| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 112.1 | | AKOV12::MILLIOS | I grok. Share water? | Mon Aug 15 1988 16:35 | 30 |
| Well, I'll be the first to try out the water temperature.
I tutor American Sign Language on occasion, and on one such occasion,
we got into the more colorful aspects of communication, and then
The Question came up:
"What's the sign for slut?"
I showed the tutee.
"And for a male?"
Perplexion. "There isn't one."
"Why not?"
"I don't know. Maybe because there isn't a clearcut English word
that conveys the negative connotations of a man who sleeps around
indiscriminately..."
I still haven't found such a word which is strictly limited to the
negative sexual aspects of the person.
"Scum" is a description, but requires further detail. "Slut" is
enough to tell the whole story.
I think that this points out a great failing in society...
Bill
|
| 112.2 | | CSSE::CICCOLINI | | Mon Aug 15 1988 18:26 | 24 |
| When "officials" report that sports in school is important "to our
young people's growth". Sports in school usually mean male sports
and traditionally the only benefittors from the experience have
been males.
When articles on fashion report "our" obsession with "beauty" without
mentioning that it's "male" obsession with "female" beauty.
When a question on constant female nudity in movies where men stay
relatively clothed was answered with "our" discomfort with naked
men without mentioning that it's really only the discomfort of the
male at the helm.
Far too often the words male and female are eliminated which gives
the prose a more universal-seeming acceptance. WE, (the society),
don't have an obsession with body parts, MEN have an obsession with
WOMEN's body parts. I think the elimination of the full picture
in a lot of newspaper and magazine articles has the general society
nodding and agreeing and missing the sexist assumptions underneath.
I had cut out one such article that I was going to type in here
in its entirety and then insert the words male and female where
appropriate. Because when I did, the article took on a very different
flavor from discussing "universal" concepts of fashion to admitting
to male obsession with the female body.
|
| 112.3 | Beginning of 'sexism and language' topic | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | Purple power! | Mon Aug 15 1988 18:47 | 483 |
| Discussion moved by moderator from "Sexism is alive and well..." topic.
-- Liz Augustine
================================================================================
CLOSUS::WOODWARD 17 lines 4-AUG-1988 09:51
-< he = he/she? nope >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexism is alive and well and Living In......
The DIGITAL Software Publications Style Guide!
"If you must use personal pronouns in a manual, use "he" to mean
"he or she" and "him" to mean "him or her." A statement of policy
in the preface or introduction is desirable. For example:
Throughout this manual, "he" is used to refer to both men and women.
This practice is for convenience and readability."
This is one of the rules that *I* never adhere too.
kmw
================================================================================
AKOV13::WILLIAMS "But words are things ..." 11 lines 4-AUG-1988 12:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While escaping the evening heat by dining at Keepers II in
Marlboro, MA the other evening, my wife and I couldn't help but
hear bits and pieces of discussions from a table of DECcies. The
women referred to each other as 'girls' but the men referred to
the women as 'women.' One 'boy' made the mistake of using the
women's chosen word and referred to the women as 'girls.' Needless
to say he was taken apart quite quickly.
I don't know who laughed the most, libby or me.
Dopuglas
================================================================================
SALEM::AMARTIN "My AHDEDAHZZ REmix, by uLtRaVeRsE" 1 line 4-AUG-1988 23:57
-< do as I scream, not as i do. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
================================================================================
DOODAH::RANDALL "Bonnie Randall Schutzman" 10 lines 5-AUG-1988 10:22
-< who pays attention to a style guide anyway :) :) :) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .93
I don't like the awkwardness of the "his or her" construction, either,
so in my manuals when I can't get around it with a plural or
a 'you' rephrasing, I say things like "the operator must turn
off her terminal" . . .
The only person who ever objected was a female editor. . .
--bonnie
================================================================================
GIGI::WARREN 9 lines 5-AUG-1988 10:36
-< BTW >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the book "Sexism and Language," the National Council of Teachers
of English (NCTE) officially recommends avoiding sexist language
in writing and suggests a number of alternatives including avoiding
personal pronouns, using "his or her", alternating between his or
her, and even using the "plural singular" (or is it "singular plural"?),
i.e., their or they as singular pronouns.
-Tracy
================================================================================
FDCV03::ROSS 9 lines 5-AUG-1988 10:43
-< Revisionism At Its Worst >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: .97
Why don't we all start using "it" and "it's" and be done with
this shit.
I wonder what the SAT scores for a student who wrote "It went to
the store to buy their parents an anniversary present" would be.
Alan
================================================================================
WITNES::DONAHUE 4 lines 5-AUG-1988 12:05
-< 1 ? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I like the word "one" as opposed to him/her.
EX. If one has a complaint regarding (insert your favorite), one
should go to the (such and such) Department.
================================================================================
FOOT::LUCKHURST "Built for Comfort!!" 4 lines 5-AUG-1988 12:09
-< Good One >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: 99
I like it.....terribly British
================================================================================
AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "Copyright � 1953" 19 lines 6-AUG-1988 03:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:.93
Well, whether you consider it sexist or not, it *is* proper
English, and as long as that is so, you really can't blame the
style guide for following the convention.
A (female) friend of mine, in her Master's paper, took great
delight when the opportunity presented itself to include a
footnote saying something like, "...this position has been
argued by better men than I..." She is now a professional
writer who doesn't feel that the use of "he", etc. as generic
terms is at all sexist.
re:.99
Personally, while I use it now and then, I generally feel that
"one" sounds too formal and awkward.
--- jerry
================================================================================
MARX::BELLEROSE 48 lines 8-AUG-1988 09:59
-< Sorry it's so long, I think it's worth it :-) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Well, whether you consider it sexist or not, it *is* proper
> English, and as long as that is so, you really can't blame the
> style guide for following the convention.
I find this discussion very interesting. I haven't reached
an opinion yet. I once had a tech writing class where the
teacher (a female--used as to not offend any contributers to
the girl vs woman vs lady notes, which it seems to me is the
same debate, in a way...) used "she" whenever using a singular
pronoun in her speech. It seemed to me quite natural, as
natural, in fact, as using my using "he" has always been. I
did stumble over it, at first, but only because I felt I
was gaining insight to how a female would feel.
One piece of insight that I have floating in my mind that
noone has pointed out but that I think is revalent:
An author I read put a disclaimer at the beginning of his
book that went something like this:
"I will use "he" as a singular pronoun thoughout this book.
This does not mean, however, that I invision my audience
to be strictly male. Indeed, I tend to imagine my reader
as female when I write, it makes me feel closer to them.
The use "he," however, is considered gramatically correct
in English. Just as a Frenchman does not consider a chair
a female and a hat male."
The point I like is that, in French, gender is used when
describing almost every object. Everything is either
masculine or feminine. [By the way, both my French and my
memory of the above quote are rusty, so if I've misplaced
the gender of the chair or hat, I hope both the author and
any Frenchman (people) will forgive me].
It seems an unfortunate side effect that many people feel
left out by the fact that, in English, the "gender" of
the written person is male, but I do not think that this
is intrinsicly sexist. (As a side note, I think society
is intrinsicly sexist, but that will have to be another
reply ;-). ) The wonderful thing about English, however,
is that it changes with the tide of the masses. If the
masses, in their infinite wisdom, decide they don't like
the use of "he," then English WILL change. I hope that
thought will be of comfort to those for whom this issue
is very important.
Kb
================================================================================
CLOSUS::WOODWARD 36 lines 8-AUG-1988 10:13
-< In my humble opinion, ;-) >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>RE: AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "Copyright � 1953"
Hi, Jerry:
For some reason, I have a problem with your response! ;-)
> Well, whether you consider it sexist or not, it *is* proper
> English, and as long as that is so, you really can't blame the
> style guide for following the convention.
Granted, using "he" is proper English. However, so is using "he/she."
So, why not use both?
> A (female) friend of mine, in her Master's paper, took great
> delight when the opportunity presented itself to include a
> footnote saying something like, "...this position has been
> argued by better men than I..." She is now a professional
> writer who doesn't feel that the use of "he", etc. as generic
> terms is at all sexist.
Well, what's good for your your friend with her Master's is not necessarily good
for everyone else!
I am a professional editor. I deal with technical manuals. By using "he" in
programmer's manuals, installation guides, and so on propagates the myth that
only *men* rule this field, which is not true! We have a good deal of female
programmers, field service reps, operators, etc. Technical manuals should
address both sexes or avoid the he/she situation totally.
I've seen the trend change in how we are supposed to treat the he/she pronouns.
The style guides for Corporate User Pubs (CUP) and ESDP prefer that we avoid
masculine and feminine pronouns. The CUP Style Guide prefers using the plural
form to avoid the problem. The ESDP Style Guide states that we should use the
imperative or address material to specific members of the audience, such as
programmers, operators, etc. I am sure the next time the Digital Style Guide
is updated, using "he" to represent "he/she" will be changed!
================================================================================
GIGI::WARREN 17 lines 8-AUG-1988 10:33
-< What is proper anyway >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language is an integral part and reflection of our society, values and
history; in that light, I believe that much of it _is_ intrinsically
sexist.
Our language is dynamic; what is proper or acceptable is defined
largely by use (much as I grimace at "functionality" everytime I
hear it). I hope that our societal values regarding women have
changed sufficiently that our language will begin reflect it more.
