Please don’t give counter-examples involving the word “men” when i’m clearly talking about the word “man.” (Which in this case is not the singular for “men” but rather the collective singular short for “humanity” or “mankind.”) A lot of you would like to hear me say thing I am not. A lot of you would like to argue against thing I am not arguing for. Please be more careful.
In another thread today I wrote the sentence, “Malnutrition is bad, and an anorexic MUST get the necessary vitamins, minerals, and proteins. If he does…” despite anorexics being predominantly female. If we keep using the pronoun ‘he’ to replace nouns which are often female-associated, we won’t discover that all our anorexics, teachers, and nurses turn male. We’ll discover that we no longer think of males when hearing the word ‘he’. That’s how language works. We’re not there yet, but we could be.
A big problem was that female-associated nouns were being replaced with “she.” That, absolutely, reinforces gender roles for both female and male occupations and is sexist.
What’s wrong with “Malnutrition is bad, and anorexics MUST get the necessary vitamins, minerals, and proteins. If they do …”?
It might happen, but on the other hand many people have decided that words like “man” and “he” are not appropriate for referring to people who might be male or female. So they have deliberately chosen to use words like “humankind” and “they” instead. That’s also how language works.
No, we can standardize on she. Again, stop reading things which aren’t there (I meant using “he” for male-type nouns and “she” for female-type ones is sexist). Only thing is that it’ll be an uphill battle switching to she. But it’ll be much easier than using invented words. It’ll work same as standardizing on “he”. However, “he” may be the path of least resistence. Still, I’ve already said how converting a word like “he” will take longer (I guess a couple generations) than just adopting a new one (maybe less than one). Repurposing ‘she’ I think will also be quicker. But that’s only if it happens, which I don’t think it ever will.
However, using “he” and “she” as you suggest, and using invented words, are not the only possible alternatives. One very popular solution is using “they”, even when referring to singular nouns. Another is trying to avoid the problem by recasting sentences so that the choice between “he”, “she” and “they” need ot be made.
Alright, we can use they. But what will happen to the use of “they” as the plural? Shall our language lose distinction between the singular third-person pronoun and the plural? That would be a heavy loss. But you’re right, we should explore all alternatives. I’m just postulating one of many (each none too perfect).
Even apart from singular/plural issues, there are all sorts of ways that pronouns can be ambiguous. (How about, “Allan told Bill that Cathy was in love with him”? Who’s the “him” there?) So you (not you Alex, but the generic “you”) always need to be careful in their use (i.e., the use of pronouns) in English.
Come on, you’re asking that we stop using third-person singular indefinate pronouns. Is that really what you want for our language? Maybe it’s a good stop-gap measure, but something better has to be invented for the long term.
That’s true, and in some other languages it works better because the pronoun even communicates the part of speech of the antecdent. If english had that, maybe it’d be easier to do without singular-plural distinctions. But that’s like the only differentiation English even has between indefinite pronouns, beside first/second/third person.
I mean I guess in the most important context, e.g. “jack and jill went up the hill. he rolled around in the grass. she drew water. they went home.” would stay unaltered with singular/pronoun and full gender distinctions to make all antecedents clear. ok, so what can we say is the cost of losing those distinctions in indefinite pronouns?
Friend Alex, I do concur with thou that losing pronoun distinction between plural and singular would be a heavy loss. To thou and the rest of SDMB: what do you think would ensue? Chaos unseen since the dark days of Y2K?
Why, surely fair English should borrow from those paragons of rationalism, the French, whereby a single male (il) amongst a number of females approaching the sublime infinite would entail the male third person plural pronoun (ils). What sterling exempla of logic and reason!
Since thou sayest that thou art freshly minted from public schooling, thou mightst be too young to know that in all discourses up to a certain point, let us say the '50s, the standard singular indefinite pronoun was indeed “he.” The current donneybrook regarding “him/her” is of recent vintage and was intended to correct the inherent problematics of “he” as singular indef. pronouns. So what thou dost propose is a return to older conventions. (Thus, the fairer part of Man, that is to say women, back to the hearth! You are mannish (read: human) chattel, to cook and clean and bear children!)
But seriously, far from being “neutral” in any sense of the word, “he” represents patriarchal domination of women (cf. the French example: is the phallus so powerful that it warps language and the entire female population around its axis?). The “he” standard implies that “she” is subordinate to “he” since “he” is default, and using “man” (which can alternately mean an individual male or (however problematically) all people) in place of humankind is no different. Yes, previous conventional usage allowed broads and fellas to be grouped under the heading Man, but since man also means one dude in modern English usage, we’ve got a problem, wouldst thou not say?
Some people assert that we are what language makes of us. I mean, when’s the last time thou invented a word that subsequently entered the general lexicon? Language is way bigger than thou, buddy, and works and manipulates thou in ways thou doth not suspect.
Finally, Friend Alex, didst thou even read Cecil’s entry?
Alex I’m not sure if you are playing devil’s advocate or if you see using a gender neutral word instead of “he” as a threat to your manhood. Can you give me another example where a word that applies only the minority is used to represent the majority.
