S. is being forced into it also.
    
    With increased technology for communication and the increasing need
    for the exchange of information and products, the need for
    standardization becomes more acute.  Should not this need supercede
    the petty grievances of a few unhappy zealots?
     

    Just for the record...
    
    I suggested using same-sex parentage for name-passing only for the
    sake of those who felt that father-name passing is sexist.  Some
    people feel that way.  I am amazed that someone (no names, of course,
    and especially no titles!) thought that it was a sexist suggestion!
    As I said, I don't particularly think surnames are such a great
    idea.
    
    Re:-.1, father-surname passing is "standard" in many countries, but
    not all.  And it's not like metrics -- once you know somebody's
    name, it usually doesn't matter who their parents are (that concept
    is rather feudal, actually, and can be though of as anti-American;
    this country was theoretically founded in opposition to the English
    class rigidity).  It does matter if the socket wrench fits, though,
    which makes metrics more important.
    
    This digression has gotten a tad bit boring.

Re .90:

> I think you're reading dark intent where there was none.

I think you're reading a reading of dark intent where there was none.  Intent
is irrelevant; I don't care why people did or do discriminate, any more than
I would care why bank robbery which I would like stopped is being committed.
The fact remains that a naming convention divided along sexual lines is a
declaration of prejudice, regardless of intent.

> Naming conventions differ in different times and places, but I don't think
> there was ever an overt sexual discrimination.  Taking the father's last 
> name, or making a last name based on the father's first name (the two 
> practices still common these days) was based more on proper
> identification of the child.  The father was more likely a public figure
> and the mother not.

You have just described overt sexual discrimination.


				-- edp

re: .93

On the contrary, I have not described sexual discrimination.  I have 
described a naming convention that names a child after its most publicly 
recognized parent.  You can argue what you like about why the parent was 
the most publicly known.

To back it up, I would offer the curious habit of giving a name that is 
hyphenated (e.g. Smith-Jones) often used when the mother was a public 
figure.  The hyphenated form doesn't entirely break with the convention 
of naming after the male parent, but shows that there is recognition that 
the name is being used as social leverage for the child.  

Naturally that won't satisfy you, but I offer it for consideration by 
those who my be influenced by your words.  

Since this topic bothers you, what are you doing about it?  Have you
renounced your family name?  Have you turned back 25% of your pay to put
you in line with what you say women make?  Your sensitive caring nature
is greatly respected amongst the people of the net, and I'm curious as
to the r�le model you present. 
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .94:
    
    You did not describe a naming convention that names a child after
    its most publicly recognized parent; you described a naming convention
    that names a child after its father, regardless of the parents'
    positions.  If the convention did name a child after its most publicly
    recognized parent, even when female, I would have no complaint.
    
    > The hyphenated form doesn't entirely break with the convention of
    > naming after the male parent,    
    
    Hmm?  It seems to me that using both parents' names for a child
    is an entire break with the convention of naming after the father.
    
    As for being a role model, I am not asking anybody to do anything I do
    not do.  I try to avoid sexist language.  I have not changed my name,
    and I do not ask anybody else to.  But I will not name children by
    convention just for the sake of the convention.  I am not asking
    anybody to give any portion of their pay to anybody else, but I am
    willing to compete fairly, even if it means my salary will not be at
    the level at which it would be when discrimination were present
    (because of increased supply) or my position will be harder to
    maintain.  (And I suspect my group at least, if not Digital, is pretty
    close to a 50:50 male-female ratio.  It's certainly a lot better than
    the ratio I observed in college.  I have little way of knowing if
    salaries are also reasonably balanced, but I think it's likely.) 
    
    
    				-- edp

      Re .95
      
      > ...(And I suspect my group at least, if not Digital, is pretty
      >close to a 50:50 male-female ratio...)
      
      Why do you mention 'male' before 'female' in the description
      of the ratio?  That appears to be a sexist construction to
      me, and the inverse would be also, of course.  I suggest a
      rewording like "... the ratio of one sex to the other is pretty
      close to 50:50."

