Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!mcnc!duke!phs!sam From: sam@phs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.women Subject: re: the power of words Message-ID: <2193@phs.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Feb-84 14:09:56 EST Article-I.D.: phs.2193 Posted: Wed Feb 15 14:09:56 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 02:14:39 EST Lines: 42 Apparently I did not make my point clearly enough, for I do not believe, as Jerry Boyajian has misinterpreted, that sexism in works of literature begins and ends solely with the use of masculine pronouns as generics; nor was I "psychoanalyzing" anyone. Let me take a step back and outline the premises behind what I was trying to say. First, I am taking as given that sexism is a pervasive force in society and has been so for thousands of years. Second, I am assuming that individuals producing works of art or literature at a given time in history would have internalized the attitudes concerning women and woman's role current at the time. The important thing to note here is that I am not referring solely to the use of masculine pronouns as generics. The treatment of woman by most male and many female novelists, poets, historians, painters, sculptors, philosophers, theologians, critics, and anyone else who contributes to what we refer to as "culture" has always and continues to place her in a subordinate, inferior position with respect to man. The use of masculine pronouns as generics in English and other languages is a true example of this. I will assert that Mr. Boyajian's inability to recognize this subtle, insidious bit of sexism means that he is (in a subtle and insidious way of which he may not have been aware) contributing to the oppression of women. (Pause while I put on my asbestos earmuffs). Mr. Boyajian's "semi-facetious" argument serves to reinforce my point. Whether masculine is generic or generic is masculine, such a construction sets woman apart as Other, something separate from the all-important male. Being considered a "special-case" male is not my idea of equality and freedom from oppression. (It does recall the occasion a few years ago when Queen Elizabeth II was made an "honorary man" by the Arabs so that she could be accorded the respect due to a visiting head of state. I wonder just how honored she felt.) No intelligent person could believe that the oppression of women will end once language has been reformed and made inclusive. Rather, I believe that as sexist oppression is recognized, fought, and eliminated, language will change (is changing?) to reflect the real change taking place in the minds and hearts of people. Formal rules of grammar change as usage changes; witness the now accepted use of the pronoun "who" in the objective case. I think the mere fact that inclusive language is being discussed at all is a small step forward. Sherry Marts duke!phs!sam