Actually, that can be considered to be ‘female deletion’, a process of acknowledging the male state of being as being normal and the female as being auxiliary and not necessary to mention.
There’s also a history of courts deciding whether ‘he’ includes or doesen’t include women in non-systematic ways, thereby excluding them (us?) from professional institutions while including them in penalizing regulations.
Oddly enough, the first company I came across that did the switch the gender of the generic pronoun thing on a regular basis was White Wolf. And Alex, I can tell you, if you’ve been excluded from the “generic” pronouns all your life and then suddenly get included, it’s quite a lift. I remember reading about college classes of decades ago, where when the idea was broached in class, most of the students would claim that the gender of the pronouns was no big deal and that there was no reason for ‘those feminists’ to get upset. Then if the teacher proposed a test and switched to using only female pronouns, the male students would react strongly, some of them marching out of the room at being so disrespected.
So there is a repressing effect to an exclusively male pseudogeneric pronoun. Whether it’s a small effect or not depends on circumstances. Personally, I tend to use ‘they’, and if it came to a vote, would probably vote for it. But I have to confess, I really get a kick out of female pseudogenerics.
Yep, that’s me. Most often when I’m writing about “the doctor”, “your lawyer” or even “God”, I’ll intentionally use “she”. I don’t, however, intentionally use “he” for negative or lowly things, just as it feels natural to do so.
And yes, I do it because I think that even a little subtle inconsequential reference to traditional male roles as females is a tweak at history and a good thing for our collective psyches.
I’m an old school guy, and was also automatically included in the generic “he.” When people started twitching about it, I thought it was silly, and also found it difficult to have to write “he or she” every time I really wanted to write “he.” But “she” is just as much of a problem if “he” is. So, at least when I can, I’ve tried to compromise by using “s/he.” It’s the quickest way around what apparently is going to be an impossible wicket. “Their” actually does sound ok sometimes, and works pretty well, but it grates against my ancient grammar instruction, so I rarely use it. Besides, sometimes, it sounds absolutely wrong. I’d hate to see it become common because of those cases.
I’m guilty. I had a few professors in college (UC Santa Cruz) who used “she” exclusively, and I liked the effect.
I was in a very male-dominated field. The first time I read a “she-dominant” text, I did a double take after every sentence. It was only then that I realized that my mental image of just about every job and role in my field was exclusively male. And that really I was viewing males as the norm and females (including myself) as some kind of “other”. It really twisted my mind to think about those jobs as defaulting to female. And that made me think harder about my own thought process as well as the text itself.
Since then I’ve tried to use “she” whenever possible. And I’ll give “he” equal time just as soon as everyone else gives “she” equal time.
How can a 50/50 split not be neutral? Neither is getting priority. Yes, it’s a deliberate usage, done for non-grammatical reasons. Calling it guilty presumes that a person’s word choices must all be non-social or non-political in nature. Yes, it’s propaganda. The subversive idea being promoted is that women are normal.
Per section? I alternate them per usage. Some people get confused and point to where the chaircreature was female in this sentence but male in the next. I accuse them of sexism and it usually shuts them up.
In reality, I swap between them in a somewhat more coherent manner, but am developing a taste for the modern singular use of “they.” My English-major daughter disagrees, preferring the masculine pronouns.
There is NO “default” pronoun in English. Not “he” “she” “it” “they” “s/he” or anything else.
What we’re discussing here is style. The nice thing about style is that it can be adapted as needed.
For example:
Bylaw 1.2: “If the corporate director files a complaint, the complaint shall be heard forwith.”
Bylaw 1.2: “If the corporate director files a complaint, the director shall be heard forwith.”
Bylaw 1.2: “If the corporate director files a complaint, that person shall be heard forwith.”
Bylaw 1.2: “A complaint filed by the corporate director shall be heard forwith.”