If you need an "official" source to update what is proper, I think
the NCTE (which I mentioned in .97) is a pretty good one. After
all, when most people cite what they believe is proper, they're
relying on what they were taught by their English teachers.
-Tracy
================================================================================
ANT::ZARLENGA "it takes 2 to make a thing go right" 9 lines 8-AUG-1988 10:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.104>Granted, using "he" is proper English. However, so is using "he/she."
.104>So, why not use both?
Because it adds unnecessary complication to the article being
read. Writing should be done in the style of speech. Use either
he or she, but not both.
-mike z
================================================================================
AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "Copyright � 1953" 18 lines 8-AUG-1988 14:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:.104
I don't believe that using "he/she" is considered proper English.
It may be accepted by any number of people, but it is not considered
proper English. Whether one chooses to ignore a point of grammar
is a separate matter altogether. I don't necessarily agree with
a number of things that are considered proper English, but I still
acknowledge that they may be proper English and thus do not blame
anyone for following them for that reason.
When I took German in high school and college, I was taught that
the word "sie" meant either "she" or "them", that "ihr" meant either
"her" or "their". It never occurred to me, nor did it seem to occur
to anyone else, that any group of "them" was all female. Nor do
I automatically assume that anyone referred to as "he" is necessarily
male.
--- jerry
================================================================================
QUARK::LIONEL "May you live in interesting times" 8 lines 8-AUG-1988 14:50
-< Fie on "he/she"! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't like and studiously avoid clumsy constructs such as
"he/she", "his or hers", etc. I have been reasonably successful
at choosing gender-neutral pronouns in my writing - the only possibly
negative effect of which is that people often think I write like
a schoolteacher, and form a mistaken impression of my personality.
(This latter effect is often cleared up when they finally meet me.)
Steve
================================================================================
GIGI::WARREN 14 lines 8-AUG-1988 16:57
-< What is your source? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re .107:
"I don't believe that using 'he/she' is considered proper English.
It may be accepted by any number of people, but it is not considered
proper English."
You don't _believe_ that it is "considered proper English" by whom??
-Tracy
================================================================================
FRAGLE::TATISTCHEFF "Lee T" 12 lines 8-AUG-1988 20:58
-< Radical Idea >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
why don't we use the all encompassing pronoun "she" (includes both
she and he) and the words "woman" and "womankind" (include both
woman and man, womankind and mankind, respectively)?
I get such a kick out of Samuel Delaney's books where the word "woman"
may refer to a person of either gender; sometimes I wonder if men
feel as included when they hear "mankind" as I do when I hear
"womankind".
If only I could read more texts like that *wistful*sigh*
Lee
================================================================================
HACKIN::MACKIN "formerly Jim Mackin, VAX PROLOG" 16 lines 8-AUG-1988 23:00
-< what is proper, anyway? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I took a course on Linguistics and Sexism many years ago and learned
a lot as to just how sexist, for historical reasons, language can
be. It was also interesting to learn how because of the women's
movement in the '70s that the English language *has* changed. Before
that, how often did you even hear someone talk about she/he or s/he?
I don't think that this is "proper", however. Language only becomes
"proper" when enough people use it and it becomes part of the lexicon.
In non-published documents I often use s/he since that's the easiest
form to use. If its formal, I've always felt you should try to
avoid both completely *or* randomly interchange "he" and "she". Not proper
English, maybe. But at least it doesn't alienate 1/2 or more of your
audience.
Jim (who is often critized for using the plural form "they", even
if it is only one person, just to avoid the gender problem)
================================================================================
AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "Copyright � 1953" 16 lines 9-AUG-1988 02:05
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
�You don't _believe_ that it is "considered proper English" by whom??�
By any grammar books or references that are used in schools.
Can you name such a book, or any work that claims a reasonable
amount of authority, that calls "he/she" proper English? If you
can, then I will take back my claim.
As I said, I do not fault anyone who chooses to ignore certain
grammatical rules that do not seem "reasonable" or "logical" (by
that person's standards of reason or logic). I do it myself with
some degree of frequency. But I do not fault someone who follows
a grammatical point (that I don't follow) simply because it is
considered proper grammar.
--- jerry
================================================================================
RANCHO::HOLT "Robert Holt, UCO-1" 6 lines 9-AUG-1988 03:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .108
You *do* sound like a schoolteacher...
Sorry, but someone had to say it -^^%
================================================================================
DOODAH::RANDALL "Bonnie Randall Schutzman" 9 lines 9-AUG-1988 08:52
-< slash the slash >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .113
I've seen more grammar texts, professional writers' publications,
style guides, and language columns willing to wink at "they"
used in a singular sense ("Somebody forgot their lunch") than
than willing to allow s/he, he/she, or anything that uses a
slash. Even and/or isn't acceptable to the purists.
--bonnie
================================================================================
AKOV11::BOYAJIAN "Copyright � 1953" 10 lines 9-AUG-1988 09:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re:.115
It seems to me that the Singular They is the most common
alternative to Generic He. I still resist it, but it's gotten
pervasive enough that I've caught myself using it on occasion
in speech. I'm almost at the point of saying to Hell with it,
and using the Singular They. All of the other alternatives seem
to awkward to me.
--- jerry
================================================================================
REGENT::BROOMHEAD "Don't panic -- yet." 6 lines 9-AUG-1988 09:22
-< *My* authority says... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You will (?) all be thrilled to learn that the JOYOFLEX noters
long ago ascertained that the singular "they" has been in the
language for hundreds of years, with all the authority that
great age confers.
Ann B.
================================================================================
THRUST::CARROLL "On the outside, looking in." 20 lines 9-AUG-1988 09:43
-< Alternate sexes >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just to throw in my cent...I read two textbooks (both psychology
books by different authors in different fields) that used the same
technique - they alternated sexes by chapter. In one chapter, all
examples/anecdotes/etc used "He", "his" and "him". In the next,
they [the authors] would use "she", "her" and "hers". (As an
interesting note, one of these books was on Engineering, so many
of the examples/anecdotes had people in particularly technical
situations...one I remember in particular was they were talking
about the cockpit of a jet airplane, and how when the pilot attempted
to reach for the controls she leaned forward...I was startled, and
then angry at myself for being startled.)
Finally, my opinion is...don't use the singular/plural "they".
the problem is that kids hear "they" used interchangably with "him"
or "her", and some never learn what's really right - so you end
up with grown people saying things like "Sally and Jim was going..."
Ug.
Diana
!
|
| 112.4 | unfounded assumptions | YODA::BARANSKI | Searching the Clouds for Rainbows | Mon Aug 15 1988 19:18 | 14 |
| "Sports in school usually mean male sports and traditionally the only
benefittors from the experience have been males."
Traditionally is right... you'd have to go back a decade or so for that to
be true...
"it's "male" obsession with "female" beauty."
"it's really only the discomfort of the male at the helm."
I think these are unfounded assumptions that the crux of the situation lies
solely on men.
JMB
|
| 112.5 | NOT unfounded! | CURIE::LANGFELDT | | Mon Aug 15 1988 21:50 | 8 |
|
re: .4 If sports in school don't usually mean male sports,
why do I see so little coverage of girls and womens
sports in the papers? It's better, but it's not
there yet!
SLL
|
| 112.6 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Tue Aug 16 1988 09:11 | 16 |
| > Far too often the words male and female are eliminated which gives
> the prose a more universal-seeming acceptance.
Oh yeah! Like the tax forms that say 'taxpayer' and 'spouse'? I got burnt on
those. I fill out the taxes, I'm the taxpayer, Joe's my spouse! Yet the IRS
sent aggravation-mail to Joe when I did that. We got an accountant the next
year, and the little forms you fill out have a key:
H - taxpayer
W - spouse
Oh my gosh, it's husband and wife! Why the f*** didn't they say so, and save us
the aggravation of dredging up the DCU check?
I can't _wait_ til gays and lesbians can marry. That'll get rid of some of this
crap!
Mez
|
| 112.7 | can't say I'm an expert | YODA::BARANSKI | Searching the Clouds for Rainbows | Tue Aug 16 1988 09:26 | 10 |
| "why do I see so little coverage of girls and womens sports in the papers"
I don't know... I don't read the sports pages. I consider the majority
of spectating of sports or reading about sports to be a waste of time. I'd
much rather be out playing myself.
What little I've seen in local/school papers seems to be about 3/5ths woman's
sports...
JMB.
|
| 112.8 | | AKOV12::MILLIOS | I grok. Share water? | Tue Aug 16 1988 11:27 | 16 |
| re: .6
My mother had the same "spouse" problem the first time that she
applied for a credit card, with herself as "homeowner", and my dad
(who thought the whole thing was hilarious) as spouse. The store
in question gave her quite a bit of grief, and she had to go up
two levels past the immediate manager to get approval.
I've also heard that when the "homeowner" (read "husband") dies,
then in some (all?) cases, credit cards are (were) rescinded, since
any MCP *knows* that Harriet couldn't possibly be responsible enough
to take care of credit cards without Harry watching over them...
Is this still true?
Bill.
|
| 112.9 | Still true sometimes .... | TALLIS::BYRNE | | Tue Aug 16 1988 13:37 | 14 |
|
re: .8
Yes, it is still true, at least in some places. A friend's
grandmother was recently widowed, and since her MC and VISA
were in the names of Mr & Mrs X, they were revoked. The bank
told her she could reapply, and that they were fairly certain
she would be given a new one, in her name.
