Pronouns and Triviality

@sozobe,

It would be interesting to know the methodology. This line:

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) . . . (emphasis added)

. . . from the abstract strongly suggests that the authors, or the reviewer, approach the subject with an agenda.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

That's interesting Sozobe. I wish I could read more about the study. This is the type of argument that would be most likely to change my mind.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I am also completely willing to accept changing fireman -> firefighter. I don't know what you can do about nurse (which certainly implies a task that only women can perform). Changing a specific case where social norms have changed seems a lot more reasonable to me than changing a core rule of grammar.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I admire some of what you say in your last reply, but I just want to clarify something you ask about here:

Quote:

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?

I accept the first and second sentences wholeheartedly. Where I think a mistake is being made is in your characterisation of how language does change, and how it shouldn't change.

Simply, language does change in line with social standards. Feminists raised our consciousness about gender pronouns and other linguistic inequalities, and so institutions like the American Philosophical Association (as well as another APA, the American Psychological Association) changed in line with the new social consciousness. Though it's clear that this was a woefully incomplete revolution, and the trickle down from academia to everyday use has been sluggish.

Here is a link with more detail about the kind of change I'm talking about: http://www.apaonline.org/APAOnline/Publications/Informational_Booklets_Pamphlets_HomePage/Guidelines_for_Non-Sexist_Use_of_Language.aspx

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Again, though, avoiding the use of "he" or "him" to refer to a group made up of both males and females is really not that difficult to do.

I've been writing and editing professionally on and off for about 12 years, and this comes up pretty often. It's really easy to rephrase, so that no existing grammatical rules are broken but the language becomes more inclusive. (And as I indicated before, I do that in both directions; whether the author is assuming that teachers are female or that doctors are male, I change the language to something more inclusive.)

1 Reply

@medium-density,

I don't have any respect for either of the of the organizations you list, and I certain don't accept their authority over the English language. Of course they have the right to regulate their own use of the language as much as I do.

I reject these attempts to change the language by fiat. I hope they fail.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

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?

Yes, it is an arbitrary convention. That doesn't mean that all arbitrary conventions are the same. In particular, there's a big difference between calling an unknown person "he" in English and calling an unknown teapot "he" in German. English doesn't have linguistic gender, so calling anything a "he" or "she" (such as ships) implies a sexual distinction that is absent from a language that has linguistic gender, such as German.

1 Reply

A challenge -- write a sentence where you think only the male pronoun will do, and I'll see how hard it is to change.

(Note, in case it needs saying, I mean a situation where the male pronoun is being used in a general way, not like "Barack Obama said that his dog Bo is awesome.")

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Sure Sozobe. But you are changing, restricting, the way that English can be used.

In common speech I am simply not going to worry about it. In certain professional circumstances I have changed my writing style to match some expectation of political correctness. But, going following expectations in professionally is just smart.

In certain circumstances, in my opinion the best way to express ideas are better expressed in a non politically correct way.

"Peace on Earth and goodwill toward men." is just more powerful and poetic than "Peace on Earth and goodwill toward people." "To boldly go where no man has gone before." was a better tagline than the new "To boldly go where no one has gone before". A personeating tiger is a little less menacing.

The OP was suggesting that we should follow his rules of political correctness on Able2Know. I don't accept this restriction on a public forum such as this.

But to each his own.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Here is your challenge.

Quote:

I don't want to be manhandled into changing the way I write. To each his own.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

I don't have any respect for either of the of the organizations you list, and I certain don't accept their authority over the English language. Of course they have the right to regulate their own use of the language as much as I do.

Somewhat stunned that you'd reject the American Psychological Association -the study that sozobe posted the abstract from could well have been an APA study, and whichever psychological institution produced that report would at least have recognised the eminence of that organisation, which is the largest and most authoritative psychological organisation in the world.

Obviously they have nothing resembling jurisdiction over any individuals language-use, and nor should they. But they've adopted this change because of reasoned and evidential arguments made over a series of decades, not arbitrarily.

I think you'd find a lot of interesting materials if you had a cursory look at the link I posted.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Idioms are their own category.

Rather than changing "catch a nigger by the toe" to "catch a tiger by the toe," better to use another idiom entirely IMO.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

So...

I don't want anyone to force me to change the way I write. I march to the beat of my own drum.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

You can check people's profiles by clicking on their usernames; sometimes posters do fill out the profiles.

I'm an older woman who considers herself a feminist and is not particularly bothered by one of the usages of the words he, him, or his is as a universal pronoun. To me it's a routine usage. There are probably some who use it in a sexist way, but not a lot that I've encountered lately. It bothers me more as potentially confusing, perhaps in some rapid conversation, so I try to use other wording. I think his or hers is awkward though I've used it, and feel worse about their for a singular.

0 Replies

@sozobe,

Nah ... Sozobe, you are changing the sentiment, and even the meaning of what I am writing. The term manhandle comes with an idea of pressure against my will and even hints of violence. It is good verb to express a specific sentiment. The verb "force" isn't the same thing.

You probably can get away with this kind of change in a professional setting. But in this context, it doesn't work at all.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

"Peace on Earth and goodwill toward men." is just more powerful and poetic than "Peace on Earth and goodwill toward people."

Personally, I'd prefer "goodwill toward all," because it maintains the original's rhythm.

maxdancona wrote:

"To boldly go where no man has gone before." was a better tagline than the new "To boldly go where no one has gone before".

I actually like the new version better.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Yeah, but I made a point about idioms.

I went ahead anyway, but when I brought up this challenge I meant just standard "he"/"him" etc, usage.

Like, "Any writer knows that he will have an easy time of changing a given non-idiomatic sentence to gender-neutral language."

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

manhandled

IMO, strong-armed would be more vivid, but to each one's own.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Yeah, that totally works.

I won't be strong-armed into changing the way I write. I march to the beat of my own drummer.

0 Replies

Meanwhile, another study (also a quick find):

Quote:

Despite recent efforts to eliminate sexist language from journal and other publications, controversy persists over whether sexist language contributes to the perpetuation of sex bias. Seventy-two female and 57 male undergraduates were exposed to three levels of sexist noun and pronoun usage in a description of “Ethical Standards of Psychologists.” All subjects then rated the attractiveness of a career in psychology for males and females, and their own willingness to refer a male or female friend to a psychologist. In several instances, ratings of career attractiveness and willingness to refer were found to vary in sex-role stereotypic directions as a function of degree of exposure to sexist language. Recent demands for nonsexist language may be supportable on the basis of a genuine relationship between sexist language and the maintenance of sex-biased perceptions.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00290069?LI=true

2 Replies

Pronouns and Triviality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know