|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
Just how much should language be expected to change in the interests of political correctness? We've touched on this a bit again in our discussions of personal pronouns and being "one of the guys". At least on the surface, these seem fairly harmless, but can be perceived as having sexist underpinnings. On the other end of the spectrum is the aide to the mayor of Washington D.C. (who is black) who was summarily dismissed (later to be reinstated) for using the word "niggardly" in reference to a fund he administered. Incidents like this contribute to p.c.-ness itself taking on a politically incorrect connotation.
|
|
|
#4305
07/21/2000 12:35 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Hoo boy, you ain't jus' whistlin' Dixie by openin' up that can o' worms, there, Bud! Here we go! I am anticipating
MUCH back-and-forth and round-about on this one!
Since no one else seems to have found this yet, I'll start with my two cents' worth. My opinion frankly varies according to the term used and the situation. I don't mind the use of the word 'Flagger" in place of Flagman in road
construction areas--a great many are women. On the other
hand, the word 'chairperson' seems to me not only cumbersome, but a bit ridiculous. (In this particular usage, I think a new, neutral title would be the best solution.)
There was a similar discussion here quite some time back, where a question was asked (to the best of my recollection) whether changing the language would actually result in
attitudinal changes. I said then, and still believe, that
using non-hurtful language is a matter of taking one small step at a time, as individuals become educated about what others think and feel.
"Political correctness" may or may not involve a real change in attitude. It is often used for the sole
purpose of avoiding retribution. I suppose this is better than uttering insults, but I'd prefer to see
genuine caring as the reason behind the change!
I can think of one example of how political correctness has asserted itself in television. I saw a re-run of a very old
show, where a famous line by the alleged comedian was, "To the moon, Alice, to the moon", as he raised his fist threateningly to his "wife". Apparently audiences thought that was riotously funny back then, but I was shocked. We don't hear that kind of thing any more, or rather, not so
overtly. Next?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167
member
|
|
member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 167 |
<We don't hear that kind of thing any more, or rather, not so
overtly. Next?>
I've always thought that to be a problem with too much PC-ness, that it turns covert racists and bigots into covert ones. Sure attitudinal change has to be gradual, but sometimes PC terms assume a euphemistic role in language
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
I agree chairperson is an abomination. I would go with chair every time. According to "A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage" the use of chair for the person chairing a meeting goes back to the 17th century, so can hardly be called a piece of rampant PC.
Of course there is risible hypocrisy detectable in the PC movement, but at least some of it comes from urban legends industriously spread about by its opponents.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Of course there is risible hypocrisy detectable in the PC movement, but at least some of it comes from urban legends industriously spread about by its opponents.
I agree. I have posted before on this subject - it is somewhere in the archives!
As far as I can see the term "political correctness" was coined by those people who object to it. It is a reaction to the political movement which pushed issues of equal opportunities into the limelight. It is a simple conflict between those who would like to see change and those who would not. Inevitably, those who would not like to see change are/were in positions of power. Those who feel that they are less well represented in the corridors of power are those who are likely to want to see change.
The key term for me is “equal”. Not more, not less but equal. Equal Opportunities has been through many incarnations and has contributed a huge number of words to the English language in its wake. Some things are largely accepted as the norm: It really isn't great to boast about beating your wife any more; In many areas of the Western world if you threw someone out of your shop because of their colour, many of the rest of your customers would walk out too. Others are still matters of dispute. Some are trivial personal likes/dislikes of certain words. Others are less trivial attempts to re-define roles in society. Here the big issue seems to be choice. In some families both parents have no choice but to work (or not to work). In other families it is possible to choose who carries most responsibility for earning/childcare/cleaning. In many Western countries it is no longer automatically expected that people run their lives on strict gender demarcations.
As long as we live in a world with involuntary female circumcision or where unwanted girl children are left to die or where very young boys are sent out with firearms to play their part in war ….. the examples are sadly numerous then we live in an “unequal” society.
If changing our language is one small chink in the wall, then I’m with it.
So what I'm saying is that "political correctness" is more than just a few words. Its a whole way of life and is part of a bundle of other things. If one disagrees with the other political changes then it must be irritating to be
expected to change one's language.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
i think there is a lot of room for making fun of people who try too hard especially to call themselves something dignified, a la malvolio. i loved bart simpson hailing the post delivery with "here's the fe-mail man".
however, some changes fall into place, probably because the attitudes have already changed to prepare the way, as it were.
i feel that words like "wimmin" belongs to the former group, as does "person hole" for man hole.
