Pronouns and Triviality

@medium-density,

Quote:

Some people (arguably a majority) are made uncomfortable by this sexist pronoun use . . .

Leaving aside that you merely assert, and have not established that the use of "he" for an indeterminate person is sexist, upon what basis do you describe the number of people who are made uncomfortable by this usage are arguably a majority? Is that arguably in the sense of you having credible inferential evidence, or is it arguably in the sense that one can argue just about anything, such as that the moon is made of green cheese?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

The use of "he" for an indeterminate person is sexist. Let me try outlining my argument as to why again.

1. It erases the opposite gender's existence.
2. Depending on the sentence's content it can support sexist narratives (as in my "The artists acts in accordance with his aesthetic persuasion." example).
3. It gives males linguistic dominance over women.

It's no good saying that "he" is taken as universal, since that itself is indicative of the kind of sexism I'm talking about. It is an artefact of language use which shows us how women are regarded as unimportant compared with men, which historically is true. Women were regarded as unimportant compared with men.

This is my opinion, it is based on our history and our culture, and I'd be very interested for someone to suggest an explanation for the fact that "he" is/was used universally which differs from what I say. Genuinely. Everything I've heard in opposition to this point so far seems ahistorical to me.

It is arguably in the sense that my impression was that the "he" as a universal pronoun is an antiquated expression, and that naturally the dissonance of using one gender pronoun to refer to both genders would strike people as sexist. I am less sure of this impression subsequent to this discussion though, and probably wouldn't argue that majority point so confidently.

Can I ask if you'd be comfortable with this if every time you read a pronoun referring to an indeterminate person "she" was used?

4 Replies

The Monty Python angle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

1 Reply

@medium-density,

I don't take it as sexist at all. I understand where you're coming from, but it's a tempest in a teapot to me. I have no problem using 'he' as a universal. Until someone comes up with a better word, that's what I'll continue using. And probably will even after they come up with one. It's difficult to keep up with all the changes (not sure what to call a black person or Indian anymore - what's the latest buzz word?).

I resent being told (not by you, but the language police) what words to use. An example: mankind is now humankind. <rolls eyes>.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

So the differences, such as they are, seem to run in the opposite direction to what medium-dense's theory predicts.

I take it (in part) as a reflection of the feminine gender not being used for 'girl' in German which follows medium-density's theory. And well, not just medium-density's theory.

As Sozobe noted earlier in the thread, there is research out there about the positive effects of gender neutral language (if you think assertive women are a positive).

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Mame. Please! It's "he or she", and "him or her".

I think that would only apply if we didn't know the OP's gender.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

Can I ask if you'd be comfortable with this if every time you read a pronoun referring to an indeterminate person "she" was used?

good question

0 Replies

@fresco,

OMG ! ! ! Fresco posted something funny ? ! ? ! ?

Here, Boss, have a cold drink . . .

http://img2.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/710/media/images/Fresca.jpg

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Gulp !

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Quote:

It gives males linguistic dominance over women.

I have linguistic dominance over women? I kind of like the sound of that.

Does that mean I don't have to put the toilet seat down?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

I have presented you the evidence that causes me to disagree: Germans use "he" when they refer to "a pot". But German attitudes about proper gender roles for pots are the same as American attitudes. Also, Germans use "it" when they refer to "a girl". And yet their attitudes about proper gender roles for girls are the same as in the US, too. I could list several hundred more examples like this.

Gender is not the same thing as sex. Calling a teapot "male" is simply an arbitrary linguistic convention -- it doesn't imply "maleness" to a teapot. Gender need not have any "sex" at all. Swedish, for instance, has two genders: common and neuter. The three genders in German could just as easily be called A, B, and C as masculine, feminine, and neuter.

The usage of "he" as a neutral pronoun in English, however, is sexist. It's a relic of a time when men made the rules of grammar. Not surprisingly, they're the ones who decided that "he" described all persons regardless of sex. We're beyond that now.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

What about the male gender of the German "boy", then? When you hear that German girls are sexless and German boys are not, what do you learn about child-raising in Germany? And how do "girls", which don't have a sex, grow up to be "women", who do?