I think the crucial words here are ‘of decades ago’. Just look at how much society’s norms, and the laws relating to to, have changed since then. I suspect that if anybody tried the same ‘experiment’ again, they’d have a bored bunch of students thinking ‘oh look, they’re making some laborious point about gender and language’.
Was the text in question about gender roles? If not, then the deliberate use of this pronoun was obviously distracting you from what was actually being said. Do you not worry that this happens to things you write?
Yes, it’s propaganda. So don’t use it in writing that should be level-headed, even-handed, balanced or impartial. If you disagree, tell me that “England expects that every Englishwoman does her duty” doesn’t change Nelson’s message.
Women can’t get deleted. That’s a dumb thing to say. The most that can happen is women can get relocated. But, if every parent and maid and whatever else the oppressed woman does was referred to as ‘he’ what do you think would happen? Would everyone forget women exist? Or will a word lose its connotation, the way guys named Dick don’t get confused with giant roosters?
All I’m saying that neutrality is about a lack of patterns.
Meh. I know it does, and there are times when I’ll use “he” when it is extremely distracting to use “she.” But you know my being a women caused a moment of distraction in my nearly-all-male classes, in work-related functions, etc. If my very existence as my gender is going to be distracting, why shouldn’t it be distracting in my writing, too? I’d much rather be distracting and though-provoking than forgotten.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to imply with this. Because ‘we’ve come a long way, baby’ =! ‘male pseudogeneric pronouns have no effect on speakers.’ As I said before - in some circumstances, the effect may be small.
I haven’t been able to pick it out, do you have any problem with ‘they’?
I don’t. I’m pointing out the effect of ‘he’ on speakers and readers, which you seem to be pooh-poohing. In this decade. And changing quotes is a separate thing entirely. You’re slipping into hyperbole.
I also think that saying
shows a lack of understanding of the situation that even sven is describing. In fact it’s a complete denial of what she experienced and what many other women experienced. When your gender completely shuts down your co-workers ablility to, you know, work with you, then spending time on propaganda in an attempt to get them to get over it could be time well spent.
I’m shyer than that. I’ll use ‘they’ or rewrite sentences. But if someone else is doing it, I’ll enjoy it. And I’ll shake my head over people who find it ‘distracting’. How hard can it be to adjust to?
Since we don’t always use he for the third person pronoun, but rather, use “she” when referring to specific female persons, then you agree that using “he” for cases in which the gender is not specified is sexist, correct?
My older brother, a lawyer, mentioned to me that in law school, all generic third person pronouns were she and her. This apparently changed a decade or more ago.
I’ve read books where the writer changed from “he” to “she” each chapter. Worked fine. Didn’t bother or distract me.
And I just can’t agree that defaulting to a masculine pronoun is no big deal.
It is. It’s exclusive. It’s deletion. If it were happening to the men (who are unhappy enough when they’re only shown in negative circumstances), they would scream blue bloody murder. Hell, just tossing in a few "she"s is enough to rile them.
Think it’s silly? Think it’s petty? Think it shouldn’t matter? Then, just for argument’s sake, let’s reverse the third person singular generic pronoun to a constant she and her for the next several hundred years. We won’t mention the male pronoun in generic terms at all, except maybe to refer to cars, since ships are always “she”. Oh, heck, I won’t even insist on several hundred years. Let’s do it for a decade, and then you can tell us that it’s silly, petty, and not at all exclusionary.
Personally, I’m secretly hoping that a new trend that has started in inner city Baltimore will take hold: “yo” as the gender-neutral pronoun. “Yo is a good guy.” (I imagine they distinguish it from “you” by pronouncing the latter “ya.”)
I read about this somewhere (sorry I don’t remember where, probably “The Week” magazine, which cribbed it from some other publication) and as a fan of HBO’s The Wire, I found it delightful. (They never used “yo” in quite that way in the show, however.)
I would’ve thought they would be distinct anyway, with “yo” rhyming with “snow”, while “you”, even in the standard non-reduced pronunciation, rhymes with “flu”.