In the meantime, she's discovering how impossible it is to do things
without a credit card: rent a car, reserve a hotel room in another
city, etc.
Kasey
|
| 112.10 | not there yet | VINO::EVANS | Never tip the whipper | Tue Aug 16 1988 15:26 | 22 |
| RE: Sports in school
Yes, things have improved. When I was in high school, there *were*
no sports for women - it was *unladylike*!
When I taught phys.ed. and coached, however, there were many sports
for the female students. WE *still* had to fight for fields and
equal time, and equal funding, but there were sports. At the time,
in the moment, the girls got some good from playing, I believe.
But: looking at the bigger picture, the "old boys' network" which
forms from the competitive sports milieu doesn't work for the
women. There is still something missing. For one thing, women coaches
do not get the access to administrative jobs that the men do.
For another, women student-athletes don't seem to carry their
athletics past school-days. There is a comraderie that men have
in athletics with work colleagues that seems to bypass women.
I have yet t be able to figure the dynamic, here.
--DE
|
| 112.11 | | AQUA::WALKER | | Tue Aug 16 1988 16:47 | 5 |
| Re: .10
See the book "Games Mother Never Taught Me" for the connection between
games, football, war etc. and business language, teamwork and how
women are treated in this strategy.
|
| 112.12 | An entirely new pronoun? | SMEGIT::WHITE | Natural Woman | Wed Aug 17 1988 13:48 | 23 |
| I am in favor of an entirely new and inclusive pronoun for the third
person singular:
sheit pronounced in two syllables: she-it
Includes all the existing pronouns!
There may be a few problems in some areas of the USA where a similar
word is already pronounced as if spelled with at least one e. Since
that other word is used as noun, verb, adjective, expletive, why
not pronoun also?
For those who find this suggestion offensive, I call upon the divine
spirit of harmony to visit you:
May She-it surround you. May She-it reward all your efforts. May
She-it follow you all the days of your life, and may you dwell in
She-it's house forever.
Pat :')
Too hot to be serious
|
| 112.13 | use "one" | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Mon Aug 22 1988 15:29 | 30 |
|
> Personally, while I use it now and then, I generally feel that
> "one" sounds too formal and awkward.
>
> --- jerry
I think that the only reason "one" sounds too formal and awkward
is that no one uses it! I don't see how it is really any different
than always using "he"/"him", the only difference is that we are used
to hearing "he"/"him" and not "one". I think that using "he/she" is
really the awkward construction. Substituting "she"/"her" is really
no answer, it imposes the same kind of sexism in language as the
use of "he"/"him". Alternating gender, I find, is as jarring
as alternating verb tense. I was reading a book on child development
and they alternated gender every paragraph. I found it uncomfortable
to read, just as uncomfortable as if they kept changing typeface.
I think it would not have been so bad if they had lowered the frequency
of change to a chapter rate.
In conclusion, there already exists a perfectly good alternative
to the use of the male pronoun, "one". I think its use should be
taught as the preferred form. By doing so, it will cease to sound
so formal.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 112.14 | | WMOIS::B_REINKE | As true as water, as true as light | Mon Aug 22 1988 21:37 | 6 |
| 112.13
nice note steve...I remember when even the word 'she' sounded
strange
it is question of 'evolution in action' perhaps?
|
| 112.15 | | SKETCH::SHUBIN | I'm not changing *my* name, either. | Tue Aug 30 1988 18:54 | 20 |
| re: .13
I remember being taught that the correct use of "one" is:
"...one...he...", ("If ONE has a problem then HE should do something
about it." but I can't find a reference anywhere except in my memory.
To settle the problem, I use "she" when I write. I get comments
frequently, for example:
"You have to change this 'she' to 'he'."
"No, I wrote that on purpose."
"Oh"
It makes people pay attention and notice the inequality. With the
changing times, there's no right usage anymore. "He" is clearly wrong;
"s/he" and "she/he" are ugly and hard to keep reading. Maybe "she-it"
will catch on.
-- hs
|
| 112.16 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Wed Aug 31 1988 18:50 | 11 |
| re .15:
> Maybe "she-it" will catch on.
Geeze, I hope not! :-)
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 112.17 | | RANCHO::HOLT | I came, I saw, I threw up... | Wed Aug 31 1988 19:21 | 4 |
|
re: she-it
as in deep....?
|
| 112.19 | One followed by one. | METOO::LEEDBERG | | Thu Sep 01 1988 14:00 | 10 |
|
The correct use of "one" is to NOT use "he" or "she" - Quote
for Professor of English - U of Lowell - 1978 when he was
remaking on an article I wrote in the newspaper that the "wonderful"
editor has seen fit to "fix" so that "one" was followed by the
use of "he".
_peggy
|
| 112.20 | ones and zeros | FOCUS2::BACOT | | Fri Sep 02 1988 19:17 | 23 |
| From Strunk and White's 'The Elements of Style' 3rd edition.
One. In the sense of "a person," not to be followed by his.
Incorrect Correct
One must watch his step. One must watch one's step. (You must
watch your step.)
________________________________________________________________________
The use of one may sound a bit formal at first, perhaps because we
are not used to hearing it.
Angela
|
| 112.21 | Ahead of his time... | GOSOX::RYAN | Somedays the bear will eat you | Tue Sep 06 1988 13:30 | 2 |
| "One never knows, do one?"
- Fats Waller (sometime in the 1920's)
|
| 112.22 | Eh? | AKOV12::MILLIOS | I grok. Share water? | Tue Sep 06 1988 15:16 | 13 |
| re: .21
> "One never knows, do one?"
Was this a play on words that I missed, or a typo which should have
read:
> "One never knows, does one?"
(I don't mean to derail the entire train here, just curious...
I'm sure others will come up with the same question...)
Bill
|
| 112.23 | | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | Purple power! | Tue Sep 06 1988 15:47 | 7 |
| > Was this a play on words that I missed, or a typo ...
Neither. it was a quote -- something that fats waller said on one
of his recordings. maybe you had to be there, but whenever i've
heard it, it's cracked me up.
liz
|
| 112.24 | Business letters... | AKOV12::MILLIOS | Mass.' 3 seasons: cold, -er, -est! | Thu Oct 20 1988 13:41 | 45 |
| Hope you all are using that NEXT/UNSEEN key, or this is gonna get
buried...
I was recently writing a business letter to someone at another facility
named "Lee".
Now, before I'd come to Digital, and been exposed to some of the
views in here, I'd have slapped "Dear Sir" on the header, and zipped
it off without a thought.
But, I've learned. I hesitated. What should I put in the salutation?
If the person is male, then it's "Dear Sir"; if female, then should
it be "Dear Ma'am", or "Dear Madam"? Personally, I'd go with the
"madam", but somebody brought up the unfortunately association with
the manager of a brothel, and god knows, that's not something I
want on a letter asking for a favor :^)
After trying about 6 different combinations (screen editors are
wonderful, are they not?), I finally went along with:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
October 18, 1988
AKO1-2/G5
Digital Equipment Corp
Acton, Massachusetts
RE: Subject went here
Attn: Lee Lastname
I am writing this letter in the hope that you may be of some
assistance....
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I know this is a bit, ahh, impersonal, but at least it's not
sexist...
Comments/ideas/suggestions?
Bill
|
| 112.25 | | ULTRA::ZURKO | UI:Where the rubber meets the road | Thu Oct 20 1988 13:45 | 8 |
| When I'm doing the person a favor (like buying something), I _always_ use 'Dear
Madam'. Stimulates those brain cells.
However, if I can't afford to piss the person off, I use 'Dear Sir or Madam'
(or 'Madam or Sir' if I can take a small risk).
I think Madam sounds kinda nice...
Mez
|
| 112.26 | | CTCADM::TURAJ | | Thu Oct 20 1988 14:19 | 5 |
| < Note 112.24 by AKOV12::MILLIOS "Mass.' 3 seasons: cold, -er, -est!" >
-< Business letters... >-
If I'm unsure, I always start with "Greetings:"
|
| 112.27 | ship it | VINO::EVANS | Never tip the whipper | Thu Oct 20 1988 14:22 | 19 |
| RE: .24
I liked it. Why shouldn't it be impersonal - you don't *know*
the person, right? So it's gotta be impersonal by definition, right?
Besides which, since you knew the first name, "sir" or "madam" wasn't
necessary anyway. You could've even said "Dear Lee" or just "Lee,".
I thought it was OK the way you did it.
RE: .25
Isn't "madam" equivalent to "unknown-person-of-the-female-persuasion"?
Whereas...."Madame"....well now.....
:-)
--DE
|
| 112.28 | a variety of ideas | DOODAH::RANDALL | Bonnie Randall Schutzman | Thu Oct 20 1988 14:27 | 15 |
| I tend to use "Dear Ms. Lastname."
If it's in Digital, I'd consider, "Dear Lee." That's pretty
informal and not appropriate in a lot of situations.
I have also been known to telephone Mr./Ms. Lastname's office
and asking the receptionist how to address the person.
If the person has a title, you can sometimes get around the
problem by using it: Dr. Lastname or Senator Lastname are
genderless. But not all titles are helpful; "Dear Systems Analyst
II" sounds like I just got out of a military unit -- or more
likely a mental institution.