      I'll bet you didn't have any idea that someone would construe
      your words as being sexist!
      
      Dave C.
      ~\~

    re .95 Male/Female salaries
    
    A poll taken by my school's engineering placement office showed
    that average female engineer received more job offers, and at a
    higher salary, than their male counterpart.
    
    Apparently companies were having trouble filling their quotas.
    What's the difference between discrimination and affirmative action?

    Re .97: 

    Is that relevant to the discussion already in progress or is it
    a new vein?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Seen in the back window of a car driven by a woman this morning:
    
    	"Women prefer the simpler things in life -- like men."

    As this note goes on to its second century, and nearly everyone
    has doubtless stopped reading it, I thought I'd throw in my
    contribution:
    
    The use of "man" and words suffixed with "-man" should be avoided,
    quite apart from any unintentional or subconscious sexism, but because
    it is too controversial, and therefore distracting.  Where a less
    controversial phrasing is available that does not distract the reader,
    that alternate phrasing should be used.
    
    Lew Lasher

re:.-1  Great idea...I'll back it.  What's the less controversial 
phrasing?
			>>>==>PStJTT

    re .100;
    Actually, I find the neologism distracting.  Since the English word
    uses the trigrammaton ( :^] ) "man", a substitute would distract
    me from English text.
    
    BTW, don't you find the word "person" sexist?  After all, it includes
    the (masculine, non-common gender) word "son".  Shouldn't it be
    "perchild", or "person/perdaughter"?

    Re .102:
    
    > . . . a substitute would distract me from English text.
    
    I believe .100 referred to a substitute already in the English
    language, rather than something new.
    
    > After all, it includes the (masculine, non-common gender) word "son".
    
    Such approaches have already been pointed out to be straw men.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re: .103 --
>    Such approaches have already been pointed out to be straw men.
        
        Don't you mean "straw persons"?  After, all, "straw men" is
        sexist!
        
        Tom

    Re .104:
    
    > Don't you mean "straw persons"?  After, all, "straw men" is sexist! 
    
    I have said several times that this is a straw man, yet people continue
    to bring it up.  You are harassing a position I do not represent and
    have very clearly said I do not represent.  It is obvious you have
    little interest in what I am saying as opposed to what you want to
    think I am saying. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    re:103 (102)
    
    >Don't you mean "straw persons"?  After, all, "straw men" is sexist! 
    
    	actually, he probably means "straw perchilds" or 
    	"straw per/son/daughter/s"

                                  ...diane ;-)

     re .105:
     
     > It is obvious you have little interest in what I am saying ...
     
     Indeed.
     
     --Mr Topaz 

    For better or worse, there are some basic biological, physiological,
    and psychological differences between women and men (or females
    and males) [or men and women, or males and females].
    
    The biological ones are of course the most obvious: women gestate;
    men impregnate. (There are a few other biologic differences, but
    those are the most important ones.) One reason (but maybe not the 
    main reason) that children are traditionally given their father's 
    name is that it is pretty obvious to the community who is about to 
    become a mother, while the father of the resulting product could 
    remain anonymous. When the father gives the child his name, this
    is public acknowledgement that he is, in deed and fact, a co-producer.
    
    Some of the psychogical differences are more subtle, because most 
    (probably all) exist along some kind of standard distribution
    (bell-shaped) curve. Thus, although the "average" male seems to
    have more mathematical ability (as shown on such standardized tests
    as the SATs) than the "average" female, there are many females whose
    mathematical ability far exceeds that of the "average" male. 
    Females seem (on "average," again) to exceed males in social sensitivity
    and responsibility. [An aside: this last trait is one reason why
    I am glad to see more women rising into high government positions,
    giving females more control and decision making power in international
    (and national) affairs. We certainly need more sensitivity in those
    areas.]
    
    I realize that some of these differences are culturally induced.
    But there are differences.
    
