|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511
Carpal Tunnel
|
OP
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 6,511 |
It appears Jo/jmh is leading the way (re: "graduation" board). Congrats on being the first journeyman here, Jo.
This term brings to mind the question of genderless titles, and the use of the masculine pronoun after an antecedent. As a copy editor, I try to use the plural when at all possible ("all students should turn in their homework"), and I'll gladly choose "chairwoman" over "chairperson" - but in this case I just cannot picture "journeywoman." The grammar of other languages I know usually takes the decision out of our hands perforce, but English -- ah, she is tricky. Any comments? Any style manuals anyone would recommend?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
re: genderless pronouns
This is one of those ongoing controversies that I just don't "get" (but then I wouldn't, being a guy). Someone (somewhere) suggested that, rather than agonizing over clumsy formulations just to stay gender neutral, one should just do what comes naturally: use his own gender. Who, in her right mind, would argue with that? (An alternate approach would be to utilize the gender of your projected audience if it's not mixed.)
Oh, I suppose you would if you wanted to remain gender anonymous, but then you're stuck with clumsy formulations and, worse, the reader being distracted and saying to himself "what is the hidden agenda of this writer?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I think the anonomity thing is a bit of a problem. I remember a friend making a statement to a newspaper which then quoted her as a "spokeswoman" for the organisation - as it was a 99% male organisation it made her stand out more than she would have wished.
I have had a long debate about "Chair" recently. I dislike all the alternatives so I tend to avoid it by making lengthy statements like "in the chair".
The underlying question is does change come about by changing the language or by changing the situation of women in society. I really like terms like "firefighter" which make me think that I could be one if I wanted to be one. Changing "man" to "person" tends to sound contrived.
I can tsuwm see why doesn't get it - it's probably just a girl thing (world domination, that is).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
I certainly prefer genderless terms mainly for reasons of good manners, using firemen is to fail to recognise the real risk that female firefighters make. Whinging about 'political correctness' because someone is to lazy to make a few simple changes to their speech doesn't endear me either. Using 'person' may seem contrived and a little awkward but then saying please or thank you can also seem like this at times. Having said this I hope that some terms will lose their gender specific quality in time. Certainly a group of 'lads' will often include women these days and I would rather 'lads' gained the sense of 'pals' than the ugly neologism 'ladettes' gained popular usage.
A form of political 'correctness' I do find offensive however is the commercialisation of some terms. Patients (derived from the Greek for suffering) have become clients (the people who pay in a professional relationship), passengers are now customers etc. The latest form of Orwellian Newspeak I came across was the rather sinister reverse of this where the people who work in a supermarket are no longer staff but are address by their managers as colleagues I suppose an attempt at deemphasizing the unequal relationship between poorly paid checkout staff and better paid managers. As Orwell said War is Peace and colleague is ?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
>Certainly a group of 'lads' will often include women these days
here in the colonies, women at work will often opt (when asked) to be included in "the guys", I suppose as a lesser of many evils.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
Two thoughts -
i) Where did the term "politically correct" come from - was it those who were being "politically correct" (like Philip I tend to think it is more about good manners) or is it really a put-down from those who were opposed to it. I suspect the latter.
I think there has always been a lot of propaganda by those trying to pour scorn on the idea. For example I was working in London when the GLC (Greater London Council, now abolished) was rife with rumours that it wasn't acceptable to use a black board or drink black coffee. I think they were like urban myths, blown out of all proportion by a largely reactionary press.
ii) A way round the problem, like tsuwm's idea of tailoring your words to your audience, is that as it was mainly "man" as in "chairman", "postman" for most of the last millennium we could use "woman" for at least the first half of this millennium, then we could swap back for the next few hundred years ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 5 |
So interesting that we still can't get away from man, even though we switch genders. How about a new one-syllable
word for the the fe-male gender?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
jmh writes: "...we could use "woman" for at least the first half of this millennium, then we could swap back for the next few hundred years..."
<G> here's an even better idea that would let people see democracy in action: use "woman" whenever we have a woman president and "man"...
*<8-)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
Perhaps since we seem to have widely adopted 'kid' for children we should adopt 'nanny' and 'billy' to avoid gender terms which appear to make women a subset of men. I also quite like the various spellings of women that take the men out of it (wimmin, wymyn, &c.) Perhaps we should also lobby for changes at other levels; homo sapian (thinking man) should be replaced with the more evolutionary accurate and none gender specific anthropoid sapian (thinking ape).
There are also times when changing the language is not the answer to changing attitudes and more fundamental changes have to occur or we get the silly situation where words just develop two opposing meanings (as in 'health care' which is, of course, concerned with illness)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
I'm not sure that the second part of your message is really "political correctness" - I suspect cynical marketing speak is at work, trying to make railway staff think of us as customers when we all know we are really passengers.
Calling even very junior staff colleagues or team members is about trying to build self-esteem but I think you're right it just devalues the words in the end. People know when they really are just drones. I wonder how the staff of John Lewis' (UK department store) feel about being called "partners" - which they always have been - although some have always been more equal than others.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 1,981 |
tsuwm offers: here's an even better idea that would let people see democracy in action: use "woman" whenever we have a woman president and "man"...
That seems a perfectly reasonable offer. Looking at England to begin with, if we tot up a few dates:
1553-1558 Mary I
1558-1603 Elizabeth I
1702-1714 Anne
1837-1902 Victoria
1953- Elizabeth II
We'll carry those 174 years forward to use in this millennium, just to make things even. If we're only allowed Prime Ministers than we'll have to allow for at least ten years(1979-1990 Margaret Thatcher).
I suppose you'll just have to wait for a little longer in the USofA - although, I thought Hilary Rodham Clinton was running the country most of the time while her husband was otherwise engaged in the Oval office - surely that's worth a few credit points.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
"If we're only allowed Prime Ministers than we'll have to allow for at least ten years(1979-1990 Margaret Thatcher)."
first you'll need to firmly establish Thatcher's credentials.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
In honor of becoming a "journeyman" with this post, I'd like to get serious in the event (it's going to be a stretch for me). I wrote way back that I didn't get it; now here's why: it didn't have to be like this. We all know that one of the senses of "man" is "human being". And in fact, here is the entry from the AHD which covers the combinational form:
3. A human being or an adult male human being belonging to a specific occupation, group, nationality, or other category. Often used in combination: a milkman; a congressman; a freeman. [or Frenchman]
So, my question to you all is: who decided that we should always assume that "an adult male human" is stipulated by these combinations? Carrying political correctness to its logical extreme, we would arrive at "huwoman" I suppose?!
Oh, and BTW, the logical single-syllable representation would be "fem"; but that's been corrupted too.
...told you this would be a stretch for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81
journeyman
|
|
journeyman
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 81 |
I suppose the introduction of commercial based 'newspeak' might not be considered political correctness by those who don't think commercialism and marketing are forms of political activity, although they certainly have more direct affect on my life than political feminism. As to John Lewis's although it is an unequal stratified organisation it is fundamentally syndicalist and my experience is that this general means the staff appear happier and give a warm and more human service. The difference mainly being that John lewis use a term that reflects the actuality, if imperfectly achieved, of their set up and other store are using language to try and give an impression of a set up that does not exist.
One of the great achievements of feminist thinking is to show how powerful language can be in molding personal and political behaviour. However, I remain of the opinion that it is mainly a matter of good manners to use language which does not exclude people, when these people should be included. At times this requires though, care and expressions which seem a little convoluted but I hold that inconsideration and laziness are poor excuses for being rude.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 23
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 23 |
To respond to all postings at once....
What is this homo sapiAn..........the man
and homo sapiEns............the women
of course...there is always the one about the cost of surgery on the woman's brain.....less than the man(z) because it's used....
Tu
Tu
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Mar 2000
Posts: 11,613 |
Philip wrote:
...inconsideration and laziness are poor excuses for being rude.
Amen!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 33
newbie
|
|
newbie
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 33 |
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,351
Members9,182
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
775
guests, and
0
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