--bonnie
|
| 112.29 | | LEZAH::BOBBITT | got to crack this ice and fly... | Thu Oct 20 1988 14:48 | 8 |
| Often, if I don't have to be super-formal, I'll do:
Good day:
(equiv. of "greetings")
-Jody
|
| 112.30 | or even "Hello..." | RAINBO::TARBET | | Thu Oct 20 1988 15:08 | 4 |
| I'm with Jenny and Jody: I use "Greetings..." (or, sometimes,
"Friends...")
=maggie
|
| 112.31 | Hey, you! | GIGI::WARREN | | Thu Oct 20 1988 16:50 | 6 |
| When I don't care if it's impersonal, I usually start out, "Dear Sir/Ma'am."
-T.
|
| 112.32 | Dear You: | AKOV12::MILLIOS | Mass.' 3 seasons: cold, -er, -est! | Thu Oct 20 1988 18:17 | 25 |
| Well, in this case, I had no idea if "Lee" was a man or a woman,
so I couldn't just pick one...
If I'd said "Dear Sir/Ma'am", as .31 suggested, it's hardly as
ingratiating as I was trying to be.. :^)
Hmm. Guess we have to be a bit impersonal, and safe, than stick
our necks out and actually make a guess, eh?
If I'd said "Ms. X", she could have been one of those anti-feminist,
pro-husband's-name types (large grin here), and gotten all in a
huff, which would have blown me away...
Dear One: ???
(Which would imply that somewhere, there was a Two, etc. :^)
I guess it takes a while (as has been mentioned before) for language
to catch up to the user's wishes on ways to express themselves...
Are there genderless greetings in other languages that can perhaps
be borrowed? I'd rather be thought of as a bit weird-but-careful,
than assuming-and-rude...
Bill
|
| 112.33 | First Names Are Supposed To Be O.K. | PRYDE::ERVIN | My Karma Ran Over My Dogma | Thu Oct 20 1988 20:16 | 3 |
| I thought DEC had a written policy (from Ken O.) that we are a first
name company?
|
| 112.34 | Forms of address | TUNER::FLIS | missed me | Fri Oct 21 1988 09:53 | 12 |
| The formal salutation would be: "Sir or Madam," the less formal
salutation would be: "Dear Lee," or "Dear Madam", etc.
If this person has a title it becomes more complicated. A Senator,
for instance, would be addressed as Sir (or Madam) or, less formally,
'My Dear Senator Smith,'. The address on the envelope would read
" The Honorable John Smith".
Ain't this fun?? ;-)
jim
|
| 112.35 | | BSS::VANFLEET | 6 Impossible Things Before Breakfast | Fri Oct 21 1988 15:18 | 4 |
| When unsure of the sex of the addressee I've seen,
"Dear M. Lastname"
Nanci
|
| 112.36 | | AKOV11::BOYAJIAN | That was Zen; this is Dao | Sat Oct 22 1988 04:22 | 19 |
| re:.35
I've long thought that we should adopt "M." as a genderless
formal address. The problem is that it is the standard
abbreviation for the French "monsieur".
re: "Greetings"
Many men who are 35 or older would probably have difficulties
with a letter that started off with that word. :-)
re: the question at hand
If the person had an "androgynous" name, I would probably use
"Dear Sir or Madam". I'm sure that most people with such names
are well aware of the problems in this regard that the name
causes.
--- jerry
|
| 112.37 | | BOLT::MINOW | Fortran for Precedent | Sat Oct 22 1988 09:46 | 8 |
| A friend always started business letters with
Cher collegue,
(He was writing in Swedish, but it works just as well in English
or the original French.)
M
|
| 112.38 | | SCOTCH::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Sat Oct 22 1988 18:55 | 3 |
| Re: .37
Except that "cher" is masculine (with "ch�re" being feminine).
|
| 112.39 | M. Lastname | GIGI::WARREN | | Mon Oct 24 1988 09:56 | 5 |
| Re .36:
My father addresses mail to my husband and me as: M./M. Tracy and
Paul Warren. I thought that was a nice compromise, especially considering
how basically conservative he is.
|
| 112.40 | This letter also belongs to MR. Suzanne ... :-) | NEXUS::CONLON | | Mon Oct 24 1988 10:03 | 9 |
| After owning my house for 18 months, my mortgage company still
refers to me in mail as:
Mr. and Mrs. S. E. Conlon
Either they have assumed that S.E. Conlon is a male, or else
they have assumed I am married (and have named my non-existent
husband "MR. Suzanne E. Conlon.") :-)
|
| 112.41 | Greetings monkey, | RAINBO::SARGENT | Hahbooldigah and Gobbledigee! | Mon Oct 24 1988 21:03 | 18 |
|
I won't use Dear ____ 'cause if I don't know who they are (or they me)
then they are not dear to me. I won't use Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. or
Ms. et cetera just to stay out of trouble. Sometimes I will just
put the person's name: <first> <last>, if I know the name. But if
they are as yet unnamed then I may just write:
Hi,
Hello,
Salutations,
Human,
Now on the lastone, I feel that people should not be too miffed about
being called human because chances are they are. Well, it's better
than "anthropoid"!
/dunc &'>
|
| 112.42 | Avoid genderizing your text | HSSWS1::GREG | ��s����: ���! | Thu Oct 27 1988 12:14 | 29 |
|
Lately I have spent quite a bit of my spare time in the
endeavor of writing, and avoiding the sexism inherent in the
language is indeed something of a challenge. And this challenge
goes beyond mere openings (such as "Dear xxxx", which implies
far too much intimacy for my tastes anyway), but extends down
to the way we address various sexless object in the world
(such as boats, which are usually addressed in the feminine,
and business titles, which seem to have adopted a masculine
gender).
When gender is unspecified, I usually fall back on the
genderless pronouns such as 'they' or 'it', in order not to
imply any gender-significance. This is usually required in
documentation and memos, where the audience may well consist
of mixed genders. I also try to avoid gender-specific
possessives such as "his" or "hers" (unless appropriate),
using "theirs" or "its" instead.
Why go to all this trouble? Because removing the implied
gender-bases opens the material up to wider audiences, and
the wider your audience, the more likely you are to get
published (unless you're trying to publish in focused-audience
periodicals, such as "Woman's Day" or "Penthouse".)
There are lots more examples of this type of implied sexism in
the language, but time prohibits me from entering more now.
- Greg
|
| 112.43 | Dear < > | CADSE::BAUGHMAN | Mary Baughman | Thu Oct 27 1988 12:45 | 11 |
| When I'm writing a letter to someone whose sex is in doubt, I use
the form
Dear Lee Lastname:
Now this will really date me - I've been using this form since before
Ms. came into use, since it also satisfied the problem that used to
exist of whether a woman was Miss or Mrs.
I've been told it's a form of address that's used by Quakers. Does
anyone know more about that?
|
| 112.44 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:14 | 22 |
| Over in the discussion about the Pledge of Allegiance, I found myself
writing a sentence that I couldn't figure out how to make it
genderless. (it didn't get included in the note for other reasons)
Here it is:
"I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
his allegiance to his adopted country"
Substituting "one's" for "his" just doesn't work.
I suppose I could have just made the whole thing plural:
"I do not think it unreasonable to require new citizens to declare
their allegiance to their adopted country"
I just usually prefer to talk about individuals than groups.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 112.45 | Keep agreement | TUT::SMITH | Rel. begins in piety & ends in politics | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:23 | 10 |
| RE: .42 and .44
I sometimes spend a great deal of time reworking a sentence to avoid
this problem! I __strongly__ oppose using a plural preposition
with a singular noun. There's no point in subsituting one problem
for another! Sometimes making the sentence plural, as is done so
nicely in .44, is the only way to go!
Nncy
|
| 112.46 | | VINO::EVANS | Chihuahuas and Leather | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:24 | 4 |
| "...require new citizens to declare allegiance to..."
No need for gender at all, in this case.
|
| 112.47 | RE:.46 - oops, made it plural. It works in the singular. | VINO::EVANS | Chihuahuas and Leather | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:25 | 2 |
|
|
| 112.48 | Asexual and singular | HSSWS1::GREG | ��s����: ���! | Thu Oct 27 1988 15:27 | 21 |
| re: .44
Another way of handling the same problem is to remove
the pronouns altogether. For example:
"I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
his allegiance to his adopted country."
This sentence loses no meaning when it is written as follows:
"I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
allegiance to the adopted country."
Note how the absence of the pronouns does not force one
to alter the singular object (citizen) and avoids any
sexual connotations.
As I said before, I often look for ways of removing sex
from the language... call it a hobby of mine.
- Greg
|
| 112.49 | It comes quite naturally with practice | GIGI::WARREN | | Fri Oct 28 1988 11:29 | 15 |
| I would write either:
I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
allegiance to his/her adopted country.
OR
I do not think it unreasonable to require new citizens to declare
allegiance to their adopted country.
-Tracy
|
| 112.50 | i don't not find double negatives awkward | MEWVAX::AUGUSTINE | set --- hidden | Fri Oct 28 1988 12:09 | 8 |
| don't you really mean:
I think it is reasonable for new citizens to be required to
declare allegiance to their adopted country.
