Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!daemon From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: re: The power of words Message-ID: <5537@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Thu, 9-Feb-84 09:19:38 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.5537 Posted: Thu Feb 9 09:19:38 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 11-Feb-84 05:54:46 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 60 From: akov68::boyajian ******************************************************************************** from Sherry Marts: I can't imagine that any (formally or self) educated person, male or female, would readily give up the privilege of reading great literature as originally written. From a feminist perspective, such literature serves as a record of the psychological, social, and political oppres- sion of women throughout history. (Conspicuous in its nearly complete absence is the literature of, by and about women, but that is another topic.)... No, I would never condone the re-writing of any work of literature, no matter how sexist. These works are part of the history of MANkind's greatest crime, the continuous, systematic oppresssion of one half of humanity. But I see no harm, and great good, in encouraging the imagina- tion and vision of the next generation of women. ******************************************************************************** I'm tempted to flame rather hotly in response to this, but I'll try to keep calm. Quite frankly, I don't see where you get off psychoanalyzing writers of the past. The fact that they have used the generic he/him/his/MANkind/etc. only shows that they followed the rules of English grammar. I fail to see how this implies that they are oppressing "one half of humanity" by doing so. To say that they are guilty of "MANkind's greatest crime" without having the slightest know- ledge of their motivations or characters smacks of the worst kind of blind, knee- jerk arrogance. By your standards, I (because of my usage of the generic he/etc.) am an oppressor of women, but if you should tell me that to my face (or my term- inal), your ears would probably burn from my response. Indulge me in a semi-facetious argument, please. Take a look at the words "feMALE", "woMAN", "sHE". Now try looking at things from a different perspective. Has it occured to you that instead of the masculine terms being used for the generic, it's actually the generic terms that are being used for the masculine? Practically speaking, it makes no difference which is the source and which is the object, but the implications are vastly different (That was the serious part, now we go for the facetious part) What this means is that us poor men, who don't count for nothing, have to use generic terms in reference to us while you women get to have words all to yourself. We're just ordinary generic human (excuse me, huMAN) beings while you're something *special*! Women are just special-case men, rather like squares are special-case rectangles. So think about it. Long and hard. Are you *really* convinced that the traditional generic terms have a one-to-one relationship with the oppression of women? Are you *really* convinced that inventing new generic terms will and/or introducing clumsy construction will end oppression of women? I'm certainly not. As I said in my previous posting, changing the language will not eliminate sexist thought, but eliminate sexist thought and you will also eliminate the need to change the language. --- jayembee (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard) UUCP: (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian) ARPA: (decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian@Shasta)