    More later. I have to leave. But first, a comment on bathrooms:
    Airliners and other places have unisexual bathrooms. Males can 
    use females bathrooms, but females have no use for urinals. Also,
    many males have poor aim; urinals are a help. But people manage
    at home without urinals. (When was the last time you saw a urinal
    in somebody's home? I'd rather have a jacuzzi, or even a bidet.)
    
    BS  

    Re: 108
    
    Please don't all write in and tell me I omitted an apostrophe.

    That's a pretty interesting idea, that children take the father's
    name so that he is identified as the co-producer.  I like it - I'd
    like to believe it, but I'm afraid I am inclined to think of it
    as an "ownership" issue.
    
    Men have names, and women and children are identified by the men
    who "own" them.  Ours is a culture where men "own" the children.
    Not all cultures are this way.  Nowhere is this idea of child
    "ownership" more obvious than in the abortion issue where men feel
    completely justified in making the rules and having all women live
    by them.  I don't want to degenerate into a general harangue on
    sexism, although I'm always tempted to... 8-).  Our society has
    progressed into allowing women to own property and the right to
    vote and all, but to allow them to own their internal organs and
    their functions is just a little too scary for men right now.
    
    And I've GOTTA comment on the Digital salary equality one noter
    referred to.  Ask a secretary.  I was one not too long ago and I
    can tell you fer sure that guys are paid more than women even here
    at Digital!  In GENERAL, (please no flames about "Yeah?  Well I
    know this one woman who..."), men get promoted quicker and more
    often and their salaries are higher.  Women are hired and/or promoted
    generally to meet an EEO requirement and that's REVERSE discrimination
    which I find just as abominable.
    
    And I'm all for eliminating the use of male pronouns to mean everyone.
    The one noter who said he'd be insulted if he were presumed female
    pretty much sums it up.  Think of some of the worst names you can
    call people, and they usually involve femaleness.  Why CAN'T we
    come up with a neuter pronoun as the Chinese have?  What's WRONG
    with women using titles that don't announce whether they are "taken"
    or "available"?  One noter's suggestion that we continue to use
    male pronouns because it's "traditional" really burned me up.  Public
    hangings were once "traditional" too.  Slavery was once "traditional"
    but it took some forward-thinking people giving society a good shake
    up to change it.  Gloria Steinem is one such person with her insistance
    on putting Ms. in front of the public as much as possible.  Passing
    fad?  Hardly.  The strong reaction to Ms. Steinem, (negative and
    positive), confirms that she indeed may have some lasting impact
    on society.  Otherwise, people would just ignore her.
    
    But they can't.  We can't.  Because regardless of the original intent,
    the use of male pronouns keeps reinforcing the idea that only men
    are people.  
    
    Think of the 10 Commandments.  I doubt I will EVER have the occasion
    to "covet my neighbor's wife".  Were those commandments written for
    all humans?  Does "wife" mean any married person?  Would you guys
    accept that?  All you "wives" that is?
    
    Sandy

    Whoo. Somebody considers this a serious issue. Good.
    I like the book "When God Was A Woman" by Merlin Stone (Harcourt-
    Brace-Jovanovitch Harvest Book, ISBN 0-15-696158-X) for a real
    good discussion of this whole issue of patrilineal descent as an
    ownership issue.  It's very real, and very accidental, in the sense
    that it's not a law-of-the-universe that things are the way they
    are. Certain assumptions about the relative worth of men and women
    are built into the language in which we think, and those assumptions
    are false. Our language is lying to us. This is not an us-against-them
    situation; it's us against our language, us (all) against our blind
    acceptance of the world-view handed down to us by old warriors some
    sixty generations dead. Surely we can be smarter now.
    
    -John

    Was there a revolution and nobody told me?  I noticed these in today's
    Telegraph, in the display ads on page 23:
    
    "Sales Person" (advertiser was a car dealer), "Maintenance Person"
    (apartment complex), "bus people" (Green Ridge Turkey Farm Restaurant),
    "Press Person" (Goulet Printing), "waitperson" and "waitpeople"
    (Elisha's Restaurant), "Deli Person" and "Waitpersons" (International
    Deli), and "Buspersons" (Flatley Company).
    