<grin>
liz
|
| 112.51 | ala | ULTRA::ZURKO | Words like winter snowflakes | Tue Jan 03 1989 16:09 | 8 |
| I thought this had been mentioned, but couldn't find it. From the Wall Street
Journal [sure wish there was more info]:
GENDER-FREE PRONOUNS are devised by Goodwin, Knab & Co., a Chicago marketing
agency. To help writers wrestling with the sexist third-person singular, it
offers "ala" for he and she, "alum" for him or her, and "alis" for his or her.
|
| 112.52 | From KO himself | DLOACT::RESENDEP | nevertoolatetohaveahappychildhood | Fri Mar 17 1989 17:46 | 127 |
| I received the following today. I deleted about a million forwarding
lists, but the memo is unchanged. In case you don't want to read
the whole thing, the following sentence appears somewhere around
the middle of the memo:
>>With the efficiencies that should come from these improvements,
>>we think that selling will be much more efficient, and we should
>>get a lot more orders per man.
Guess the improvements aren't expected to improve the productivity
of the female salespeople, huh? (^;
Pat
Attachment to Number: 005895 File: memo from KO
ATTACHMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: 15-Mar-1989 09:31am CST
SWSCAM - TEXAS INSTRUMENTS From: Dave Grainger
GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE
Dept: U.S.Sales & Services
Tel No: 297-4940
Subject: 1990 BUDGET
Please disseminate within your Headquarters organization.
Regards,
DG/po
Distribution:
TO: STEVE BEHRENS @MRO
TO: DONNA BLANEY @MRO
TO: JOE FABRIZIO @BUO
TO: BILL FERRY @MRO
TO: LOU GAVIGLIA @WJO
TO: DAVE GRAINGER @MRO
TO: TOM GRILK @UFO
TO: MIKE KALAGHER @CHM
TO: RICH NORTZ @WFR
TO: CHICK SHUE @MRO
TO: BOB HUGHES @MKO
TO: HARVEY WEISS @MRO
TO: JERRY PAXTON @OGO
TO: JACK MACKEEN @UPO
TO: ELIZABETH STRONG @OGO
Attachment to Number: 005895 File: memo from KO
ATTACHMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date: 23-Feb-1989 08:39am CST
SWSCAM - TEXAS INSTRUMENTS From: Ken Olsen
OLSEN.KEN AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE
Dept: Administration
Tel No: 223-2301
Subject: 1990 BUDGET
TO: ALL FIELD PERSONNEL
FROM: KEN OLSEN, JACK SHIELDS, DAVE GRAINGER
We've committed for the 1990 budget to make field operations much
more efficient and much more satisfying. We promise to eliminate
the time-consuming steps in preparing quotes and processing
orders. We've committed to have districts make their own budgets
and allocate resources to make things more efficient. We're
confident that we will have a system that eliminates the
time-consuming negotiations between services in the field and
between districts and the major account managers.
With the efficiencies that should come from these improvements,
we think that selling will be much more efficient, and we should
get a lot more orders per man. However, we want to remind
everyone that we are not making major organizational changes but
simply changing the way we are doing our budgeting. People
shouldn't expect instant changes, particularly when the budget
period doesn't start until this July.
We'd also like to remind people that, even though we expect great
new efficiencies in the future, we must today get a significant
number of orders before July. We expect everyone to continue to
work as hard as ever even though the new efficiencies won't be
seen for awhile.
Before and during the summer and during the fall, we'll have a
large number of very exciting product announcements. We'll have
the very large, fast VAX computer that so many customers have
been enthusiastically waiting for, and we'll have a VAX that's
between the 8700 and the 6300 in price and speed. We'll also
continue improvements in the smaller VAX and UNIX machines. We
are promising a very exciting year, and we will all have to work
to make sure these efficiencies really work out the way we
promised.
With best wishes.
Sincerely yours,
KHO:lt
KO:2703
Distribution:
TO: BILL MCHALE @UFO
TO: HARRY EISENGREIN @RHQ
TO: RON EISENHAUER @ACI
TO: DICK DOERR @IVO
TO: LARRY GOODWIN @WRO
TO: RON HEVEY @NYO
TO: AL HALL @MEL
TO: FRANK BOWDEN @SCA
TO: CHUCK PICKLE @OHF
CC: Jack Shields ( SHIELDS.JACK AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE )
CC: Dave Grainger ( GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE )
|
| 112.54 | not old-school anymore | SA1794::CHARBONND | I'm the NRA | Mon Mar 20 1989 06:56 | 14 |
| I used to think that arguing over such usage was petty.
On the advice of someone in Notes, I started reading "Wishcraft"
by Barbara Sher (sp?) She works extensively with groups of
women. Her book generally adresses the reader as female. "No
problem, I can adjust", I thought to myself. Then it hit me,
what if I had to make those adjustments *all the time* ?
I don't think we can change the whole language, but we do need
some gender-free pronouns to work with. And maybe a new concept
for 'Mankind'.
---
|
| 112.55 | ;-) | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Mar 20 1989 09:22 | 4 |
| Well, Dana, I can deal with a new *word* for "Mankind" -- "Humanity".
But a new *concept*, wow! Maybe "Humane-ity"?
Ann B.
|
| 112.57 | | PREP98::MACKIN | Lint Happens | Mon Mar 20 1989 10:49 | 4 |
| Virtually every engineering-meeting I've been to talks about "manhours" and
"man months." You should see the expressions on people's faces (men and women)
when I talk about my component taking 40 person hours to complete. That's one
term that hasn't made it into the business lexicon just yet.
|
| 112.58 | | HAMPS::PHILPOTT_I | Col. Philpott is back in action... | Mon Mar 20 1989 11:19 | 5 |
| � ... taking 40 person hours to complete. That's one term that
� hasn't made it into the business lexicon just yet.
Even to my ears it sounds grotesque (it has the same affect on me
as "pro-active"). Perhaps "Labo[u]r Hours" is a less abrasive term.
|
| 112.59 | | ULTRA::WRAY | John Wray, Secure Systems Development | Mon Mar 20 1989 12:07 | 3 |
| Or "Engineer Hours", a term that's in common usage in our group.
John
|
| 112.60 | Or... | TUT::SMITH | Passionate commitment to reasoned faith | Mon Mar 20 1989 13:03 | 6 |
| Or just "worker hours" or "work hours," which is what I try to remember
to say...
Perhaps we'd make change less slowly if we all used the same term???
Then others would think it was in general usage and start using
it to be "in"?
|
| 112.61 | | RUBY::BOYAJIAN | Starfleet Security | Tue Mar 21 1989 04:27 | 3 |
| Like, how 'bout, like, "dude-hours", ya know. Like, way rad.
--- jerry
|
| 112.62 | Maybe staff-days? | KOBAL::WIECHMANN | Short to, long through. | Fri Mar 24 1989 18:00 | 8 |
|
From the "Guide to VAX Software Project Manager" Glossary:
Effort: Work performed by resources toward completion of project tasks,
expressed . . . in staff-days, staff-weeks, staff-months, or
staff-years.
-Jim
|
| 112.63 | saved from 'being written land by moderator' | WMOIS::B_REINKE | If you are a dreamer, come in.. | Tue Mar 28 1989 22:25 | 13 |
| <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.63 Sexism in Language 63 of 63
TOMCAT::JONES "Leslie" 0 lines 28-MAR-1989 19:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
< Effort: Work performed by resources toward completion of project tasks,
< expressed . . . in staff-days, staff-weeks, staff-months, or
< staff-years.
We use the term effort days, effort months, etc. to describe the effort
time required for a project __Leslie
|
| 112.64 | The Difference Between Girls and Women | CSC32::DUBOIS | Carol duBois, formerly Johns | Tue Apr 11 1989 15:05 | 17 |
|
I have been requested to write in this file that the use of the word
"girl" in conversation to represent a woman, particularly when referring
to a woman in a sexual context, may be especially painful to those women
who have suffered sexual abuse when children. Perhaps we need to make
even more of an effort to emphasize in words the difference between a
woman who is able to make choices of a sexual nature, and a girl who is
not capable of making those choices. Continuing to use the word "girl"
for "woman" is not only painful for some of those who have been abused,
but may actually lend subtle approval (however unintentional by the user)
to abuse perpretrated on girls by people who have a hard enough time drawing
distinctions.
Thank you for making an effort to consider the feelings of these women and
girls the next time you speak.
Carol
|
| 112.65 | Is it worth it to try to change the world? | METOO::LEEDBERG | Render Unto Peaches | Thu Apr 27 1989 17:56 | 25 |
|
I was at a talk at IDECUS today where a speaker refered to the
"sec-operator" as a girl a number of times. Yes it bothered me
BUT the speaker was from Europe and was having a difficult time
with American English (the speakers native language is French
with British English pronouncation). If I ever go to Europe to
meet with this person I will try to explain why some American
women do not like the term "girl" when it is used to refer to
a woman.
In the mean time "it is not in MY job descirption" to educate
the world about the power of language. But if you are less than
an arms length away you may get my point about the power of
words.
BTW: On one of my drives to or from work I was musing over the
terms woman and man and thought about fixing the problem by
using fe-per and ma-per for woman and man and just plain per for
both? What do you think? Would it work? Nah that would be
mucking with the language and how we interface with it and no
one would ever want to munge with English.
_peggy
|
| 112.66 | one is a person, two or more are people | ODIHAM::PHILPOTT_I | Col. Philpott is back in action... | Wed May 03 1989 11:45 | 16 |
|
Peggy,
Your final remark is correct.
The latin word 'per' has been adopted into English already and
is in widespread use (in phrases such as "one neologism per note
is tolerated" :-)). Neither 'fa-per' nor 'ma-per' seem to
have obvious pronunciations (though 'fa-per' looks like it
might be a near homophone of 'father').