Moving on to sterile objects, why is the German "pot" both masculine ("Topf") and feminine ("Kanne")? What does that say? Can you look at gender attitudes in France and Germany and explain why the German moon is male, the German sun sun is female, but in France it's the other way round?

All these facts are unproblematic for my theory, which is that grammatical pronouns in a language have little if anything to do with real-world gender attitudes in the society that speaks it. But the theory that there is a lot of influence makes tons of sociological predictions, none of which really check out in a consistent manner. You might as well predict causations either way by flipping a coin.

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Mame. Please! It's "he or she", and "him or her".

I think that would only apply if we didn't know the OP's gender.

Do we? I must have missed where he or she revealed it.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Gender is not the same thing as sex. Calling a teapot "male" is simply an arbitrary linguistic convention -- it doesn't imply "maleness" to a teapot.

And how do you know that calling a person of unspecified sex (or gender) "he" is anything more than an arbitrary linguistic convention? If it was an arbitrary linguistic convention, how would the English language be different? Or are you being facetious and I missed it?

1 Reply

Thanks to joefromchicago and ehBeth for the words of agreement, was beginning to feel quite discouraged with the level of opposition here.

I'd like to ask those who've responded by saying that "he" is not a sexist pronoun: How many of you are men? I ask for no particular reason...

3 Replies

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

I'd like to ask those who've responded by saying that "he" is not a sexist pronoun: How many of you are men?

Here's male #1.

medium-density wrote:

I ask for no particular reason...

Bullshit. You're out of evidence and reasoning, so you're trying to defame your opposition as a club of sexist males. That's the particular reason.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

English is what English is. Who developed it doesn't matter.

English has vestiges of all kinds of things we no longer accept. That's what happens when you speak a language that has been around for a few centuries. Are really going to completely reinvent each language by force each time social standards change?

And far does this go?

- We master a subject (even though there are no more masters). We regulate society and machines (even though there are no kings) and we say the Patriots dominate their opponents (even though there are no more lords).

People still get hysterical (although uteruses no longer cause it) and wonder what possessed them (even though there are no more demons). I am even Jovial on occasion particularly on Thursday.

Language evolves naturally as people use it. This thread itself shows that the use of "he" as a gender neutral pronoun is still in common use. I object to the idea that changing the way English is used, by fiat, has any social benefit. The fact that say I am amused doesn't mean I believe in goddesses controlling my thoughts on the matter.

I don't want to be manhandled into changing my use of common forms of the language. Others may feel this is important...

To each his own.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thanks for answering the question.

It wasn't a trap! I was being openly mischievous, or so I thought.

I do hold a suspicion that it's easier to regard "he" as a gender-neutral pronoun if you're male. That, to my mind, follows just as logically as my other points do.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

I object to the idea that changing the way English is used, by fiat, has any social benefit.

I just can't remember enough to find back what I read recently, but as ehBeth says, there is a lot out there about the social benefit of gender-neutral language. First one I found in a quick search:

Quote:

Three studies assessed whether a common cultural practice, namely, the use of gender-exclusive language (e.g., using he to indicate he or she), is experienced as ostracism at the group level by women. Women responded to the use of gender-exclusive language (he) during a mock job interview with a lower sense of belonging, less motivation, and less expected identification with the job compared to others exposed to gender-inclusive (he or she) or gender-neutral ( one) language (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, the more emotionally disengaged women became over the course of a job interview upon hearing gender-exclusive language, the less motivation and job identification they subsequently reported (Study 3). Together, these studies show that subtle linguistic cues that may seem trivial at face value can signal group-based ostracism and lead members of the ostracized group to self-select out of important professional environments.

http://psp.sagepub.com/content/37/6/757.abstract?etoc

2 Replies

@medium-density,

There are a lot of women here who have said they don't care. That seems to contradict your suspicion.

0 Replies

Pronouns and Triviality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know