Fine-Tuning 16, The Generic "He" and How to Avoid It

Whoops!. My bad. CMS used to like "they," now they don't.

From their Web site:

Quote:

Q. I would swear that I saw a reference in your manual that approved of the use of “their” instead of a gender-biased singular pronoun. For example, “If the user has completed installing the program, they should put the CD-ROM back in the package,” instead of “If the user has completed installing the program, s/he should put the CD-ROM back in the package,” but on your Q&A, you dance around the answer to the question and suggest that you do NOT approve of the singular “their.” Can you tell us what is acceptable?

A. Yes, you saw it at 2.98 (note 9) in the fourteenth edition, but there was some regret at having written it, and we decided not to second the idea in the fifteenth edition. Though some writers are comfortable with the occasional use of they as a singular pronoun, some are not, and it is better to do the necessary work to recast a sentence or, other options having been exhausted, use he or she. For a fuller discussion of this issue, see paragraphs 5.43 and 5.202–6 in CMS 15, including the entry for “he or she” under the “Glossary of Troublesome Expressions” at paragraph 5.202

I hope this further confuses the subject.

Smile

1 Reply

I would be as uncomfortable with the she as the he. (Although I just intimated, a while back, that I could, in contrast to Roberta, imagine going back to he or him meaning any human, as some kind of relief.) While I can imagine it, I don't actually want to go back to that usage.

This all reminds me a little of Mr., Mrs., and Ms. I am neither Mr. nor Mrs., and don't particularly like Ms. I tend to skip any of these, except under force.

0 Replies

Dupre, I'm glad to learn that the editors at CMS have come to their senses. Let's face it. "They" ain't singular.

I understand why you think that a generic "she" would be more appropriate than a generic "he." I object to a generic "he" or "she." When the women's movement raised the issue of sexist language, it was for the purpose of making people aware of how exclusionary it was and how little girls would learn to see the world in masculine terms because the language was geared that way. (I attended the language discussions at NOW for the publishing company I worked for.) I have to assume that little boys would feel excluded if a generic "she" replace the generic "he."

Despite the fact that we're all conceived as females, by the time we're born half of us (give or take a percentage point) are boys. And, IMO, boys have as much right to linguistic specificity as girls do.

2 Replies

Walter's post brings up an interesting point. There are many situations where one can use 'one' instead of 'he' or 'she'. And, unlike in German, there would be no confusion in English.

0 Replies

PS -- Roberta, I have this sneaking feeling I agree with McTag on this as I do on most nonsense that has to do with PC. However, I do understand your concern and sympathize with people of the female persuasion regarding this linguistic problem.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

And, unlike in German, there would be no confusion in English.

There isn't one for most Germans as well.

But, since I taught "anti-sexistic-boys-and emancipating-girls-work" (which means, I used to be a 'youth worker' with a diploma in sexual pedagogics :wink: ), I have been 'filled up' with PC up to the ... whatever Very Happy

.

0 Replies

I didn't really mean 'confusion,' Walter. But it's possible to make puns on 'man' and 'Mann' in German, while that's not so with 'one' and 'man' in English.

0 Replies

I know, Andrew, just wanted to explain my fine humour on this she/he-topic :wink:

0 Replies

PC talk troubles me a lot. And coupled with feminism, has led to a lot of absurdity.
I'm quite happy to use "chair" instead of chairman, but it is a bit daft, and took a bit of getting used to.
However for old-established expressions like "mankind" or "the brotherhood of man" meaning EVERYBODY, is it too much to ask that the feminists relax a bit? No-one misunderstands these phrases, and they're not putting women down, not at least in my judgement.
They're just traditional catch-all expressions, and they don't need to be reinvented or modernised. IMHO.

0 Replies

I agree, McTag. When Alexander Pope opined that 'the proper study of mankind is man,' I'm sure he didn't mean to leave out women. I think that by misreading the inherent meaning in these words we are just complicating an already complex grammatical structure. I always understood that 'mankind' and 'humankind' are synonims. It's just easier to say 'mankind.' In balmier pre-PC days fracturing the meaning of such expressions was any good comedian's stick in trade. I recall a Groucho Marx line where, in the guise of the confused professor, he says, "This elixir will benefit all mankind." Pause. "It won't hurt womankind either." Uproarious laughter because at the time the word 'womankind' could only be said as a joke.

0 Replies

It would be fine if man was actually understood by all as humankind. The word has been used to mean either the male alone or humankind, depending on context, during centuries when women couldn't vote, own property, and much else.

I have spoken here about possibly relaxing myself if I didn't always have to figure how to have it clear that women were included without sounding idiotic, or pc contrived. I maintain, though, that clarity about women being included in the group discussed - either by explicitness, or a word that isn't fuzzy about including all - is still important.

0 Replies

"Humankind" is better than "mankind."

"One" is better than "he."

It's not really that hard, is it?

Supposedly, in Hebrew there is a gender-neutral pronoun, and when the Bible was translated to English, we didn't have one.

Can anyone confirm?

Instread of "man-made," couldn't we say "people-made."

I mean, really, why not?

My comment about "she" as a generic pronoun was made tongue-in-cheek.

But, it does strike a chord. Men don't always like to recognize their feminine origins. Smile

0 Replies

Well, dupre, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think "people-made" is absurd.

I realise it's probably in the ear of the beholder......

Hey listen, have you any German?

Liebe Hoerer und Hoererinnen......( Dear male listeners and female listeners.....)

Do you want to use that approach? We could just about double the length of any standard text! Think how the printers would love it!

0 Replies

When we seriously consider this kind of nonsense, we are forgetting that expressions such as 'man- made' are already, ipso facto, gender- neutral. It is obvious to everybody, after all, that a large part of the workforce which makes these things is female. Again, 'man' here is used in the sense of 'person.' Anyone who does not understand this is not Politically Correct but, rather, ignorant of the definitions of certain words e.g. man, mankind etc.

0 Replies

I don't like people or humanmade either. I don't like contrived pc words. I do understand manmade means by a man or woman.

Maybe the founding fathers and Alexander Pope meant to include women. To some extent. Many times over the years man meant only man, though, and only certain men at that.

I would rather just say made by hand.

0 Replies

I agree on that completely, Osso. Only problem is that 'made by hand' would be confused with 'hand-made' which means something quite different from 'man-made.'

0 Replies

You are right...I wasn't thinking of that. I did mean handmade. As to manmade lakes, I can't immediately think of an improvement, and besides, it's obvious, which was your point.

0 Replies

Osso, in the case of 'manmade lakes', at least, you could substitute 'artificial lakes.' I suppose. But uou couldn't say ' artificial shoes.' They're real, all right, but the leather is 'man-made' not 'natural.'

0 Replies

Artificial lakes? Constructed lakes? Lakes poured in place? Manmade sounds better.

0 Replies

I agree completely, Osso. Manmade does sound better. But after I had posted my last post (don't mean that literally; hope not anyway) it occurred to me that in a lot of situations where we say 'manmade' we could substitute 'artificial' or 'synthetic.' That's only for the ultra-PC, of course, but anything is better than 'people-made.'

0 Replies

Fine-Tuning 16, The Generic "He" and How to Avoid It

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know