    I expected "-person" forms to catch on, but not quite this fast.  I
    wonder if this is something the Telegraph does or if those were written
    by the different advertisers.  The only gender-specific reference I see
    in the display ads is in "hostesses/hosts" and "waitresses" by Green
    Ridge -- must be a typographical error.
    
    
    				-- edp

    For the most part I think it's fine, although "waitperson" does
    awkwardly what "waiter" does well. I suspect the reasons have more to
    do with the current shortage of potential employees than with any
    desire by the Telegraph to be radical. Nashua businesses that need help
    probably can't afford to eliminate half of the already-minuscule
    workforce by using gender-specific references. 
    
    (But "bus people" does sound like a form of social problem, like
    "bag ladies"... Then again, having been a "bus person" once, maybe
    it's appropriate.)
    
    -b

    My impression would be that they are taking a calculated risk by
    trying to avoid offending as many potential applicants as possible.
    
    To generalize, I could suggest that people are divided into three
    possible categories: 1) Those who think the earlier word usages
    were sexist or implied sexism; 2) Those who object to the new words
    because they think the sexism issue is groundless [other adjectives
    could be substituted]; 3) Those who think the whole business is
    silly, but don't really get uptight about it.
    
    I would guess that by lumping 1) and 3) the odds are in favor or
    the newer usage for the purposes mentioned.  In other situations,
    the odds might favor 2) and 3).

    A pen-friend once wrote an apology for her poor penmanship.
    I offered to prove to her that this was not a case of poor
    penmanship, but rather poor penwomanship.  She declined.
    
    Incidentally, there are a number of references to "The Elements
    of Style" in this topic.  I always thought the elements of style
    were gold, silver, and platinum.
    
    Also incidentally, one of those 4-year-old notes commented on
    the uniqueness of the Chinese pronoun; just one word for masculine,
    feminine, or neuter third-person [third-WHAT?  well, sometimes].
    In Chinese, the character for female is regarded as a character,
    while the "character" for male is not.  In a character that includes
    the strokes for "male," the main part of the character is always
    the other part.  So Chinese is just as sexist.
    
    Japanese has the same characters as Chinese for male and female,
    but I think both are regarded as real characters here.
    
    Incidentally (again), someone else remarked about 4 years ago that
    Japanese rest-rooms are unisex.  Well yeah, I did actually find
    one unisex rest-room about a year ago (though I was not looking
    for one).  I once found one in the States too.  More alike than
    you thought, eh?  And I once found one in the Philippines too.

    The first time I encountered the generic use of "she" and "her", my
    reaction was positive - pleasurable, in fact - and so I started
    experimenting with it.
    
    At first it was a conscious effort; eventually I just used whichever
    pronouns came to mind first.  The few times that I've checked in the
    last 15 years, the feminine predominated.  A speaker or writer pictures
    some vague shadowy figure standing in for the Generic Human; in most
    cases, my shadowy figure seems to be a woman.
    
    Unfortunately, this is grammar and it's supposed to taste bad.  Instead
    of relaxing and enjoying this new freedom in the language, it becomes
    something else to rail against. 
    
    After getting seriously flamed for my new habits by two teachers, I
    began censoring myself when writing formally.  In the inhospitable
    realm of business prose, it's a no-win situation.  My favored solution
    is to allow use of "their" and "they" but it certainly isn't
    universally allowed now.  I hate the ugliness of "his or her"...
    
    In my own homely kick-yer-shoes-off prose, I intend to keep doing
    whatever feels good, but I've had to write so much documentation that I
    subconsciously avoid the issue by using "you", "one" and plurals more
    often.
    
