[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

[Fwd: Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fwd: "he" "he/she" "she/he" "s/he" "e" etc. WAS:female Nobel laureates]]]

Jan M. Hovden wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 4 Dec 1996, Randal Pittelli wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I should have said (thought it was implied): "No [sub]group has
> > the [a priori] right [to impose its will] to...". Of course language
> > changes, and of course it has changed when groups, very often
> > politically motivated, set out to change it (note that no RIGHT is
> > assumed in this sentence). But just because an imposed use of "he" may
> > have been accepted by sheep, it doesn't mean that by the mere will of
> > the elite, the language OUGHT to be changed.
> 
> You are right.  You cannot be forced to change your language usage.
> That, however, does not mean that it ought not be changed.  If the impact
> of your langauge usage has a sexist impact, I would think that you would
> want to change.  If you opt not to change that is your perogative, but it
> is my perogative to fight against it.

Never said that language 'ought not be changed'. I'm arguing against
particular reasons for language change.
If [I believed that my] language use had a sexist impact, I would
consider changing it. My original post was in response to Pat Gerhke:

>* I think there is little reason not to use s/he or she/he. These terms
>* both (in my opinion, and in some empirical research) connote a sex
>* ambiguity or mixed sex. "He/she" is better than "he" but still often
>* connotes male dominated or exclusively male groups, especially where
>* common sex stereotyping would support the connotation. One may think
>* that these options are "excessive" or "cumbersome" but whatever
>* stylistic ease one might lose in adjusting to their pronoun use is
>* certainly made up for by what s/he unloads in terms of ideological
>* encumberances.

...arguing that it is not clearly the case that "there is little reason
not to use s/he or she/he" (but besides, I could argue that there being
little reason not to act is not a sufficient reason *to* act). But I'll
mostly confine myself to the responses made by Jan. Many people
believing in the sexist impact does not make the impact sexist. Just
because most people use the word 'agnostic' to denote 'not sure about
whether there is a god' doesn't mean that everyone else ought to change
his use of the word, or that a non-believer *ought* to use another word
to explain his atheism, even if that other word appears less offensive.
I will not make a change whenever there is a trend dictating that I
ought to change it. Until there is clear consensus on the
meaning/belief/impact (or I buy it), I do not personally have a reason
to change, and I will consciously avoid indoctrination. In this PC
culture, there is a tendency (maybe esp. among academics) to just roll
over and either accept or actively attempt to re-define language use and
re-write the texts. This is not a good reason for me to change, and I
think that this belief ought to be respected (i.e. I ought not be
imposed upon to change my language use whenever I gender-neutrally write
'he', particularly when I believe the proposed alternatives have their
own problems).

And if when I am discussing my religious beliefs I am 'corrected' on my
connotatively-correct usage of the word 'agnostic' (or 'he'), I would
respond by 1) looking the word up in a dictionary (maybe first arguing
over standards) 2) elaborating on my belief, to clarify (assuming that
there was an honest misunderstanding rather than a fishing expedition)
and 3) if the argument persisted (against my will) on my choice of
words, disengaging from the discussion (extra-topical). 

Again, my argument has been that many people feeling upset or excluded
by language use is not a good reason that everyone else ought to change
(arguing particularly from a standpoint of rights and imposition of
will). It is NOT my argument that it cannot be the case that some uses
of 'he' are sexist (separate debate) or unclear (and when unclear, I try
to modify or elaborate my statements).

Jan, I also hope you are not arguing that BECAUSE I have the perogative
to not change my language use, you have the perogative to fight it. I
believe that I have the perogative to use language in a way that can
reasonably be understood and conceivably not be sexist (for ought we
give each other the benefit of the doubt?), whereas there is no such
perogative to impose an (extra-topical) 'correction' on my language use.
For if there is uncertainty/no clear consensus, there is no clear
imposition by me, but rather one by 'you'.

> 
> Likewise, certainly the
> > neo-Nazi skinheads of America do not have the [automatic, a priori]
> > right to [impose] the self-defined term of "gods of decency" (to be
> > distinguihed from the acceptable "Gods of Decency", or "G.O.D."), and
> > expect they be generically called that by everyone.
> 
> I find it troubling that you would choose to equate an attempt to change
> gender specific pronouns with neo-Nazism.  I think the two movements are
> considerably different.
>

Troubling??? I'm sorry you missed the point. The analogy is extreme to
point out the absurdity of allowing groups to self-define, merely
because they will it (or by assuming some a priori right, as stated
above). They are considerably different movements, but equivalent in the
only relevant way.

>  In other words,
> > language for all shouldn't automatically change just because a subset of
> > women want it to. They can certainly try (and have arguably made great
> > head-way) to convince that standards ought to be changed, but this is
> > not the same as claiming a 'right to impose will'.
> 
> Umm, last time I checked it was more than just a subset of women who
> wanted the langauge changed.  If you pay attention to the postings on the
> L, most of the authors are male.  By the way, I don't think anyone argued
> for the right to impose will.  We are just trying to convince people that
> the standards ought to be changed.

Ok, a subset of Americans. First point still stands. 

At what point does 'just trying to convince' become an imposition of
will? Clearly we are not discussing whether one has the right to impose
language use at gun-point. I am not arguing that one should use 'he'
gender-neutrally, but rather that another ought not impose his (chiefly
subjective) standards on my connotatively correct language use. Such
would be an imposition of will, like adamantly arguing that one is
'wrong' to not believe in the Ten Commandments, and therefore *ought* to
change to reflect another's belief. Or that my use of the word 'black'
to denote 'people of color' is believed to be racist/offensive and
therefore ought to be modified, *irrespective* of whether 1) I am
connotatively correct, 2) I intend to be racist, 3) its use is in fact
racist, 4) I believe its use is racist, 5) I care whether it sounds
racist 6) I agree with your values...

As extensions: such imposition is pretentious, and it's rude because
it's extra-topical in a discussion of Nobel Laureates (or of whether a
god and/or morality exists).

> 
> Agghhh, you say,
> > "Hasn't our culture imposed its will upon women by adopting 'he' as
> > gender-neutral?". Problably, and one doesn't have to use 'he' in that
> > way if one is offended. My prob is with the EXTENSION of that value to
> > everyone else. Remember, this thread started by the side-tracking
> > complaint [imposition of will] over the use of 'he', referring to
> > individual Nobel laureates -- arguably it wasn't even meant to be
> > gender-neutral!
> 
> People have the right to fight against the things that they find
> offensive.  They have just as much right to do that as someone has the
> right to use gendered pronouns.  Don't claim right for one side that you
> are unwilling to give to the other.
> 

I'm not arguing for one-sided rights; that's misreading my statements. I
explicitly argue that one may use the pronouns that one wishes (and
added that the proposed modifications are not inherently superior). YOU
are arguing that we 'gender-neutral-he-users' *ought* to change.

Again, I am not arguing that there is no evidence supporting the notion
that gender-neutral use of 'he' is sexist or otherwise detrimental to
society -- I was responding to Pat. While I do not believe that it is
detrimental (at least independent of the possible damage done by our PC
culture), I have chosen not to engage in that part of the debate and
hope that my choice will be respected {:->.



-- 
<----------------------------------------->
| Randal Pittelli, Lab Engineer           |
| Dept of Environmental Medicine          |
| Univ of Rochester Medical Center        |
| Rochester, NY 14642                     |
|                                         |
| TEL: (716) 275-0797                     |
| FAX: (716) 256-2591                     |
| pittelli@envmed.rochester.edu           |
| http://www.envmed.rochester.edu/wwwrlp/ |
| --------------------------------------- |
|  "Love only a god that dances" - F.N.   |
<----------------------------------------->
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page