Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lanl.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!cmcl2!lanl!jlg From: jlg@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women Subject: Re: Gender-Specific Pronouns Message-ID: <19509@lanl.ARPA> Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 16:05:31 EST Article-I.D.: lanl.19509 Posted: Mon Jan 14 16:05:31 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 19-Jan-85 00:15:07 EST References: <353@cadovax.UUCP> <775@druxo.UUCP> Sender: newsreader@lanl.ARPA Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 64 Xref: watmath net.nlang:2434 net.women:4137 > Of course, *proper* grammar is of much greater importance than the > deleterious effect of sexist language on half of humanity! :-) > > Is the proper role of grammarians to define what *proper* usage is or to > record what common usage is? Probably some of both. But I, for one, have > no intention of allowing grammarians to assume almighty powers and dictate > that I must use language that is damaging to me and my sisters (and > ultimately to my brothers, too). Damn right - The language has been unfair to MEN long enough. We are people too. We deserve our own pronouns. (You must have a large family, I only have one brother and one sister.) > Besides, the singular *they* has a lot of precedence is scholarly writing > as well as common usage by public figures: > > Shakespeare: Everyone to rest themselves. > > Shaw: It's enough to drive anyone out of their sense. > > Scott Fitzgerald: Nobody like a mind quicker than their own. > > Dr. Mary Celderone: Everybody must develop their own standards of > sexual morality. > > The Phone Store: Give someone a phone of their own. > > Lord Chesterfield: If a person is born of a gloomy temper...they > cannot help it. > > J. F. Kennedy: If that person gets sick...they are in the hospital... > > Senator Hart: ...the person who goes for food stamps does it > because they are poor. I note that, once again, all of these examples are of the use of a plural pronoun in reference to an original subject which was semantically plural. In all the above cases, the original subject implied the inclusion or exclusion of a large class of people - in fact, often the plural pronoun was used to emphasize that fact. "That is the only person to ever set foot on Mars. They loved it!" Even if the examples given above sounded natural (which they would for most people), the preceeding line would confuse you. This is because the referent of the plural is semantically singular and was explicitly reenforced as singular. The plural pronoun has been used with singular referents in the past, NOT in order to resolve some sexist bias, but in order to emphasize the inherent plurality of the words which are syntactically singular but are semantically plural. (*8 Why don't we introduce some pronouns which refer specifically (and ONLY) to men. This would have several advantages. For one thing, the existing masculine pronouns would then be freed up for use as neutral pronouns (ONLY). The advantage is that all laws, regulations, rules, company charters, etc. would automatically become gender neutral without rewrite. The only disadvantage would be that literature written before the change would seem increasingly archaic since the neutral pronoun would be consistantly used in reference to characters who are KNOWN to be male. This option will not be taken however because feminists will refuse any solution (no matter how good or fair it really is) if it appears to 'give' men anything - and this idea would 'give' men their own pronoun. 8*)