    BTW, Samuel R. Delany has played with this question in several of his
    SF novels.  There are three genders in "The Einstein Intersection", all
    with social as well as sexual connotations; in "Triton", members of the
    police force are called "E-girls" and are always referred to as
    females; in "Stars in My Pocket Like Grains of Sand", pronoun gender
    changes depending on one's feelings for the person referred to.
    
    Ray

Okay, IMHO:

1) Call people what they ask to be called, for example, Ms. Miss, Mister, hey
   you.... If you refuse to do this, for whatever reason, you are telling me
   that I can address you any way I desire ('Hey sh*thead', 'stupid', any
   racial or ethnic epithet).

2) Occurences of words that reference sex within other words, such as 'person',
   in which the referenced syllable (here: -son) does not serve the same 
   function as it does on its own, should NOT be changed.

   Occurences of words that reference sex within other words, such as chairman,
   in which the referenced syllable (here: -man) does serve the same function
   as it does on its own, SHOULD be changed to (1) 'chairperson', if the sex is
   unknown, (2) 'chairman' or 'chairwoman' if the sex is known.

   There is that gray area with words like 'manhole', for the love of whatever
   God you chose to worship (if you do chose to worship) or the love of existence
   (if you don't worship a particular deity), give it a rest!  

   The entymology of 'woman' WAS sexist, but the current usage isn't.  I don't
   think of a human female on a leash to a property-owning male when I hear the
   word 'woman'.  However, many other words ARE currently sexist.  Don't use
   them; find others. 

   Yes, some language choices hurt.  Whether your choice of words was meant to   
   be hurtful or not is irrelevant.  If you stab me with a knife on purpose or
   by accident, I'm still in the same pain.

<set_naivete_on>
If everyone recognized that almost everyone can do almost everything, and if
everyone paid everyone the respect (in attitude, salary, etc.) that is due for 
the myriad roles that everyone plays, then we could all sit back and have a laugh
about the days when women were thought of as men's property (we're still in
those days, btw).
<set naivete_off>


-AG

>1) Call people what they ask to be called, for example, Ms. Miss, Mister, hey
>   you.... If you refuse to do this, for whatever reason, you are telling me
>   that I can address you any way I desire ('Hey sh*thead', 'stupid', any
>   racial or ethnic epithet).
    
    Not at all.  If a person asks to be called "Your majesty" and I call
    the person "Mr." or "Ms." (since English doesn't have the polite
    non-sex-specific "-san" suffix that Japanese has), that doesn't mean
    that I can call them ethnic epithets.
    
>   Occurences of words that reference sex within other words, such as chairman,
>   in which the referenced syllable (here: -man) does serve the same function
>   as it does on its own, SHOULD be changed to (1) 'chairperson', if the sex is
>   unknown, (2) 'chairman' or 'chairwoman' if the sex is known.
    
    I think they should not be e.g. "chairman" or "chairwoman" when the sex
    is known, unless their sex has some bearing on the position or title.
    For example, even if you know the sex of a doctor, you can say
    Dr. Zzzzz instead of Madam Dr. Zzzzz or Sir Dr. Zzzzz.
    
    -- N. Diamond

    I'm an engineer in the DECintact group, and over the past couple of
    years, we ended up in a situation that seems to parallel the he==she
    problem.  While we were all working hard on finishing up V2.0, we
    started to notice, in various presentations on "TP Strategy", that
    there would be various TP products noted on slides, etc, but DECintact
    was noticably missing.  We were always told "See where it says ACMS? 
    Well, that includes DECintact too."  This did not make us feel any
    better....
    
    I for one am tired of men telling me that it should not bother me
    to be implicitly included in the "he, him, his" construction.  I can
    remember how deadening it felt when this was first explained to me as
    a child.  Boys do not have this "revelation", that they are the also
    rans, the not-worth-mentionings.  I think the simple fact is that 
    language is an agreed-upon scheme for communicating, nothing more 
    nothing less.  And now I just hear people saying over and over that 
    keeping the language "pure" (what*ever* the hell that means) is more 
    important, again, than any effect it has on girls and women.  For me,
    and for many other women, a masculine pronoun in a textbook, or
    particularly in a car-repair manual, or something else that
    traditionally held to be of more interest to men, says to me "This
    is *really* intended for men, you've only snuck in here by chance". 
    
    
    I'm not saying that there's a good solution at present, but I think
    that phrases should be reworded if possible to try to lessen the
    impact.  I really don't understand why people are so resistant to this
    idea.  And I *REALLY* don't understand how anyone cal tell me that I
    should not be annoyed by this.  I *am*, and that's the simple truth.
    
    -ellie
    
    I am an active horseback rider, and I subscribe to several
    horse-related magazines.  It's not uncommon for these magazines to use
    feminine pronouns to include both men and women.       

    
    I must have mentioned this before, but apparently not in this note.  I
    edited a book about communes for a bunch of hippies back in 1970 and
    they suggested that I use her/she/hers instead of him/he/his and I did. 
    Nothing reveals the underlying assumptions of the him/he/his style
    better than a sentence like, "When a defendant appears before a judge,
    she must convince her that . . . "
    
    I was charmed with the difference and I've used her/she/hers ever
    since.  I've had it edited out, and I write around it as much as I use
    it, but if I say it at all, I use her/she/hers.  This has the
    occasional odd side effect of looking like I'm singling out women
    somehow.
    
    Frank McGowan says, "We used him/he/his for 400 years.  Let's use
    her/she/hers for 400 years and then sort it out."
    

    re .-1
    
    I am a horseowner, and subscribe to several horse-related magazines. 
    Some of them, having noticed that most of their readers were women,
    have changed to using her/she/hers instead of him/he/his.  I like it. 
    Makes me feel like someone is *really( talking to me, for a change.
    When you think about it, why not just use either set to be inclusive of
    the other?
    
    -ellie

    The thing about using feminine pronouns instead of masculine pronouns is
    that they alienate men instead of women.

    Personally I like using they, them, and theirs. Sure, maybe technically
    they're plural pronouns, but at least they don't offend anybody. The only
    problem with using these pronouns is that there is a stigma of ignorance
    attached to using them in the traditionally wrong cases. But if we start
    using them in documents (and including disclaimers so we don't look like
    idiots) then eventually it would become common, and eventually correct.

    While I'm at it, we could really use a plural "you." I kind of like
    "y'all."

    - Jim

I used to feel offended when Parents' magazine referred to parents as "she" 
and the pages were chock full of ads for feminine hygiene products.  Of 
course that offends men, but I don't think in the ways that -.1 intended.

Clay

    Yeah, I agree.  Masculine pronouns alienate women; feminine pronouns
    alienate men.  I too vote for using the plural.  It's only language,
    after all.  8^)   (Adapted from my favorite saying: "Of course we can
    make it do that; it's *only* software.")
    
    -ellie

re .124:

Shouldn't that be "*We* vote for using the plural"?

	-- me and my tapeworm

    Why shouldn't we annoy men for 400 years?
    

    re: .122
>    While I'm at it, we could really use a plural "you." I kind of like
>    "y'all."
    
    	Since "thou" is no longer much used it could be available as a
    plural. You would confuse those people where it is still in current use
    as the singular, though...

re .118

	You missed my point about calling people what they asked to be called.
	What I was trying to say was if you (the collective you, not
	you personally) decide that you do not have to call people what they
	ask to be called, then I do not have to call you what you wish to be
	called.  Instead I can call you by any name I feel like calling you.
	Among those names that I might feel like calling you could be a 
	racial or ethnic epithet.

	I agree with your change of one of my "rules" (though I did not 
	mean them to be etched in stone).  You suggested that we do not
	use '-man' or '-woman' and instead use '-person' even if the 
	sex is known (your example of chairperson vs. chairman or chair-
	woman is what i'm thinking of) unless the sex is somehow relevant.
	I concur. Good idea.



re .126 Why annoy men?  It isn't what I want done to me so I won't
	do it to someone else.  Oh I know every once in awhile when I
	meet up with a dyed-in-the-wool chauvinist I will make some 
	choices to "enlighten" him - really just getting in a few
	zingers - everyone likes to do that every once in awhile.  But 
	my life is far too important to take the time out to figure out
	ways to annoy men or to make that my crusade.

	(I have found one way to particularly annoy most chauvinists when
	getting in these kind of debates. Usually tempers will flare, I
	take great care in being completely logical and unemotional during
	these conversations.  Usually the chauvinist gets upset that
	he can't get _me_ upset.  When his voice rises or he starts
	making comments unrelated to the conversation I say, "Why don't
	we stop this conversation for a while and resume it when you're
	a little less emotional".  Gets'em every time!  Every chauvinist
	I have ever met (not really too many) hates that line.  That's
	the line they use on women.  Try turning their words back on
	them.  It's great because you don't have to denigrate yourself
	and they are tripped up by their own logic.)

  >>  Why shouldn't we annoy men for 400 years?

    Because it serves no purpose.
    

    Also, although two wrongs sometimes make a right, this is not one of
    those cases.  In order to punish the guilty, you'd have to travel back
    in time 400 years and start there.
    
    -- N. Diamond

    re: .128
    	I note that you consistently refer to a chauvinist as "he", "him".
    My mother is just as opposed as anyone to "silly changes in the
    language like changing chairman to chairperson".
    
    	I know Chauvin was male, but...

    Re .128, .131: How come the word took that meaning (at least in
    English) in the first place? In French, the words "chauvin" and
    "chauvinism" still have the meaning they got when the words were coined
    in the revolutionary period i. e., they refer to hyper-nationalism
    (from Nicolas Chauvin, a "sans-culotte" during the French revolution,
    who's not, as far as I know, famous for anything else; I'm not aware
    that his position about the standing of women in society was ever
    recorded).
    			Denis.

    	I wasn't commenting on the meaning of the word, merely that after
    pleas to use "she" "her" when gender was uncertain we then have
    the same author using only "he" "him" in connection with chauvinists. 
    I would certainly be inclined to describe Maggie Thatcher
    as a chauvinist.

re .132

In English, too, chauvinism means (and I quote the Concise OED) 
bellicose patriotism, or fervent support for a cause.

The construction "foo-chauvinist", for some foo, therefore
means a fervent supporter of the cause of foo.

In popular usage, "male-chauvinist" has its appendage amputated, 
to become simply "chauvinist".   Obviously, those that use the word
in this sense feel that no other chauvinism matters.

    Yup. Back in the seventies someone (Kate Millet, maybe, or Germaine
    Greer) started using the phrase `male chauvinist', referring back to
    Chauvin for the bellicose/ardent/fanatical/jingoistic connotations and
    prefixing `male' so that we knew what she was talking about. The word
    `chauvinist' was so uncommon before (which isn't to say that it didn't
    exist) that people who'd never heard of Chauvin assumed it meant
    `male chauvinist'. A lot of people would argue (with a fairly strong
    case) that that's what it _does_ mean when the context is clear.
    
    I didn't know he was one of the sans-culottes though. Translate _that_
    back and you get quite a deflating picture of a male chauvinist.
    
    d

"All mouth and no trousers", eh?

    Re .136:
>"All mouth and no trousers", eh?
    
    Dave, the reason why they were called "sans-culotte" was that
    they were actually wearing trousers (an item of clothing then found
    only in the lower working classes) instead of the (at the time)
    fashionable "culotte" and stockings that were worn by the ruling
    classes.
    			Denis.

    
    Denis,
    
    Thank you -- I've always wondered about that term.
    
    And were those culottes the same garment that goes by that name today?
    (sort of a cross between a skirt and shorts?)
    