If you want a gender neutral word for both cases, then you
can use 'person' (which is singular - the plural is *NOT*
'persons' but rather is 'people').
/. Ian .\
|
| 112.67 | now lets define peoples | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Thu May 04 1989 15:37 | 4 |
| Actually, both persons and people are plurals of person. The first
definition of people (Webster's Collegiate) says: 1. pl. HUMAN BEINGS,
PERSONS--often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople>.
|
| 112.68 | | HAMPS::PHILPOTT_I | I'm the IIP | Fri May 05 1989 05:06 | 13 |
|
"peoples" is also acceptable in its limited sense. It would be used
in referring, say, to the "aboriginal peoples of America", and would
roughly equate to "tribes" or "races" or "clans"
Similarly I was taught that "persons" is only acceptable when used
in certain limited constructs. Hence "persons who earn their stipends
by working in a sales related capacity in a retail organization
are known as sales-people" is acceptable (though stilted) style,
whereas, "salespersons are people who sell things" is poor style,
though possibly grammatically accurate.
/. Ian .\
|
| 112.69 | Work with me, persons! | EDUHCI::WARREN | | Fri May 05 1989 16:18 | 10 |
| Yes, that's pretty much my understanding of the preferred uses of
people and persons.
It occurs to me that I shouldn't have gone down this rathole. I
hate to provide an excuse for people (or persons) to avoid non-sexist
language. "Gee, I didn't know whether to use people or persons,
so I just said men..."
-Tracy
|
| 112.70 | | HAMPS::PHILPOTT_I | Col. Philpott is back in action... | Mon May 08 1989 09:17 | 9 |
|
Gee Tracy, I wish I hadn't gone down the rat-hole too.
Unfortuantely for me it is a (very) hot button when people introduce
a neologism to avoid using a perfectly valid word...
Anyway, for now perhaps we should declare truce, and resume noting...
/. Ian .\
|
| 112.71 | | ANT::JLUDGATE | Network partner excited | Wed Aug 09 1989 05:51 | 11 |
| .65 mentioned alternatives to "man" and "woman", here are a couple
from some science fiction books i have read recently:
in david brin's Startide Rising and also The Uplift War, humans
are collectively known as the race of Man. individuals are either
mel or fem, depending on their gender.
(sorry if this already was mentioned....i saw something, and didn't
want to wade through XX replies to see if it is already here, i
just wanna go to bed now. in fact, think i will)
|
| 112.72 | Don't even get me started... | TLE::D_CARROLL | I want it all & I want it now | Wed Aug 09 1989 11:01 | 21 |
| in david brin's Startide Rising and also The Uplift War, humans
are collectively known as the race of Man. individuals are either
mel or fem, depending on their gender.
And, more then that, an individual human is referred to as a "man" even
if she is female, unless they are deliberately trying to express gender.
As in "See that man over there, the female one?" Honoraries are also
gender neutral...higher-ups are called "ser" (except occasional use of
"Ma'am" which is considered archaic and strange.) I was personally
amazed and pleased at how well David Brin handled the lack of sexism.
(I noticed he was more sexist in dealing with the Chimps...I wonder if that
was deliberate, given their client/inferior status...but that is getting
off track for the note...sorry.)
Makes sense that sexism would become obsolete when we realize we are one
of literally thousands of intelligent species, an to them the difference
between mel and fem is almost negligible. Some don't even have genders, or
have variable more more than two genders!
D!
|
| 112.74 | Mss.? | ULTRA::ZURKO | We're more paranoid than you are. | Tue Jan 09 1990 12:24 | 4 |
| What's the plural of Ms.? I understand that the plural of Mr. is Messrs.
Wonder what the plural of Mrs. and Miss. are too...
Mez
|
| 112.75 | | MOSAIC::TARBET | | Tue Jan 09 1990 13:57 | 4 |
| Since Ms isn't an abbreviation of anything, logically the plural would
be Mss.
Mmes. and Mlles. I think, but a french speaker would know for sure.
|
| 112.76 | Original letter to Computer Shopper magazine | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Sun Feb 25 1990 01:31 | 93 |
| <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
-< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 13.538 Sexism Is Alive And Well And Living In.... 538 of 623
SYSENG::BITTLE "to be psychically milked" 85 lines 3-JAN-1990 00:52
-< a sample nastygram about sexist language >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The text below is the body of the letter I sent to the managing
editor of Computer Shopper magazine concerning the use of
sexist language on their January 1990 cover issue.
Permission is granted to anyone who wishes to use part or all
of the text below in a similar letter. Any feedback on choice
of wording, etc., would appreciated (I'm not comfortable with
the ending).
nancy b.
Dear Mr. Thomason:
Two feature titles on the cover of your January 1990 issue con-
tains language that exhibits a semantic bias exclusionary of
women. The phrasing used in these titles assign masculine gen-
ders and denotations to terms that should apply equally to women
and men. Seeing this in a computer magazine surprised me, as
technical publications have typically been on the forefront of
eliminating the usage of sexist language.
The titles I'm referring to are:
1) THE ONE MAN OFFICE
Computing the perils and payoffs of going it alone
2) BOYS! BUILD YOUR OWN APPLE LASERWRITER!
Since the mid-1980's, linguists, editors, textbook publishers,
and professional and academic groups have recognized the term
"man" as being a false generic - a term used of a class or group
_____________
that is not applicable to all the groups members. While it is
true that dictionaries still define the word "man" or "Man" in
both it's narrow and broad definitions, the word that was once a
synonym for "human being" is being transformed into a word that
now means "adult male human being". The continued use of "man"
as a generic delivers a subliminal message that reinforces the
conception of maleness as the default state of existence and fe-
maleness as the exception, or the "other".
The specific context in which you used "man" as a generic also
displays ignorance of the fact that a large percentage of people
starting small home businesses happen to be women.
A gender-neutral term such as "person" would be inclusive of your
entire audience.
The second cover title is worse yet because the term "boys" car-
ries absolutely no connotation of including both male and female
readers. The general context of your usage of "boys" perpetu-
ates the cultural inclination that boys are the ones who are en-
couraged to be able to understand how things work, to be handy,
to be able to put together their own Apple Laserwriter. I imag-
ine some men become weary of being expected to know how something
works, to be able to fix the car or plumbing, just because they
are male. Destroying gender stereotypes can be just as liberating
to men as it is to women! Referring to any gender at all in the
second title above is absolutely unnecessary.
As editor of a technical publication, the pursuit of clarity is
undoubtably one of your primary concerns. To continue using the
former connotation of a phrase or word whose meaning has changed
is both imprecise and unclear. The importance of language usage
was mentioned in the latest Association for Humanistic Psychology
Newsletter. It states that "language not only reflects society,
but helps to shape it," and it also, "helps us think, but limits
our thinking".
Using gender-neutral terms in your publication may seem like a
very small step in a very large issue. However, these small
steps being made in all major channels of communication will
gradually result in modern English language recognizing our
daughters as fully-participating members of society.
Sincerely,
Nancy Bittle
|
| 112.77 | Response from Computer Shopper's Editor-in-Chief | SYSENG::BITTLE | the promise of spring | Sun Feb 25 1990 01:34 | 52 |
| Appended below is the response I received from the Computer
Shopper Editor-in-Chief (Bob Lundstrom) to the letter in the
previous reply. My letter and the response appended below is
located in the "Feedback Forum" on page 220 of the March, 1990,
Computer Shopper magazine.
The last sentence in his third paragraph sums it up - basically,
he claims that the terms "One-Man Office" and "Boys! Put Together
Your Own Apple Laserwriter" have nothing to do with sexual
prejudice. I found the last sentence of the reply most annoying -
I didn't ask for an apology, so why does he tell me he's not
giving me one?? For that matter, I care much less about whether
I have his sympathies than I do about the titles he approves for
his magazine.
{yes, can you tell I am going to write him another letter :-)??
Any and all suggestions will be appreciated}
nancy b.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A quick glance at the masthead should persuade Ms. Bittle that we
aren't a group of uncaring, narrow-minded, sexist, macho nerds
(or is that a contradiction in terms?) at Computer Shopper. In
fact, our editorial, sales, production and marketing staffs
represent a healthy mix of individuals, no matter what your
method of pigeonholing.
While we have the January 1990 issue open, let's take a look at
the actual stories, rather than stopping short at the cover. The
cover storied on the "One-Man Office" were, in fact written by a
talented New York (female) writer, Karen Paxton. On pate 152, we
focus on Patsy Harris who has created her own successful "One-
Woman" data processing business.
The "Boys!" of the laser printer story was merely a light-hearted
variation on a phrase that most of us encountered (usually on the
back pages of children's magazines) during our youth. The lead
of the story, itself, and the accompanying artwork additionally
clarified the tongue-in-cheek intention. These "Boys!" had no
more to do with sexual prejudice than the "false generic" of the
lead story.
Ms. Bittle may be gratified to know that some members of our
staff, both male and female, agreed with her perception.
However, generic is generic, humor is humor, and there was no
malice aforethought in the creation of the January 1990 cover.
So, you have my sympathies for your concern, but not an apology.
