sexist language

[Greg Woods]

I apoligize in advance for not following this up in a different group.
I can't think of an appropriate one, and I do want those who have read
the previous postings to read this, if they so desire.  The subject line
has been changed to warn you.  I suppose sci.lang might be appropriate.

In article <10837 at ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> ggs at ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Griff Smith) writes:
> In article <1988Nov9.200939.6069 at utzoo.uucp>, henry at utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > In article <698 at packard.UUCP> shz at packard.UUCP writes:
> > >Just a minor correction:  Substitute "staff" for each occurrence of "man"
> > >in the below fragment, yielding "staff-hours", "staff-weeks" and
> > >"staff-years".
> > 
> > (I have no quarrel with people who prefer to avoid the use of masculine
> > words as generic forms, provided that readability does not suffer, but
> > criticizing people for using legitimate English is ridiculous.)
> 
> This has gotten a bit out of context.  The original complaint was from a
> Bell Labs employee who was reacting to company policy; in my branch of the
> Labs we are corrected by our supervision whenever we refer to generic employees  
> with masculine words.  If I remember correctly, the first response to that
> complaint came from another AT&T employee who has either missed the required
> Affirmative Action sessions or taken inoculations against them.  I think
> the first posting was a sincere attempt to point out that the worm fighters
> weren't just males.  I suspect the second one was more a rejection of company
> policy than a complaint about the posting.  We're not criticizing people for
> using conventional English, we're criticizing the convention.
> 
> This is already too much noise for a technical group; further arguments off-line please.

I find myself at a loss for words in trying to express my amazement at
your deletion of the definition of 'man' in your quotation of Henry's
posting.

Are you hoping the definition will be changed by brute force?  Should we
delete the word and all it's combinations and permutations all together
(including women)?  Do you wish it would just go away?

Just because the English language evolved during a period in our history
when males controlled society, doesn't mean we can change the
conventions "overnight" by brute force.  There are too many common use
terms which cannot be easily dropped or changed, nor do they have to be.
The only problems occur when women enter into traditionally male
positions with male sounding titles, and then object to being referred to
by their title (for example 'brakeman').  Obsolescense of such positions
will lead (hopefully) to the dis-use of their titles.  (Most
traditionally male positions are becomming obsolete anyway :-).

I think we can do quite well without massive and abrupt change.  We can
simply continue the gradual evolution of the language:  beginning to use
'he/she' where required, or else a random mix of 'he' and 'she; eventual
dropping of the 'ess' from various words like 'steward' and 'actor';
gradually switching to less obviously connotated words such as changing
'alderman' to 'councelor' where nearly equivalent terms exist, and
especially in new situations; as well as education about language and
its history.  These changes are already well on a roll, and have been
for quite some time (at least in Canadian schools).
-- 
						Greg Woods.

UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!ontmoh!woods, lsuc!gate!woods
VOICE: (416)443-1734 [h], (416)595-5425 [w]  LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada