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