--BL
|
| 112.78 | Why not just enjoy your success? | RDVAX::COLLIER | Bruce Collier | Sun Feb 25 1990 15:25 | 21 |
| In re: .77
nancy -
It seems to me you've won already, and maybe you should lay off. Yes,
his response is rather silly and defensive, but that's the way editors are
about critical letters from readers. Look again at the rest of that
last paragraph. He says that your letter was circulated and discussed
among the staff; isn't that just what you would have wanted? I gather
that your letter was also printed uncut, pretty good in itself. When
he says that "there was no malice aforethought," it sounds about as
close as you could get from this guy to an agreement that you were
right.
So, it seems to me that you have succeeded in consciousness raising
among both readers and editorial staff, and I bet it will have some
effect. Further correspondence might tend to deflect attention away
from their unfortunate usage towards your individual irritation. Save
your next letter until they (or others) do it again.
- Bruce
|
| 112.79 | It takes a lot of letter to have a profound effect. | QUICKR::FISHER | Dictionary is not. | Mon Feb 26 1990 06:22 | 4 |
| Maybe you raised his social conciousness. If you didn't he was
hopeless anyway but perhaps you had an effect on some of his staff.
ed
|
| 112.80 | | ACESMK::CHELSEA | Mostly harmless. | Thu Mar 08 1990 15:30 | 2 |
| What bothers me is his apparent attitude of "Angry man-hating scenery
chewing feminist! Prepare to repel the boarder!"
|
| 112.81 | | STC::AAGESEN | what would you give for your kid fears? | Mon Apr 02 1990 08:06 | 196 |
| <lifted off the net w/o permission. this edited version of "the whole" is
the way i received it. imo, this demonstrates how powerfully oppresive
language can be as it evolves in a culture that values some less than
others. ~robin>
A Person Paper on Purity in Language
by William Satire (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter)
September, 1983
It's high time someone blew the whistle on all the silly prattle about
revamping our language to suit the purposes of certain political
fanatics. You know what I'm talking about--those who accuse speakers
of English of what they call "racism"...
Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the
age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as
chairwhite, mailwhite,...whitepower,whiteslaugter,oneupwhiteship,straw white,
whitehandle, and so on. The negrists claim that using the word
"white", either on its own or as a component, to talk about _all_
members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and
reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute
"person" everywhere where "white" now occurs. Sensitive speakers of
our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great
beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal." Our
forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood
the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say "All
persons are created equal", or "All whites and blacks are created equal"...
There is nothing denigrating to black people in being subsumed under
the rubric "white"--no more than under the rubric "person". After
all, white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including black.
...Niss Moses says that words like "chairwhite" suggest to
people--most especially young whiteys and blackeys--that all
chairwhites belong to the white race. How absurd! It is quite
obvious, for instance, that the chairwhite of the League of Black
Voters is going to be a black, not a white...
But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!"...Ble
has written a famous article, in which ble vehemently objects to the
immortal and poetic words of the first white on the moon, Captain
Nellie Strongarm. If you will recall, whis words were: "One small
step for a white, a giant step for whitekind." This noble sentiment
is anything but racist; it is simply a celebration of a glorious
moment in the history of White.
Another of Niss Moses' shrill objections is to the age-old
differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns
"whe" and "ble". Ble promotes an absurd notion: that what we really
need in English is a single pronoun covering _both_ races. Numerous
suggestions have been made, such as "pe", "tey", and others. These
are all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the
average white in the street will testify, even if whe has no
linguistic training whatsoever. Then there are advocates of usages
such as "whe or ble", "whis or bler", and so forth. this makes for
monstrosities such as the sentence "When the next President takes
office, whe or ble will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care,
for whe or ble would not want to offend any minorities." Contrast
this with the spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and
there is no question which way we ought to speak. There are, of
course, some yapping black libbers who advocate writing "bl/whe"
everywhere, which, aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable
pronunciation. Shall we say "blooey" all the time when we simply mean
"whe"? Who wants to sound like a white with a chronic sneeze?
...
What conceivable harm is there in such beloved phrases as "No white is
an island", "Dog is white's best friend", or "White's inhumanity to
white"? Who would revise such classic book titles as Bronob
Jacowski's _The Ascent of White_ or Eric Steeple Bell's _Whites of
Mathematics_? Did the poet who wrote "The best-laid plans of mice and
whites gang aft agley" believe that blacks' plans gang _ne'er_ agley?
Surely not! Such phrases are simply metaphors; everyone can see
beyond that. Whe who interprets them as reinforcing racism must have
a perverse desire to feel oppressed.
"Personhandling" the language is a habit that not only Niss Moses but
quite a few others have taken up recently. For instance, Nrs. Delilah
Buford has urged that we drop the useful distinction between "Niss"
and "Nrs." Bler argument is that there is no need for the public to
know whether a black is employed or not. _Need_ is, of course, not
the point. Ble conveniently sidesteps the fact that there is a
_tradition_ in our society of calling unemployed blacks "Niss" and
employed blacks "Nrs." Most blacks--in fact, the vast majority--prefer
it that way. They _want_ the world to know what their employment
status is, and for good reason. Unemployed blacks want prospective
employers to know they are available, without having to ask
embarrassing questions. Likewise, employed blacks are proud of
having found a job, and wish to let the world know they are employed.
this distinction provides a sense of security to all involved, in that
everyone knows where ble fits into the scheme of things.
But Nrs. Buford refuses to recognize this simple truth. Instead, ble
shiftily turns the argument into one about whites, asking why it is
that whites are universally addressed as "Master", without any
differentiation between employed and unemployed ones. The answer, of
course, is that in Anerica and other Northern societies, we set little
store by the employment status of whites. Nrs. Buford can do little
to change that reality, for it seems to be tied to innate biological
differences between whites and blacks. Many white-years of research,
in fact, have gone into trying to understand why it is that employment
status matters so much to blacks, yet relatively little to whites.
...
What puzzles me the most is when people cut off their noses to spite
their faces. Such is the case with the time-honored colored suffixes
"oon" and "roon", found in familiar words such as ambassadroon,
stewardoon, and sculptroon. Most blacks find it natural ans sensible
to add those suffixes onto nouns such as "aviator" or "waiter". A
black who flies an airplane may proudly proclaim, "I'm an aviatroon!"
But it would sound silly, if not ridiculous for a black to say of
blerself, "I work as a waiter." On the other hand, who could object
to my saying that the lively Ticely Cyson is a great actroon, or that
the hilarious Quill Bosby is a great comedioon?...
Some extreme negrists object to being treated with politeness and
courtesy by whites. For example, they reject the traditional notion
of "Negroes first", preferring to open doors for themselves, claiming
that having doors opened for them suggests implicitly that society
considers them inferior. Well, would they have it the other way?
Would these incorrigible grousers prefer to open doors for whites?
What do blacks want?
Another unlikely word has recently become a subject of controversy:
"blackey". This is, of course, the ordinary term for black children
(including teen-agers), and by affectionate extension it is often
applied to older blacks. Yet, incredible though it seems, many
blacks--even teen-age blackeys--now claim to have had their
"consciousness raised", and are voguishly skittish about being called
"blackeys". Yet it's as old as the hills for blacks employed in the
same office to refer to themselves as "the office blackeys". And for
their superior to call them "my blackeys" helps make the ambiance more
relaxed and comfy for all...Most of the time, calling a
black--especially an older black--a "blackey" is a thoughtful way of
complimenting bler, making bler feel young, fresh, and hirable again.
Lord knows, I certainly wouldn't object if someone told me that I
looked whiteyish these days!
...
Shifting from the ridiculous to the sublime, let us consider the Holy
Bible. The Good Book is of course the source of some of the most
beautiful language and profound imagery to be found anywhere. And who
is the central character of the Bible? I am sure I need hardly remind
you; it is God. As everyone knows, Whe is male and white, and that is
an indisputable fact. But have you heard the latest joke promulgated
by tasteless negrists? It is said that one of them died and went to
Heaven and then returned. What did ble report? "I have seen God, and
guess what? Ble's female!" Can anyone say that this is not
blasphemy of the highest order? It just goes to show that some
people will stoop to any depths in order to shock. I have shared this
"joke" with a number of friends of mine (including several blacks, by
the way,) and, to a white, they have agreed that it sickens them to
the core to see Our Lord so shabbily mocked. Some things are just in
bad taste, and there are no two ways about it....
Well, all of this is just another skirmish in the age-old Battle of
the Races, I guess, and we shouldn't take it too seriously. I am
reminded of the words spoken by the great British philosopher Alfred
West Malehead in whis commencement address to my _alma secretaria_,
the University of North Virginia: "To enrich the language of whites
is, certainly, to enlarge the range of their ideas." I agree with
this admirable sentiment wholeheartedly. I would merely point out to
the overzealous that there are some extravagant notions about language
that should be recognized for what they are: cheap attempts to let
dogmatic, narrow minds enforce their views on the speakers lucky
enough to have inherited the richest, most beautiful and flexible
language on earth, a language whose traditions run back through the
centuries to such deathless poets as Milton, Shakespeare, Wordsworth,
Keats, Walt Whitwhite, and so many others...Our language owes an
incalculable debt to these whites for their clarity of vision and
expression, and if the shallow minds of bandwagon-jumping negrists
succeed in destroying this precious heritage for all whites of good
will, that will be, without any doubt, a truly female day in the
history of Northern White.
Post Scriptum.
Perhaps this piece shocks you. It is meant to. The entire point of
it is to use something that we find shocking as leverage to illustrate
the fact that something that we usually close our eyes to is also very
shocking. ...
