🚀 go-pugleaf

Linda Carson recently posted an exposition on the effects and costs of 
sexual stereotyping in language.  It was very clear and well stated, 
and concluded with:

LC> It takes an effort to strip sexual stereotyping from language. But it's
LC> not rocket science, folks. It's important, and it's worth the
LC> effort.

I would like to collect here some extracts from the responses that have 
been posted:


Adrian Pepper:

AP> Myself, I think it would be a more powerful solution to continue the
AP> use of masculine names and pronouns, making it clear that they should
AP> not be construed as making assumptions about the actual sex of
AP> individuals involved.  


Paul Colley:

PC> What I think I'm trying to say is, part of the problem is the
PC> _importance_ that readers place on the words "he" vs. "she".  To pick
PC> an analogy, "color" is correct American spelling, and "colour" is
PC> correct British spelling, but nobody gets upset at "color" vs. "colour"
PC> (at least here in Canada).  By making a big deal about it, you seem to
PC> be saying that your gender is important.  If your gender didn't matter
PC> in the current context, you wouldn't be so upset.
PC>
PC> Incidently, I wasn't aware that "Dear Sir" was a male salutation.  I've
PC> used that salutation when I _know_ the recipient is female.  For
PC> example, in accepting job offers; both of my work term employment
PC> offers were from women.


Brad Templeton:

BT> But is it bias?  (in the negative sense?)  Assuming that one is referring
BT> to a person of unknown sex, and one is one of those conditioned not to
BT> use asexual pronouns, is there an evil in taking the best guess?


Naji Mouawad:

NM> No need for such a qualifier. French is gendered and I happen to like
NM> it that way.
NM> 
NM> Other than that, this issue of 'he' versus 'she' is just not an issue.
NM> Removing the gender is like preparing a 'boeuf Bourgignon' without salt
NM> and wine; tastless.
NM> 
NM> If a person doesn't feel insecure about her position and abilities,
NM> then calling her 'Dear Sir' or 'Dir Madame' will make her smile.
NM> 
NM> I prefer saying 'he' all the time and keep the use of 'she' for those
NM> special people that somehow did not invent war, did not invent the
NM> atomic bomb, did not invent torture, domination, and did not force
NM> me to leave my country for fear of being killed.


The first point to be made is that the respondents to Linda's posting have
been, at least as far as it is possible to conclude from names and content, 
male.

The second point is that all of these respondents have argued that the
issue of gender bias in language is really a non-issue.

This, I submit, is the major problem that women face in trying to attain
equality:  Men insist on being the arbiters of what is important to women.

Most, possibly all, of the people quoted above would claim that they are
sensitive to women's issues, and will be quite indignant when I suggest 
that they are not.  The simple fact is that in order to be sensitive
to the issues of a group to which you do not belong, you must be willing
to accept that group's designation of which issues are important.  To do
otherwise is to be satisfied with tokenism.  The four respondents I have
quoted above are all guilty of this.

Responding individually:

  To Adrian: 
    The idea of somehow emasculating the masculine pronoun, except
    when it shouldn't be emasculated, sounds like a classic ivory tower
    research project.  Exactly how do you propose to explain to a child
    that "he" means "person" except when it means "he".  How do you 
    propose that people differentiate these cases?  Think of it this
    way: Would you be equally happy if it were decided to use the
    feminine pronoun for the gender-neutral case?  The problem is that
    our language is *not* gender neutral.  It is masculine dominant,
    and the consequences of that, as Linda so clearly illustrated, are
    not insignificant.

  To Paul:
    What you are saying is simply that men don't think the pervasive use
    of the masculine pronoun is a big deal, so why should women?  I would
    rephrase this: Since women think the pervasive use of the masculine
    pronoun is a big deal, why don't men?

    (On another point you raised in your article, Linda was certainly not
    saying that the gender of the boss in question important.  She was
    saying that *assumptions* about that gender are important.)

    Your claim that "Dear Sir" is gender neutral is simply a reflection
    of your sex and your society: Business letters get written to people
    in traditionally male domains, so if women want to enter such domains
    they should be willing to accept that most people will assume they are
    men.  You actually go even further: you use the salutation "Dear Sir"
    even when you *know* the recipient is a woman.  This is the height of
    insensitivity, and if the recipients of those letters didn't let you
    know it, perhaps it was not because, as you imply, they were not
    offended, but rather because they could not afford to be offended,
    that their situation demanded that they feign indifference.

  To Brad:
    Linda pointed out the reality of the "best guess" argument: it is
    self-fulfilling prophecy.  Use "he" when discussing doctors to a grade
    school class, and "she" when discussing nurses, and the message is
    unmistakable.  So the answer to your question is a resounding: Yes,
    it is evil.

  To Naji:
    This article is a classic of male chauvinism and sexual stereotyping.
    I had trouble reading this without gagging, and I could hear echos
    of Linda doing the same.

    Naji happens to like the fact that French is gendered.  "He" versus
    "she" is "just not an issue".  Hey, well, Naji has spoken, so what's
    left to say?  

    NM> If a person doesn't feel insecure about her position and abilities,
    NM> then calling her 'Dear Sir' or 'Dir Madame' will make her smile.

    Make "her" smile?  Why is it that you assume a person who is insecure
    about their position must be female?

    NM> I prefer saying 'he' all the time and keep the use of 'she' for those
    NM> special people that somehow did not invent war, did not invent the
    NM> atomic bomb, did not invent torture, domination, and did not force
    NM> me to leave my country for fear of being killed.

    I hate to burst your bubble, Naji, but a lot of terrorists are women,
    and, to name but one figure of historical significance, Jesus was a
    man.  Women do not *want* to be on this pedestal where you insist on
    putting them.  They want *equality*, both equality of respect and
    equality of opportunity.  Attitudes such as yours confine them to
    being mere decorations.  I am glad you were able to escape your
    country with your life, but I think you brought too much baggage with
    you.  So take the money you were going to spend on that fine wine for
    toasting women and donate it to a shelter for battered women.  It will
    be much more appreciated.

As a final point, consider the following:  The reason the issue we are
discussing is called that of "inclusive language" is because to more than
50% of the poulation of the earth, the status quo is exclusive.

*D*