"chair", or "chairwoman", is one of the latter i think, as is "waiter" (to cover both sexes).
unfortunately, we as people have held, individually or collectively, some pretty abominable beliefs. if we think removing the words that refer to those attitudes will change the attitudes we are fooling ourselves yet again.
"mentally retarded", "backward", educationally impaired" "one with learning difficulties" whatever we call something, if we don't respect the thing we are referring to, our discriminatory nature will catch up with us sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,467 |
PC-ness has been carried way too far, IMNSHO. The other day I actually heard somebody referred to as a waitron rather than waiter or waitress.
Words like chairwoman, policewoman, and firewoman are an abomination, just as is womyn. "Man" can just as easily refer to the race of man as it does to a male of the species. Do other languages have this problem or is the "Man" - man problem confined solely to English? The purveyors of PC lingo should be made to keep that in mind. What next? She's a member of the huwomyn race???
Reminds me of Rene Descartes, who wandered into a tavern one evening. The barkeeper said to him, "Good evening, sir. Would you care for a beer?" Descartes replied, "I think NOT!" and poof, he disappeared.
Of PC-ness, I think NOT!
TEd
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
What does IMNSHO mean and why does everyone speak in CAPITAL letters (like YCLIU) these days? Far more irritating than policewoman - at least it's a word!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>"mentally retarded", "backward", educationally impaired" "one with learning difficulties" whatever we call something, if we don't respect the thing we are referring to, our discriminatory nature will catch up with us sooner or later.
It does and we are the poorer for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>What does IMNSHO mean <<
In my not so humble opinion.
We 'speak' in capitals because we're too lazy to type in full!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>Just how much should language be expected to change in the interests of political correctness? We've touched on this a bit again in our discussions of personal pronouns and being "one of the guys". <<
It's complicated, and hard, and everyone will have different ideas.
I agree that political correctness has gone too far, but I think that it is a good thing to think a little about the assumptions behind everyday speech. That more than anything is why I would use 'their' rather than 'his' as a generic singular.
Related to this idea of assumptions behind speech, I read an article once about 'making people disappear'. It described a teacher who put up various sentences for her class (I think they were age 8 or 10 or so) and asked them to work out who the 'disappeared' people were. Sentences such as 'Every kid dreams of growing up to be a racing driver.'
Apparently the girls in the class cottoned on much more quickly than the boys, but then they were the ones being 'disappeared'.
It sounds trivial, but compare
'Every little kid dreams of being a racing car driver.'
'Every little kid dreams of being a famous dancer.'
Liberal-minded egalitarian feminist that I am, I would still be more likely to slip over the first one without a blink than the second. Even after having read the article adn thought about it logically, I wouldn't necessarily pick it up in day-to-day speech. Attitudes are unfortunately ingrained deeply.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>,,,why does everyone speak in CAPITAL letters (like YCLIU)
acronyms are capitalized so as to discriminate from *real words. 'wwftd' is a noted exception.
-ron obvious
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
Forgot to say - the absolutely WORST piece of PCspeak I ever heard in person was 'dermatologically challenged' for 'black'.
The user was most definitely a covert racist too.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>I agree chairperson is an abomination. I would go with chair every time. << My mother, who chaired a lot of meetings, hates chairperson too, but could never quite work out if it was more insulting to be called a man or a piece of furniture! 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>acronyms are capitalized so as to discriminate from *real words
And do we need all these new acronyms? I was merely pointing out that some ways of using language are every bit as irritating to some people (like me) as language which aims to remove gender issues is to others (like you).
It is so good that we have a forum like this to share our irritations.
I'm just off to kick the cat.
(It's OK animal lovers, I haven't got a cat)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I rather like "circumferentially challenged". It has just the right feel about it and shows how the really silly things get translated into a joke in the end.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>And do we need all these new acronyms?
actually®, no. but it's terribly hard to get along on the 'net without a working knowledge of them; happily, we have managed to avoid most of them on this site -- which in the event seems appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
TEd>Do other languages have this problem or is the "Man" - man problem confined solely to English? In the midst of your philippic  , you raise an interesting question. I hope some of our "foreign correspondents" chime in on this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>is the "Man" - man problem confined solely to English?
Of couse many other languages (eg Spanish, French) have many more male and females - tables, chairs, socks. We only have a few - ships are always female aren't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>On the other end of the spectrum is the aide to the mayor of Washington D.C. (who is black) who was summarily dismissed (later to be reinstated) for using the word "niggardly" in reference to a fund he administered.