A couple of weeks after I finished this piece, I ran into the book
_The Nonsexist Communicator, by Bobbye Sorrels. In it, there is a
satire called "A Tale of Two Sexes", which is very interesting to
compare with my "Person Paper". Whereas in mine, I slice the world
orthogonally to the way it is actually sliced and then perform a
mapping of worlds to establish a disorienting yet powerful new vision
of our world, in hers, Ms. Sorrels simply reverses the two halves of
our world as it is actually sliced. Her satire is therefore in some
ways very much like mine, and in other ways extremely different. It
should be read. ...
[He goes on to recommend some other books on sexism & language]
|
| 112.82 | Sexism alive and well at the Associated Press... | CYCLST::DEBRIAE | There's more to love than boy meets girl... | Tue Apr 03 1990 15:58 | 109 |
|
Posted for friend who entered this note in a women's issues discussion
of another conference.
-Erik
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following is from an r&d network....
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of mine are writing a scholarly monograph on the subject of
gender roles as seen in the Associated Press. Here are the early
returns on "him" and "her" as direct objects of transitive verbs. If
the direct object is "him," here's what happens to him in AP-land,
in decreasing order of correlation:
convict him
give him
oust him
show him
accuse him
remove him
elect him
know him
succeed him
replace him
endorse him
quote him
offer him
indict him
cost him
extradite him
nominate him
urge him
expel him
back him
salute him
link him
allow him
agree with him
view him
appoint him
charge him
bar him
join him
lead him
challenge him
identify him
vindicate him
thank him
let him
wish him
support him
serve him
be against him
deport him
portray him
grant him
arrest him
recognize him
call him
oppose him
strip him
place him
embarrass him
mention him
suspend him
earn him
help him
(You'll notice that the parser is pretty weak. "Give him" is probably
the indirect object, i.e.. "give him something," not direct object.
Ditto "cost" etc.)
If, on the other hand, the direct object is "her," here's what happens to her:
say her
rape her
lose her
marry her
strangle her
proposition her
include her
live with her
pay her
grab her
assault her
celebrate her
leave her
abuse her
kill her
begin her
claim her
change her
kiss her
fondle her
end her
(Again, they're not using a very good parser. "Say her" is probably
possessive, e.g. "say her name," "say her lines," "say her piece,"
not direct object.)
|
| 112.83 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Wed Apr 04 1990 18:55 | 7 |
| .81 looks an awful lot like 147.12 in the JOYOFLEX conference, entered
more than four years ago. That's the same stream in which Ann
Broomhead said: "dear edp, In my opinion, you are correct, and you
have explained yourself well.".
-- edp
|
| 112.84 | referencing .76 and .77 of this topic | SYSENG::BITTLE | good girls make good wives | Mon Apr 09 1990 00:13 | 64 |
| The following was a letter that somehow made it to my PO Box in
Maynard, with only my name and Maynard, MA for an address. It
concerns the response of the editor of Computer Shopper magazine
to my letter regarding their use of sexist language.
On the upper right side of the letter is a blue stamped message
that reads:
The enclosed is a document in a matter of interest to you, and is
sent for your information.
{ When I read that and saw the return address was from a lawyer
whose name I didn't recognize, I thought I was being sued for
some letter I had written. Luckily, that wasn't the case... ;-}
ALESSI & ALESSI
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
[their address]
Computer Shopper
[their address]
ATT: Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
I took you up on the challenge expressed in your response to
Nancy Bittle, regarding sexist use of the terms "Man" and "Boys";
(March 1990 Vol 10 No. 3). You intimated that a glance at your
masthead would show a "healthy mix..." - Not so. I found the
following:
Editor-in-Chief Bob
Senior Editor Charles
* Assistant Editors Shireen, Chris(?)
Managing Editor Paul
* Assistant Managing Editor Susan
Copy Editor Ken
* Assistant Copy Editor Marta
Sr./Production Ad Coord Jack
** Ass't Prod/Ad Coord Pauline, Arline
Every executive office is male-occupied, and the assistant
positions are where we find the females. This exemplifies the
subtle sexist attitude which pervades our society and is found in
the offices of those who consider themselves to be in the
forefront of the battle against discrimination. You owe Nancy
and all women an apology. And the next time you have a vacant
position to fill, you should consider carefully whether you are
hiring with this pattern in mind.
Very truly yours,
ALESSI & ALESSI
Robert H. Alessi
|
| 112.85 | hmmmm | BANZAI::FISHER | Dictionary is not. | Mon Apr 09 1990 08:35 | 3 |
| I wonder whether both Alessi's are male?
ed
|
| 112.86 | The pity of it all... | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Mon Apr 09 1990 09:07 | 12 |
|
RE: .85 ed
> I wonder whether both Alessi's are male?
As a sad commentary on the state of our society - the impact of
a letter like this one is far *greater* when it comes from a male
instead of a female.
Otherwise, it's too easy to blow it off as the ravings of some
unreasonable, radical woman.
|
| 112.87 | Thanks, Nancy! | CSC32::CONLON | Let the dreamers wake the nation... | Mon Apr 09 1990 09:07 | 5 |
|
RE: .84 Nancy
Thanks for sharing the letter with us!!
|
| 112.88 | still curious | QUICKR::FISHER | Dictionary is not. | Mon Apr 09 1990 09:45 | 5 |
| re:.86: I agree there, but I still wonder who the other Alessi is.
curious to the end.
ed
|
| 112.89 | | RDVAX::COLLIER | Bruce Collier | Mon Apr 09 1990 12:11 | 12 |
| .86 > As a sad commentary on the state of our society - the impact of
.86 > a letter like this one is far *greater* when it comes from a male
.86 > instead of a female.
I don't agree. By the time I had gotten to the staff listing, I had
two reactions. 1) Way to go, nancy b., your letter really did have an
impact. 2) Alessi & Alessi - hmmm, I bet they're sisters, clever
enough not to take this guy's assertions at face value. I was
slightly disappointed when I got to the signiture line, but concluded
that the author's sex wouldn't do _much_ to _lessen_ the impact on our
favorite editor.
- Bruce
|
| 112.90 | Very offensive pun | REGENT::BROOMHEAD | Don't panic -- yet. | Mon Apr 09 1990 12:18 | 20 |
| Nancy,
Gee, what a pity that letter was written by a lawyer, someone who
is morally bound to be stodgy and proper in all public and
quasi-public arenas. Otherwise, he might have been tempted (as
I was) to be highly offensive and, instead of writing:
"those who consider themselves to be in the forefront of the
battle against discrimination."
would have written:
(Really, reader, this will offend you. You do not have to hit KP0.)
"those who are on the foreskin of the battle against discrimination."
Ann B.
|
| 112.91 | she's got her wits about her ;-] | SYSENG::BITTLE | good girls make good wives | Mon Apr 09 1990 13:26 | 9 |
|
re: 112.90 (Ann Broomhead)
> those who are on the foreskin of the battle against discrimination."
!!!!!!! Ann, I am still laughing over this :-] :-].
nancy b.
|
| 112.92 | really! | DZIGN::STHILAIRE | lately I get a faraway feelin | Mon Apr 09 1990 16:54 | 4 |
| re .90, Yes, it's very funny Ann! *Really!* :-)
Lorna
|
| 112.93 | | TRNSAM::HOLT | Phil, throw me a corn on the cob | Tue Apr 10 1990 00:04 | 2 |
|
Get McKenzie Brackman's office manager to send the letter..
|
| 112.94 | some convenience | DCL::NANCYB | good girls make good wives | Sun Apr 15 1990 00:11 | 21 |
| re: 14.195 (Amy Goldman)
> "All references in this book to personnel of male gender are
> used for convenience only and shall be regarded as including both
> males and females."
Amy, I'm with Marge. I don't think I'd call this an
improvement. Maybe in the sense that they're openly
acknowledging they're being sexist for the sake of
"convenience" [she says cynically :-].
I wonder why it isn't as convenient to use she in one
example or he in the next. Or he in one chapter and
she in the next. Or singular "they".
In the last Digital This Week I saw an example of this.
In one sentence "she" was used in an indefinite context,
and in the next sentence "he" was.
Way to go, Kate Nelson!!!
nancy b.
|
| 112.95 | | ICESK8::GOLDMAN | aka LDYBUG::GOLDMAN | Sun Apr 15 1990 10:50 | 17 |
| > Amy, I'm with Marge. I don't think I'd call this an
> improvement. Maybe in the sense that they're openly
> acknowledging they're being sexist for the sake of
> "convenience" [she says cynically :-].
Well, as I said, I wasn't sure that was the string in which to
place that note, but I couldn't find the discussion on the use of
he/she/they that I'm sure I've read in here. I do remember someone
(one of the writers?) saying that it was still acceptable to use
"he" when "he or she" was meant. (I think someone had said you
were supposed to use they or something like that.) If that's true,
then stating it, instead of just assuming people know, might be
considered an improvement. I was just suprised to see any kind of
statement at all. But I do agree, it doesn't seem to be that much
harder to alternate.
amy
|
| 112.96 | | JARETH::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Sun Apr 15 1990 14:41 | 9 |
| In the May issue of Scientific American, there is an article about
automobiles. One inset is a display of automobile advertisements over
a span of decades. The caption notes that in the Packard copy about
"the man who drives it", the man would be only a person today. I
suppose we can give them credit for trying, but what diminution is
there in going from a man to a person that makes them "only" a person?
-- edp
|