Re: Gender in language

From: David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>

Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:53:44 +0000

"AC" writes:
> You can recognize them easily.  They are the ones that tried to create
> the word "herstory" because they apparently did not know the etymology
> of the word "history".  This is why I think we should be very careful
> before we cave to such interests over words.

I think you are completely mistaken that such ideas are based in
ignorance or misinformation.  They are based on a difference of opinion,
which has nothing to do with etymology.

However, as I said, I've never met any person who holds such positions,
and I think introducing such positions is a strawman.

> I am not a sexist, I don't consider women inferior.  I believe in
> equal pay for equal jobs.  At the same time, I still call the guy the
> delivers my mail the "mail man".  If it's a woman, then "mail lady"
> seems sufficient.  I don't see that it creates any overly
> paternalistic view of women to say "garbage man", or to refer to
> Katherine Hepburn as an "actress".

I think distinguishing between people based on sex in situations where
that distinction is irrelevant doesn't accomplish any useful purpose.
One could imagine a world where we use one word for people with college
degrees, and another word for people without college degrees.  Every
time we refer to any person, we make sure to use the correct term for
that person's level of education.  We could, of course, explain to
everyone that we don't discriminate at all, we treat the two different
kinds of people exactly the same, even though we use different words for
them.  But that raises the question of why we make such a distinction,
and whether repeating the distinction over and over has some effect on
people's expectations, regardless of whether or not that's the intent.

> In fact, I'm not afraid to recognize the gender of the person at the
> other end of my sensory apparatus, so terms like "actress" seem
> logical when talking about a female that acts.  It's considerably
> easier and less grating than "woman actor".

The term "actor" seems logical to me.  "Woman actor" seems as irrelevant
as "college-educated actor" or "actor over 5 foot 6 inches tall" or
"actor with freckles".  All of those qualifiers might be true, but so
what?  Why insert them into the conversation over and over, if you
really don't think that they are relevant?

My impression, for what it's worth, is that most woman actors would
rather be called "actor" than "actress".  Does what people want enter
into your calcuation?

David desJardins

References

Re: Gender in language
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:48:57 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:10:15 +0000
Re: Gender in language
AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:36:24 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:07:46 +0000
Re: Gender in language
AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:37:13 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:41:55 +0000
Re: Gender in language
AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:43:18 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:07:58 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Gender in language
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:48:57 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 18:10:15 +0000
Re: Gender in language
AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 19:36:24 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:07:46 +0000
Re: Gender in language
AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:37:13 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:41:55 +0000
Re: Gender in language
AC <spam@nospam.com.invalid>
Tue, 12 Nov 2002 01:43:18 +0000
Re: Gender in language
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Mon, 11 Nov 2002 07:07:58 +0000