This item text has been erased.

22 responses total.

I agree that language shapes the way we think about things, and that
ours biases us toward patriarchy.

Other languages stress "gender specificity" to an even greater degree
than ours.  

Look at German, Spanish, etc.  

Germany calls itself the Fatherland, and it's Mother Russia.

It's a good idea to try and steer things away from this phenomenon.
I think the stronger a society is, the less it needs to amplify the
subtlties of human gender differences, especially in languages.
Likewise, I suppose a language steeped in genderisms tends to adversly
affect the solidity of a society.

Whenever we amplify a characteristic of difference into a stereotype,
it puts blinders on our ability to judge situations based on immediate
information.  This makes us less capable in the art of human interaction.

We are not even able to identify all the complex interwoven biases that
permeate our language, because meanings are linked in such complex ways
to render our attempts to decipher the real hidden messages conveyed
somewhat ineffective.

But that is not a reason to avoid gender bias issues in language.

Mass media information and entertainment is certainly a nice tool for
reinforcing many gender bias issues.  These instruments of society
have a great deal to do with desensitizing people to many issues, even
when they don't use race or gender specific language because they amplify
whatever has already been amplified and throw it back in our faces at
110 decibels.

I think the people who say, "it doesn't matter about language" just don't
have their eyes opened.  The people who say, "you can't do anything about
it because it's engrained in our society" simply are avoiding any implied
responsibility that the problems gender specific language might bring to
themselves, or the people in education, etc.

In general, many people in this culture say, "it doesn't matter" not because
it's really true, but because as a culture WE HAVE LOST OUR PATIENCE.
This loss of patience is linked to our need to have every problem solved
IMMEDIATELY if not sooner.

Changing the language will take time, and it will go hand-in-hand with
cultural evolution.  

I applaud every person who shows the dedication to pursue this type of
topic and offer a range of possible solutions.

To the nay sayers, I say that they have either no patience for the slow
changes that occur with or without our assistance (sometimes in the later
case, these changes lead toward disintegration), or that they have simply
not thought deeply about how language affects they way we all think.

English is already screwed up enough without scrambling things more to get
gender-inclusive/non-specific verbage.  The real problem is not that English
"defaults" to male, it's the male=dominant/female=recessive bias.  Just 
reverse this to fix things - always use the masculine when referring to 
underflunkies, criminals, etc. and the feminine for persons of higher status,
power, etc.  This makes it easy to convey in writing meanings that would 
otherwise require tone of voice....

"...citizen must be treated politely when paying her parking fine, no matter
how angry and defensive she may be.  The rules must be followed, however, and
no citizen's personal check can be taken for the towing and storage fee when 
his car has been impounded..."

I think that language evolution takes centuries.  There are no specific
prescriptions that will work globally.  Recommendations for one person don't
work very wel for another.  It's always been a free-for-all hodge-podge
of desultory efforts each seeming to go nowhere in and of itself, but
collectively, things do change when people are somewhat aware of the need
for change.  Like a watershed.

Maybe, I'm wrong, and it's more of a quantum phenomenon?  What do you think?

Anyone who doesn't think that people think "men & women" when someone
says "mankind" is paranoid.  Use whatever words you want but don't object
to other's proper and non sexist use of the english language.

That's not the point at all.  I do not object to any person using the
the tools of language he/she has at his/her disposal in whatever way
best suits the process of communication.  Nobody knows what proper 
language is.  Language is ALWAYS evolving.  Sure, there are compendiums
of correct grammar and usage THAT ARE ALSO ALWAYS BEING UPDATED as a
result of usage.  If the evolution of language is in the hands of the
people who use it *ALL OF US*, then shouldn't we be guiding it in an
enlightened direction by merely acknowledging that sex-oriented language
does exist, and trying in whatever way we feel best to help steer
terms that are not gender-specific away from any gender bias residues
that so permeate our language.

The problem is not so much a question of confusing the meaning of
gender biased terms, its the subtle slant they imbue to the character
of verbal description.  On that account, you can accuse me of a shred
of paranoia and I'll admit to it.

re #2, i, I don't think your solution is really all that much better than
the status quo.  While it's true that the basis of the problem is the
social inequality of men and women in our culture, I don't think turning
the problem on its head and making us over into a matriarchy is any better.
It's still patently unfair.  

I do, whenever I can think of a way to do so gracefully, use gender
neutral language.  Funny how seldom people notice unless the subject
comes up.  I generally take that to mean that I'm doing a pretty good
job of getting the point across without fuzzying up my language.

Perhaps it would have been easier to leave mankind, chairman, postman, etc
alone and create "moman" to specifically refer to males.

Sometimes inclusive language works well simply because it's more accurate and
it WORKS.  For example, I've been involved in "inclusive language" services
using the phrase "the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier", which is
more accurate and explicit thatn "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."  Similarly,
"firefighter" is more appropriate than "fireman"

However, there are times when it really doesn't work well.  witness #5, talking
about "he/she" and "his/her"--it just doesn't work well.  "They" is generally
accepted as a third person singular pronoun, which takes out the sex element,
but then leads to ambiguity w.r.t. number.  It's the best option around if
you want to avoid "he", but it's still sloppy.  Back home there are several
women who hold the post of "selectman".  "Selectperson" and "Selectperson" just
 --there should be a "selectwoman" in there--they just sound unweildy.
Furthermore, nobody really deconstructs the title as "a man who is select".
"Selectman" is a title in and of itself.

