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!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!crs From: crs@lanl.ARPA Newsgroups: net.nlang,net.women Subject: Re: Pronouns devoid of gender connotations Message-ID: <27887@lanl.ARPA> Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 10:34:28 EDT Article-I.D.: lanl.27887 Posted: Wed Jul 3 10:34:28 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 05:47:00 EDT References: <2718@decwrl.UUCP>, <498@rtech.UUCP> <743@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> <11369@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory Lines: 53 Xref: watmath net.nlang:3333 net.women:6253 > >> Stick with "Standard English": > >> > >> "If you should happen to see someone, say hello to him." > >> > >> The argument here is that this is gramatically correct, > >> and has served for many years. > Isn't this, as many of the examples used in this "debate", a bit artificial? As with many phrases/sentences that people seem to object to as sexist, there is a simpler way. What on earth is the matter with: "If you should happen to see someone, say hello." I have seen few, if any, examples here that couldn't easily be converted to nonsexist form (assuming, for the sake of argument, that they *are* sexist) by just a *little* thought and common sense. Granted that we all could stand to become more sensitive to the way that what we say/write may be taken but habits are strong and the habits of speech and writing have been forming over a lifetime. Do you wonder that there is resistance to change? The great pronoun debate seems, to me, to be producing a lot of dark heat, if I may paraphrase a description of the arguments in net.abortion. I'm not strongly opposed to looking for a gender-neutral pronoun but I'm not sure that I'm strongly in favor of it either. It seems to me, as has often been suggested that a great deal of effort is being spent treating the symptoms while we die of the disease (pronounitis? :-). The examples chosen by both sides of the great debate are usually awkward constructs chosen, it seems, exclusively to promote which ever side of the argument the writer favors. In the mean time may I suggest a tactic that may help to make others as sensitive to sexist speech/writing as we enlightened netters are. (:-) Suppose that whenever we hear someone say something that is ambiguous in a sexist way (as in the example that prompted this article) we say "Do you mean a man, a woman or either?" It is less convenient with written work but letters to the editor or author or publisher are certainly possible. If people are called to account for their ambiguous usage often enough they are apt to become more sensitive and begin trying to get it right the first time. Of *course*, it is a lot of work but do you really think it is any more work than trying to overcome the resistance to changing lifelong language habits? What we really want to change, anyway, is the attitudes. As may be expected, all opinions are mine alone. -- Charlie Sorsby ...!{cmcl2,ihnp4,...}!lanl!crs crs@lanl.arpa