Interesting choice of example. I just heard on the news that the press are chasing Hillary Clinton for an (alleged) anti-semitic remark she made in 1974.
How does the saying go - The one thing we learn from history is ..
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 218
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 218 |
>Of couse many other languages (eg Spanish, French) have many more male and females
In my language of choice (American Sign Language), masculine and feminine pronouns and identifiers do not exist as they do in most spoken languages. People and objects are defined and introduced spatially, not "sexually." If it does contribute to a broader acceptance of men-and-women-on-equal-footing, that contribution may be negated by the fact that most description is visually-based and therefore readily malleable to personal bias.
It goes back to the covert issue; words are not necessary for ill will.
|
|
|
#4326
07/22/2000 12:34 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 460
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 460 |
<The one thing we learn from history is …>
Jo -- so glad you didn't use 'herstory' (or is it, pedantically, 'hertory'?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 112
member
|
|
member
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 112 |
>>IMNSHO<<
I think it is "In My Not So Humble Opinion"
am I right, TEd?
...and in mine, I have always thought that if the newly-coined term describes the person without compromising either the dignity of the person, or of the thing the person is doing/being then it is acceptable.
The situation resembles current day business-speak, which attempts to describe everyday things and events in the most possible words, to make them appear to be more than they are.
|
|
|
#4328
07/22/2000 10:21 PM
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>So glad you didn't use 'herstory' (or is it, pedantically, 'hertory'?)
I don't know how many others are around at the moment from Europe. I wonder if we've had less of the silly stuff here than seems to be the case in America (I don't know about Australia & New Zealand).
I think its been a much quieter thing here and although the press are always happy to fill up a few pages during the silly season with "loony left" stories of children not being allowed to use blackboards it has largely gone without too much challenge. In schools, in particular racist or sexist language would make people feel quite uncomfortable.
We still have people being murdered in Europe because of their race or religion. Perhaps we've realised that we have to change our attitudes otherwise "Ethnic Cleansing" could be heading our way next.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 444 |
>>Perhaps we've realised [in Europe] that we have to change our attitudes otherwise "Ethnic Cleansing" could be heading our way next. <<
Jo, I wish I believed it was as you say - that's such an optimistic way of looking at things.
Having lived in the UK, Japan, Australia, Chicago and Toronto (and now Australia again) I'm not so optimistic. While the fuss about words may be different, there's a lot of overlap in the attitudes.
You could equally well argue (not that I am doing!) that Europe / Australia haven't gone down the PC route because so many people are unconcerned by the use of potentially offensive language.
I did read something once saying that a different ethnic population tended to be tolerated until it reached 15% or more of the total population. At that ratio it could be perceived as a threat and hence discrimination began. This might explain why in the US the strongest racism is against the blacks, in Australia against the Asians (and the Aborigines, but I'm in Sydney, there are far more Asians than Aborigines here and that's the racism I hear more!) and in the UK against the Indian subcontinent races (Pakkis.)
At least, it seems to fit my experience.
|
|
|
#4330
07/23/2000 12:29 PM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
Brandon.
Thanks so much for posting. I started learning Australian Sign Language (Auslan) once, and found it the most wonderful language I have come accross. I loved the way verb tenses were indicated spatially, but didn't learn enough to understand the structure of the language.
Would you please outline on a new thread the main differences you know between a signed language and signed or spoken English i.e relating to tenses, sequential vs simultaneous, "physicality" vs auditory, or whatever you think is relevant. I am truly facinated and would really appreciate it.
|
|
|
#4331
07/23/2000 12:32 PM
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
Very well argued. I think you're raised the crux of the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>Jo, I wish I believed it was as you say - that's such an optimistic way of looking at things.
I'll modify it to "some people" have realised that we have to change our attitudes if you like. There is probably less difference country to country than is between urban and rural areas. I lived in London through the eighties where racial language was high on the political agenda. Over the same period it wasn't much of an issue in rural areas where, as you say, the population was less racially diverse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
>And do we need all these new acronyms? I was merely pointing out that some ways of using language are every bit as irritating to some people (like me) as language which aims to remove gender issues is to others (like you).<
This use of the example of electronic acronyms raises the issues of deep and superficial meanings quite well. (Or to reiterate the "a word is a skin of thought" thread yet again - which is now probably a very tattered skin which is sorry it ever mentioned itself in the first place)
I agree that these acronyms are not particularly visually appealing as a word, nor do they trip off the tongue very easily as a contraction, and not everyone knows what they mean. Yet they are useful, and every subsequant post regarding them has defended their existance as a useful creation.