I don't think there's any one formulae for adding less gender biased
language.  The more diversity, the better.  Then, the populus can choose
what fits the best.  As an anarchist, I try to introduce diversity whenever
I can.  There used to be more words, dialects, expressions, before mass
communication came into vogue.  Now our language has been purified for
commercial use.  As we loose our ability to express the shadings of ideas
so does our ability to communicate.  I say add as many more options as will
fit in a lexicon.  Make the language possibilities insurmountable.  Make
the dictionary grow to a billion entries.  Inundate us with more and more
words.  Then let the natural cycle of selection drive the evolution of
language.  It is our awareness of the issues and our willingness to act
that renders change, not a specific formula when it comes to language
evolution.  It is driven by need and random acts of awakened minds, not
by specifics.  All solutions that address the problem are entertained.
No quick solutions.  No quick fix.  Not in my lifetime, I hope.  I won't
have any P.C. facist telling me how to express myself.  And I won't purport
to have any solution.  The solution is overwhelming.  Best reason I can
think of to be aware of the need for a solution and to take direct random
action.

I don't think I'm sexist, and yet I don't object to usage like "postman"
or "councilman."  I don't think it's that big a deal, but if this usage
does foster sexist attitudes (although I'm not sure it does) then I'm
all for using gender-neutral language.  It's usually not too difficult
to do.

re #9: be careful that you don't twist the language so much that your
words become meaningless. I.e. you say, "Make the language
possibilites insurmountable."  If you think about it, it's kind of
nonsensical.

In casses where the gender was truly unimportant to the meaning of
a statement, I've never found a case where rethinking the structure
of the sentence couldn't eliminate the unneeded gender reference
without blurring the meaning.

(Could you please restructure that sentence so as to eliminate the
triple negative?  Thanks.  :)

I'll have to agree with #10.

This response has been erased.

As near as I can figure it, the evolution is a random process, not
susceptible to conscious control.  Even the Academie Francaise can't prevent
what they consider barbaric usage (English words, slang, etc) from defiling
their oh-so-pure language.  I supponse one can speak of persuading a
language to evolve in a certain way, but to think one can consciously set
out to, in this case, evolve sexist language out of the lexicon seems to me
a Sisiphan task.  (I have no idea how to spell Sisiphus, you know, the guy
who was condemned to roll a rock up a hill and have it roll back down just
as nearly reached the top?)

That said, I do try my best to use inclusive language when it won't blur the
meaning of what I say, not because I necessarily think it's important in and
of itself, but because some people that I care about think it is important,
and it is certainly more important to me to make their lives better, than to
cling to strictly correct usage or convenience.

BTW, it's "Sisyphus" and I believe the adjective is "Sisyphean".
        Set trivia = off.

Being a bit on the Amoral side of male
I don't think it's right or wrong to use gender spcfic language.
Boils down to saying what you mean.  If you think the geneder specific
is going to cloud subtlties in meaning, use inclusinve fdamn, for
some reason my termcap is all fould up and delet key doesn't work ... anywayt
as I was stumbling...[D ack.  Do you get results you want
communicationwise?  Be careful about responding thoughtfully.  Be very
careful.  Personally, I don't have much faith in social conditioning --
a bizarre hodgepodge of random evolution -- kind of lowest-common-denominator.
Human potential is much better than that drek we live daily.  Either live
to be a part of the stupidity or to improve it to your own specifications.
In the formser case, you're just like everyone else.  The latter, you're making
some consciuous decisions, using the noggin to decide how to better yourself
within this messed up world.  I'm quite the elitist and I admit it.  Rather
be that way than constantly stomped down by morons.

While we're talking about language, it pisses me off that the term
"gender" is bandied about when "sex" would be much more appropriate.
 
Nouns and adjectives have genders, people have sexes
[set fume=off]

Okay Val, lets bandy about "sex."  That will liven this conference up.

As a linguist, I would like to clarify a few points...
(18) Yes, historically "gender" refers to noun classes which happen in
Western Indo-European languages to correspond roughly to human anatomical
difference, but which in other languages have nothing to do with it.
-- The English language did at one point have a sex-neutral term.  It was
"man".  It meant "adult human".  A male human was a werman.  A female human 
was a wifman.  Over time, the latter became woman and, because having two
terms seemed redundant, werman was eliminated (you knew it was a male if
the word woman wasn't used, because there are only two choices).  This
has nothing to do with the andrarchy (I'm not ruled by my father, so this
is hardly a patriarchy).  The default sheep and dog is male (ewe is more
common than ram, and what is the male equivalent of bitch?); the default
cow is female.  In the gay community, if you know the person you're talking
about, and you use the word gay, you're implying the person is male (else
you'd have used the word Lesbian).  Is the andrarchy extending into 
that community as well?  I hope not.
-- As far as myself goes, I view the issue as trivial, but am willing
to try if other people deem it important, which they do.  I say "chair"
for my committee head and use "they" as a singular sex-neutral term.
-- The Japanese, for all intents and purposes, do not have sex-specific
pronouns.  They have plenty of sexist language (e.g., one word for
wife literally means "she of the kitchen"), but no sex-specific pronouns.
And their society is much more sexist than ours.  Holland and Sweden are
fairly more liberated, from what I've heard, and Dutch (at least, and 
probably Swedish) has plenty of sex-specific stuff; assuming Dutch
grammar is like German, every non-proper noun has a gender.
So language is certainly part of it.  But language reflects culture, not
the other way 'round.  We can see from the march of euphemisms for the
black community (negro -> colored -> Afro -> black -> African-American)
that changing the words don't change the values; every time the word
changed, it was because the old one had taken on the connotations
that the previous one had.  But if people want to keep making the mistake
of thinking that changing language will change thought, IMHO, I'll
play along.

Bravo for #20!

Paul, you told me long ago a lot about sex-related English in #20. Is 
English in your opinion more harsh as well than for instance Norwegian 
and Dutch and maybe French?

Response not possible - You must register and login before posting.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss