next »

[jonesey]

From Mirriam-Webster Online:

man:
"1b : the human race : HUMANKIND

Here it is again:  hu-man.  I don't see recall seeing a  hu-woman

In this history, you just can't get away from the gender bias of language.

I find it fascinating that intelligent people are losing sleep over "gender bias of language." 

[just_dave]

In Saudi Arabia you can find "humburger" for sale in the supermarkets.  Because, of course, that "other" word is haraam.

[neutralname]

I find it fascinating that intelligent people are losing sleep over "gender bias of language." 

I'm amazed that you are fascinated.  As I said on a previous thread, the issue of how to use non-sexist language was an issue of debate all through grad school for me.  Are there grad schools where this never came up?  In Arts & Sciences?  Most of us care a great deal about language, and many believe that how we use language reflects how we think and affects how we behave. 

[infopri]

I'm amazed that you are fascinated.  As I said on a previous thread, the issue of how to use non-sexist language was an issue of debate all through grad school for me.  Are there grad schools where this never came up?  In Arts & Sciences?  Most of us care a great deal about language, and many believe that how we use language reflects how we think and affects how we behave. 

It also affects how we think, which is why it affects how we behave.

[adhoc]

As I said on a previous thread, the issue of how to use non-sexist language was an issue of debate all through grad school for me.

I think a big part of the problem, in general, is the mis-characterization of the generic uses of "he" and "man" as sexist. 

[dr_crankypants]

I think a big part of the problem, in general, is the mis-characterization of the generic uses of "he" and "man" as sexist. 

The generic use of "he" and "man" is linguistic coverture.

[jonesey]

I'm amazed that you are fascinated.  As I said on a previous thread, the issue of how to use non-sexist language was an issue of debate all through grad school for me.  Are there grad schools where this never came up?  In Arts & Sciences?  Most of us care a great deal about language, and many believe that how we use language reflects how we think and affects how we behave. 

This never came up in undergrad or grad school, and I'm an English professor.  : )  Really.  It just wasn't an issue. 

I think a big part of the problem, in general, is the mis-characterization of the generic uses of "he" and "man" as sexist.

I totally agree.  It strikes me as the worst sort of stereotypical Left wing hysteria that gives academics a bad name.

[fiona]

"He" and "man" have been recognized as sexist language for thirty years. The National Council of Teachers of English, MLA, and other organizations long ago issued statements, as did publishers, esp. among university presses. See Casey Miller and Kate Swift's Handbook of Non-Sexist Language (I think that's its name), from the 1970s.

I'm amazed that the subject is new to some folks here.

Of course the way we express ourselves reflects an attitude toward the world, and if women are made invisible in language, they/we are also diminished in real life.

The Fiona, all for a many-gendered world

[iomhaigh]

nhaven1: seems to be about time to replenish the supplies.  I'm going to go restock the ice in the cooler and get a couple of steaks for the grill. 

Can I grab you anything? 

Anyone else need refreshments? 

[neutralname]

This never came up in undergrad or grad school, and I'm an English professor.  : )  Really.  It just wasn't an issue. 

I'm gobsmacked.  All I can conjecture is that you must have been at an atypical graduate school, or you must be more than 70 years old. 

[voxprincipalis]

As I said on a previous thread, the issue of how to use non-sexist language was an issue of debate all through grad school for me.

I think a big part of the problem, in general, is the mis-characterization of the generic uses of "he" and "man" as sexist. 

Right. Because before the 19th Amendment, men could vote. After the 19th Amendment, men can vote. Clears it all up, eh?

You can't ask the reader to mind-read when you mean only persons of the male gender and when you men persons of either gender, or a person of unknown gender.

I think I will start using "she" and "woman" as gender-inclusive terms. After all, all men start out as women, so it should make perfect sense.

VP

[prof_mom]

From Mirriam-Webster Online:

man:
"1b : the human race : HUMANKIND

Here it is again:  hu-man.  I don't see recall seeing a  hu-woman

In this history, you just can't get away from the gender bias of language.

I find it fascinating that intelligent people are losing sleep over "gender bias of language." 

The convention of using "man" to mean all people originates with the patriarchal society. Remember that when the Constitution was written, women could not vote or own property and were not seen as true citizens. In fact, they were largely seen as property at this point.

I admit that I only make .70 to the dollar of most men. However, I will not allow them to avoid including me in language and discussions.

Using "he" and "Man" in the generic is even called gender exclusive language in the APA guide. Where are you publishing that this is not an issue?

[dolljepopp]

An example: Yesterday my colleague stole my lunch out of the fridge and ate it. I knew hu did it because hu had mayo on hus face and my sandwich had a lot of mayo on it.  I asked hu if hu ate my sandwich, but hu denied it. Hu really pissed me off.  Hu is a no good, lunch stealing son of a hu (oops, I mean, hu of a hu).   

I used to be quite vehemently anti-hu.  I have changed somewhat.  Now I think the problem is that hu is actually too limiting.  I propose a set of seven gender-neutral pronouns, each to be used on a specific day of the week.

In addition to hu and the aforementioned zhe, I suggest glorp, urm, wol, xqz, and §§§.  Possessives (to solve an ongoing grammatical problem with hu) shall in all instances be designated with the pi sign.  (If one's computer does not easily produce the sign, it can be numerically designated -- to two decimal points: 3.14).  Plurals in all instances (replacing "they" and "them") shall be designated by typing that day's pronoun twice.  (Hyphen usage shall be left to individual preference; therefore, "glorpglorp" and "§§§§§§" carry the same meanings as "glorp-glorp" and "§§§-§§§").

All objective cases shall be designated with the use of all-caps and the bold and underline features.

Obviously, xqz is the only possible choice for Tuesday, but I am open to suggestions as to which new word should be used on each of the other days.

Using johnr's excellent mayonaise example above with glorp (and adding a few sentences to demonstrate the plural function) we would thus have on every designated glorp day:

"Yesterday my colleague stole my lunch out of the fridge and ate it. I knew glorp did it because glorp had mayo on glorp3.14 face and my sandwich had a lot of mayo on it.  I asked GLORP if glorp ate my sandwich, but glorp denied it. Glorp really pissed me off.  Glorp is a no good, lunch stealing son of a glorp (oops, I mean, glorp of a glorp).

Do others have these kind of inconsiderate people in glorp-glorp3.14 departments?  If so how do you deal with GLORP-GLORP?  To me, glorp-glorp're just so annoying."

See how clear and easy that is?

Humbly hoping I have been of some small service...

[infopri]

Is it my imagination, or are all the people vehemently attaching hu use male?

I know that not all women use or even like hu.  I'm just asking about those actively advocating against its use.  Am I crazy?  Or just hysterical?

[case_insensitive]

Is it my imagination, or are all the people vehemently attaching hu use male?

I know that not all women use or even like hu.  I'm just asking about those actively advocating against its use.  Am I crazy?  Or just hysterical?

Well, you might be crazy or you might be hysterical, but that is beside the point. :o)

I think "hu" is stupid but I'm not vehemently attacking its use.  Maybe that's because I'm female? ;-)