This contrasts sharply with the derision many of the new words which attempt to redefine nouns within an ideology have received. Words such as: chairwoman, wimmin, and herstory, some of which have been termed "an abomination". I find this facinating.
The emotional charge indicates to me that it is the underlying meaning which is offensive, as the words in themselves are not too awful as words. People know what they mean, you can pronounce them without too much difficulty, and don't have to go out of your way to press the caps lock button.
Yet, most posters (and I am resisting the temptation myself) have somehow distanced themselves from condoning them in any way, as if they somehow go "too far". I am wondering what "too far" is, as the inherent look/feel of the word isn't so bad as words go, compared with, say calling computer bits by numbers and acronyms like a 486dx with 16 MB RAM. What both "wimmin" and 486dx with 16 MB RAM have in common is a very recognisable "skin". We instantly know the meanings underlying each.
What is the meaning underlying chairwoman, wimmin and herstory? (I understand the etymology of "history" is not gender specific, I think the word is making a clear statement, however). What meaning makes it so contentious that even educated women avoid using it? How far is "too far", and why?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>How far is "too far", and why?
For me, "too far" is simply when people try to change the language for frivolous reasons. I'll admit that "frivolous" is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder, but I'll use "niggardly" as an example. To me, this is a wonderfully descriptive word which connotes much more than mere stinginess and yet comes up short of miserly in that it lacks bad intent. It troubles me that we have to give up this word because of others' ignorance and/or ill behavior.
Another example is "business-speak" and the verbing of nouns, which was much discussed here earlier. In this case, I object to the creation of new words (where perfectly serviceable ones already exist), often out of just plain laziness. I would cite (if memory serves) the recent post which asked for a better word for the creation of a product than productize!!
Anyway, I would expand this argument to some of the words which have come out of the women's movement. What is inherently wrong with the word women? What could be more descriptive and (for the great majority) less pejorative? I think that most readers just react negatively to "womyn" and other such attempts. (I also, I hasten to add, abhor Rush Limbaugh's coinage "feminazi" :)
I considered posting this reply anonymously, because of my "history", but thought better of it since that would remove some of the context.
onymously yours,
michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Good heavens, Michael, after all that fear and trembling, I
would have thought you might have signed off "Ominously yours"! I for one don't think of you as some kind of monster or something. I do think you have very strong opinions, and tend to stick by them!
>>For me, "too far" is simply when people try to change the language for frivolous reasons<< I agree, Dear!
>>"frivolous" is somewhat in the eyes of the beholder<<
Here, Babe, you have hit the bull's-eye. And no, it isn't an accident that I used that particular term of address.
I used it as one example of just what you were talking about, not because I think of you as one! Some people wouldn't mind it, others would be aggravated or worse.
There are quite a few (okay, a lot of) things that irritate me beyond all reason, that others aren't bothered by at all.
The only thing I can think of that would make these
occurrences throughout the world less frequent calls for one very basic precept:
BE CONSIDERATE! BOTH parties! The offended one, rather than say something like, "You're an ignorant fool and a jerk to use that word", would get a lot further by an,
"Excuse me, that term really bothers me, because..."
The offender is less likely to give a defiant response,
and even if he/she is not willing to give up using the term,
hopefully will at least not belittle the person's concern or deliberately continue to provoke by use of the term.
I have never thought of myself as a real feminist, so
perhaps my opinion of the word 'women' or 'woman' is not
that of the majority. I see nothing wrong with them. I do
think "womyn" is ridiculous--to me it fits under that
frivolous category you mentioned.
But, on the other hand--I do know that there is still a very
great deal of discrimination against women, I'm pretty sure
worldwide. We are perceived, sometimes even by ourselves,
as less able, less worthy, than men, in many scenarios. It is less obvious here in the U.S. than it was a generation ago, but it still exists. (Glass ceiling, for ex.) If the
"radical feminists" hadn't been so radical--demanding the
stoppage of discriminatory terms, for one thing--women here
would still be under the same overt, widely-accepted and
VERY limited regard that we were held in back then.
This all goes back to who has the power, I think. Not only
women, but black people as well, had to secure special laws
just to be able to vote. Why? Because the ones who enacted the laws denying them this right were white males.
It is human nature for the "haves" not to want to give anything up, whether it be power or money. I am thinking here of salary discrepancies. Theoretical situation: the
owner of a company, a man, knows perfectly well that his
female vice-president is doing as good a job as his male one, but if she doesn't get paid as much, he won't offer her a raise to equalize the two salaries. He knows that the company's income is limited, and if he gives her more
money, there will be less for him. This is a NOT-frivolous situation, wherein the female will need to speak up for
herself.