An analogy: The verb “to father” means to impregnate. The verb “to mother” means doing everything and anything involved with taking care of another person. When it was discovered sometime in the 1970’s that fathers actually took care of their children (WOW! What a concept!), nobody said the verb 'to mother" could apply to men. Instead, the verb “to parent” is now used, and it’s a good choice. Like the singular “them” and the various indefinite articles, it is more logical and just linguistically correct.
Historian of religion Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, in her New Testament studies, exposed how scholars claim on the one hand that masculine plurals encompass both men and women–and then conclude that terms like the disciples must mean only men.
Alex, I can’t help but find it ironic that while in this thread you keep insisting that language does not subtly affect peoples’ views of the world, in the Roman contraceptives thread you argue:
You manage to be on the wrong side of science for both threads, too, which is another irony.
Exapon Mapcase, (regarding the post immediately above), science hasn’t taken sides on either debate and you’re miserpresenting it to support your own views. Also, my argument regarding prosperity causing changes to the way people think has nothing to do with language.
No, back in the day ‘he’ was used often but not entirely consistently. Female professions would still be referred to using ‘she.’ That was the real source of sexism and any tendency of the use of ‘he’ in enforcing it. If ‘he’ was ALWAYS used as the singular indefinate, even when referring to nouns which have little choice but to signify females, then the word ‘he’ will have no choice but to lose its male connotations even if it still means something male when used as a different part of speech. That is the way language works. Words are even sometimes their own antonyms, and we never think twice of it.
Of course it isn’t the way things work now, so criticisms of the current usage may still be valid. But we can push things in the gender-neutral direction, and I’ll bet anything that it will yield success.
It is not a perfect strategy, but neither is leaving English to have no indefinate pronouns beside ‘you’ and ‘they’.
I don’t go for either-or debates. I know it easily works both ways. However, in the short-run, when language doesn’t have time to adjust, it is more the latter (language affecting thought). In the long-term, when it does, it is the former (thought affecting language). We are talking about long-term strategies, after all. Aren’t we? That is why I don’t want to lose the singular/plural distinction for the next three hundred years just because we are too impatient to wait 30.
People have brought up languages such as French (personally I speak Russian which works the same way) as egregious examples of sexism. What evidence do you have that it enforces sexism? The legendary French oppression of women and their hatred for feminism? See, this is my damn point. Culture is driven by forces which in sum are more powerful than the force of language. However, in regard to the French and Russian insistence to assign every word a gender…a consistent, disinterested grammar becomes taken for granted, becomes transparent, and it does not affect people’s thoughts! If English enforces sexism, it is only because only some of our words have “man” in them, and the choice of which seems almost purposeful.
If we take away the correlation between masculine words and masculine ideas, we will also take away masculine connotations. If ‘he’ wasn’t just used as the indefinate for male-related professions, ‘he’ would never imply that a profession is male-related.
Think about that carefully. Taking away the correlations between words and genders will be just as effective as just taking away the words. I call women chairmen. My children will think chairmen can be women.
God, you are such a retard. If I said something of that ignorant nature to you, I would have already been nailed to a cross. First of all men don’t protect their manhood. They protect their social status. (As do women, and both genders do it in dumb ways.) But the fact that you think that is even applicable to this case… just points out that you have no place engaging in gender debates. Even about language, apparently. Right… not using ‘he’ threatens my manhood. And using the word ‘he’ makes you painfully aware of the men you’ve never had in your life and of your period. Save such bigotry to yourself, you so-called feminist.
Personal insults are not permitted outside the BBQ Pit forum. But you knew that because you’ve been warned before. Do not do this again if you value your posting privileges.
No, I don’t want people to use “he” (or man) when referring to women because it is wrong. I don’t care what anyone says: Masculine words do not include the female.
P.S. I’ve had men in my life, and I’m post-menopausal.
I don’t think it’s worth responding to Alex’s ad hominem attacks. I’ve not had men in my life (well, I have a father and three sons, but I don’t think my relationship with them is quite what is meant here). And I’m not post-menopausal, because people like me don’t get the menopause.
But that’s all irrelevant to whether I think “he” should include “she” and “men” should include “women”. It’s just shoddy thinking, and leads to misunderstanding.
Incidentally, I’m a librarian: in a profession which is traditionally female, and in which the majority of practitioners are female. I hope Alex doesn’t want to think of me as a “she”.
Steven Johnson has an interesting essay in the October 29, 2006 New York Times Book Review. (Subscribers get it early. It doesn’t appear to be online yet.)
As a side point to the main body of the essay, Johnson mentions Keywords, a book by Raymond Williams:
And he obviously could have added “Man” and “he” to that list. Words have both denotations and connotations. They can and do shape thought, discussion, and actions. When these are negative they cannot be left for some indefinite future; they must be changed now, or preferably, yesterday. It is ludicrous to talk of preserving the language for 2300 CE when it shifts from day to day.
I’m not disagreeing with other comments in Alex’s last post. Of course, he does seem to be arguing both sides simultaneously, which makes it easier to agree with him, if somewhat more confusing overall. On the other hand I think, although it’s hard to say, that he’s advocating keeping “man” and “he” to include both males and females but just not thinking of it that way because it would be thought of as neuter.
Alex, the science you reject says that this is a sheer impossibility. It is not the way people use language. That is why we are rejecting your suggestion. The future will thank us for that.