    JP
     

    Re .138: Yes, John, this is that garment. You can see it on about any
    portrait of a noble man (except if he wears robes or an armour) from
    16th to 18th century. In the 16th century ones, the most evident part
    was the cod piece. That was the time when no man of worth would dream
    of leaving his bedroom without a cod piece fit to his rank, to cite
    R. A. Heinlein (somewhere in "The number of the beast", I think).
    Portraits of Fran�ois I of France or emperor Karl V, for example,
    generally show it very well.
    				Denis.

re: .131	

I used male pronouns to refer to chauvinists because I was talking about my
experience and in my experience the only chauvinists I have met were male.
Their sex was NOT in question.  In note .128 I described only things I have 
said (past tense).  I know to whom I spoke.  They weren't female.  Also note
that when I "advised" using chauvinists lines on chauvinists *in the future*,
I used plural pronouns.

And.... I don't plead with ANYbody.


--Angela

yes yes, I forgot an apostrophe. mea culpa.

--angela

    Re .140
    
    >in my experience the only chauvinists I have met were male.
    
    I doubt that very much.  Most likely, the only people whose
    chauvinism offended you were male.
    
    -- Norman Diamond

    Anyway, I couldn't resist teasing...

re .143	
	ah! good natured teasing I can take! (thanks for clarifying - sometimes
	tone is not easily conveyed in notes).

re .142
	-- Norman Diamond: You have your doubts; I do not.


--Angela

    Hi Angela...

    So when making generalizations, in this case about chauvanists, are you
    talking about all chauvanists you've ever met, or all the chauvanists of
    the world?

    You're saying you can use masculine pronouns when talking about chauvanists
    because you've never met a female chauvanist. That's fine with me, just
    don't complain if I write a textbook on car maintenance someday and don't
    use any feminine pronouns, since I've never met a female mechanic.

    Also, like with the horse magazine that uses feminine pronouns because most
    of its readership is female, then when talking about car or computer
    magazines, masculine pronouns should be equally acceptable, since most of
    their readers are men.

    - Jim, ardent supporter of they, them, and their as singular pronouns.

A female who would otherwise be referred to as a chauvinist is often referred 
to -- imprecisely imo -- as a "feminist" or "radical feminist."  

A male version of a "feminist" or "radical feminist" is often referred to -- 
imprecisely imo -- as a "chauvinist".

So while logically, a female "chauvinist" and a "masculinist" may (in fact 
do) exist in logic, they don't exist in language.  Instead, other imprecise 
and inaccurate terms are used.


Clay   

    A reminder from one of your moderators that this is JOYOFLEX, not
    MENNOTES or WOMANNOTES.
    
    Discussions of meanings and appropriatness of words belong here. A
    discussion about how "political correctness" may be influencing the
    language would also belong here. Discussions of what currently happens
    to be politically correct (by anyone's agenda) belong in other notes
    files.
    
    And it is "chauvinist", not "chauvanist", in fact, bearing in mind its
                    -                 -
    French origin, maybe you should say "female chauviniste" ;-)

Hi Jim,

Please re-read my note.  I wasn't making generalizations about chauvinists.  
I described different occasions that *have already happened*. I described
what I said, whom I said it to, and how they reacted.  They were ALL male.
How could I *not* have used the pronoun 'he'?  When I mentioned speaking to
chauvinists one might meet in the future, I used plural pronouns.
Where was I wrong in usage or in assuming someone's sex?

I am definitely not saying that because I have never met a female chauvinist 
one does not exist (isn't that an _a priori_ argument?) and if I was going to
talk about chauvinists in general I certainly would not assume that they are
male.  As the only female physics major in college I was on the receiving end
of similar assumptions far too many times. 


to the moderator: sorry, will take non-joyoflex comments off-line. 
Jim, stop by if you want to continue the discussion.

Angela

    How about "chauvinette"?  Is that a sufficiently pejorative epithet for
    a female "chauvinist"?

    Isn't a "Chauvinette" a small motor-car made by General Motors?
    
    If not, it should be.