It is in situations where the "haves" refuse to either listen or change that the "have-nots" might just decide to
get radical.
And, there are ALL KINDS of minorities (have-nots) whose
concerns are just as important to them. Foreigners and the mentally ill come to mind. Just who is "acceptable",
anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 37 |
I was thinking about the word niggardly and how "pc-ness" (which BTW seems to be another created word which fits uncomfortably in the mouth, but is not considered an abombination)has stopped the use of this word. It struck me that perhaps the only role pcness has had in this situation is highlight how many people don't know what niggardly means. I don't think all of a sudden, with the rise of pcness, that vocabulary knowledge suddendly dwindled.
Perhaps when you were using the word before, some folks thought you meant "niggerly" and the baggage of connotations that carries with it and just didn't mind. Perhaps you were not delivering the exact message you meant, just didn't know it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
In Indonesian the basic third person singular pronoun is dia , which is used for everyone, male and female. Orang means person I suppose, but the usage is very different: for example you wouldn't say "a man" or "a woman", you'd say "seorang laki-laki " or " seorang wanita " (literally a man person or a woman person). You don't talk about your brothers and sisters you talk about your adik and kakak , your younger and older siblings. No need for linguistic engineering here. BUT nobody could reasonably claim that Indonesian society was somehow less sexist or discriminatory than the various Anglo-Saxon descended societies most AWAD posters come from.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
>"Excuse me, that term really bothers me, because..."
I'm with Jackie here. Where the probem lies, for me, is not with the use of terms which relate to race/gender/disability ... differences but the American obsession with litigation, which unfortunately is spreading to the UK. I'm told that no college lecturer is safe from accusation by the students if they make any "incorrect" remark.
I quite agree with twusm (oh no!) on a number of things. Anyone who checks the etymology of the words would know that niggardly isn't racist and history doesn't relate to "him". I remember a situation at a (very politically inspired) place I used to work. The Director (who prided himself on his careful language (but not, necesssarily the underlying attititudes)) said that he was getting in painters to "tart up" the building. Some of the staff pointed out that he may wish to rephrase that. There was a discussion about the implications of the phrase "tart up" and the day continued as before as it would if a more overtly anything-ist term had been used. No suspensions, no loss of jobs, just a discussion. Behaving in an overtly discriminatory way may have been treated in more serious way.
I've looked up various discussions about "herstory" and it appears that where it originated was an article which discussed the invisibility of women in history. This is a reasonable argument. The word was not intended to replace "history" merely to highlight a issue. That it was been picked up and carried further probably highlights the strength of feeling on the subject of a tradition of history written by men than anything to do with etymology.
Womyn is similarly an attempt to highlight an issue, not an attempt to universally replace a term. As we are around 52% of the population, it is as unlikely that we will have a single point of view as that the 48% of men will discard communism, monetaryism, liberalism, pessimism, ... and talk with one voice.
Like the other words we have discussed - productize - novelize - the words that resonate with people will survive, those that don't wont.
In the meantime what is needed is an atmosphere (like this, I hope) where words and attitudes can be debated without fear. Was it George Orwell's 1984 where everyone had to use "newspeak"? Perhaps it is Big Brother who we should fear, not the words themselves.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>I'm told that no college lecturer is safe from
accusation by the students if they make any "incorrect" remark.
yes, and take that to a recent extreme and you have the Red Chinese "Cultural Revolution", where teachers were given dunce hats and mocked by students as tools of the bourgeoisie (on a good day).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
> yes, and take that to a recent extreme and you have the Red Chinese "Cultural Revolution", where teachers were given dunce hats and mocked by students as tools of the bourgeoisie (on a good day).
I agree. Not to mention burning a few books.
Convergence?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 200 |
jo,
you said what i wanted to say all along, but so much more eloquently!
the words that we need, we'll keep. the words we don't will die naturally.
one reason the world isn't under the control of big brother is that we are so different within all our various groups, even the ones at the top.
one question, why the acronyms? once you know them they are easy to read, but they seem to me to be a way of excluding the knows and the know nots.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>a way of excluding the knows and the know nots.
unfortunately, for all the truly helpful folks you can find on the 'net, there are (not) a few who revel in being the "knows" of the web...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,065 |
Perhaps one of the knows would be so kind as to interpret YCLIU for this know not then.
Bingley
Bingley
|
|
|
|
|
