Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.women
Subject: Re: the power of words
Message-ID: <2086@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 8-Feb-84 05:10:58 EST
Article-I.D.: watcgl.2086
Posted: Wed Feb  8 05:10:58 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 10-Feb-84 01:02:45 EST
References: <6762@watmath.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 34

	From Sophie Quigley:

	The ideas expressed in there sound revolutionary when they are
	applied to women, words of wisdom when applied to men: "to
	every woman her chance, to every woman, regardless of her
	birth, her shining golden opportunity - to every woman the
	right to live, to work, to be herself, and to become whatever
	thing her womanhood and her vision can combine to make her".
	Doesn't this "every woman" sound like she is going to do all
	sorts of horrible things, like "destroy our families"?

	This is when ** THE TRUTH ** came to me: a "he" is a "he" is a
	"he" and a "she" is a "she" is a "she" and a "man" is .... and
	a "woman" is a ...  When people say "he" they think "he" and
	they mean "he".  The reason we "she"s have trouble
	understanding that ""he" means me too" is not because we have
	some kind of "translation problem" or "lack of imagination",
	but simply because "he" is ""he" (i.e. not me)".  I laughed
	(inside), how could I have been so stupid all these years?  I
	knew it all along and it is so obvious that "he" means "he",
	after all that's the definition of the word, isn't it?, why was
	I trying to believe that this wasn't true?

Hmm.  My immediate reaction to reading phrases such as those quoted
above is "but why exclude men".  I realize that women have probably
thought exactly the same thing when hearing the male-oriented version
of the sentence.  I was surprised at the strength of my feeling
of being "left out" because the phrases seemingly didn't apply to me.

What the language needs is some concise way of specifying clearly that
both sexes are intended yet is not too ugly to speak or write down.
I haven't seen such a method, but perhaps I will now be a bit less
supportive of the solution of just using masculine pronouns for the
entire species.