Conference thebay::joyoflex

    Interesting thought.  But humans do belong to one sex or the other,
    all the time.  Cultural definitions of "masculine" and "feminine"
    are less important than biological ones -- XY vs. XX chromosomes.
    (Disregarding XXY hermaphrodites, of course!)
    
    Gender and sex are different concepts.  Words have gender that has
    no relation at all to sex.  In Spanish, which is still engendered
    (unlike English) with regard to most nouns, "pluma" (pen) is feminine
    while "lapiz" (pencil) is masculine.  What does this have to do
    with sexual identity?  Gender does serve a function, though --
    when using an engendered adjective in a case where it may refer
    to two different nouns, it refers to the one where the gender matches.
    In most cases, "gender" could be called "orange" and "blue" rather
    than "masculine" and "feminine" for all it matters.
    
    Sex and gender are inimately connected in English because only
    sexually-related words still have gender identity.  He is a boy,
    she is a girl, it is a VAX.  The incorrectness of using the neuter
    (it) for a person causes much grief among strident anti-semantic
    feminist-types and others who don't like the language and won't
    cooperate with it.

    Re .1:
    
    > Words have gender that has no relation at all to sex. . . .  In most
    > cases, "gender" could be called "orange" and "blue" rather than
    > "masculine" and "feminine" for all it matters. 
    
    Are you sure about that?  I'd be surprised if the set of masculine
    words did not denote many more objects that are generally considered
    more male-like and male-related than the objects of the feminine words. 
    
    > The incorrectness of using the neuter (it) for a person causes much
    > grief among strident anti-semantic feminist-types and others who don't
    > like the language and won't cooperate with it. 
    
    1)	As we have learned, "they" is an appropriate pronoun for the
    	third-person singular, so there need be no more grief.
    
    2)	What on Earth is "anti-semantic"?  Against meaning?  Certainly
    	if a phrase involves a meaning that one sex is inferior, I am
    	against that meaning.
    
    3)	If there is a conflict between people's desires and language,
    	which do you think should win?  Why should people cooperate
    	with the language instead of the language cooperating with
    	people?
    
    
    				-- edp

    No, Mr. Postpischil.
    
    The language was around before your or I was born.  It will be around
    long after we're dead.  It is spoken by hundreds of millions of
    people.  I have learned it, and learned to live with, not to mention
    making a living by it.  So I don't get paranoid and fight it.
    
    Anti-semantic is a crude, old pun.  'Nuff said.  This conference
    is supposed to be full of puns, right?  That's my token.
    
    I hardly know why a pen is more feminine than a pencil, though
    "pluma" began meaning "feather".  One might philosophize on why
    software is feminine and hardware masculine (La Radio means radio
    program, el radio means the device you play it on.  But El programma
    also means program.) 
                                                        
    Gender was one of those things you just memorized.  Not sexy at
    all.

	Re: .2
	
	> 1) As we have learned, "they" is an appropriate pronoun for the
	>  third-person singular, so there need be no more grief.
	
	I hope you are not serious about using "they" for a singular person
	whose gender is unknown. Where do you claim to have learned it and 
	from whom?
	
	"If anyone is near the disk drive, would *they* kick it for me?"
	turns me funny shades of blue and green.
	
	I say "he or she", or when I'm thinking I say "she/he" (which I
	would write "(s)he", but that's a whole other kettle o' fish.
	I keep asking my feminist friends to suggest a good ambisexual
	singular pronoun, but I haven't heard a real winner yet.

	Sam Levitin	Hudson, MA

Re .3:

>     No, Mr. Postpischil.

Please do not use a title which denotes gender when referring to me.
    
>     The language was around before your or I was born.

The language has changed before, during, and since you or I was born.

> So I don't get paranoid and fight it.

There is nothing paranoid about believing that people are discriminated against
on the basis of sex -- women are _still_ paid significantly less than men for
equal positions (I believe the figure is 75% or less).  What does it take to
see that there is some connection between people's beliefs that men and women
should be treated differently and incessant reminders from the language that
men and women are treated differently?

How would you feel about different titles for black people and white people?
    

Re .4:

> 	I hope you are not serious about using "they" for a singular person
> 	whose gender is unknown. Where do you claim to have learned it and 
> 	from whom?

I am entirely serious.  Notes 155.0 and 155.3 contain quotes from the Oxford
English Dictionary and a number of writers.
	
> 	"If anyone is near the disk drive, would *they* kick it for me?"
> 	turns me funny shades of blue and green.

That sentence is entirely correct.  Your funny shades problem should be
attended to by a doctor.
	
> 	I keep asking my feminist friends to suggest a good ambisexual
> 	singular pronoun, but I haven't heard a real winner yet.

"They" has been a winner for hundreds of years.


				-- edp

    Re  .2
    
    >If there is a conflict between people's desires and language,
    >which do you think should win?  Why should people cooperate
    >with the language instead of the language cooperating with 
    >people?
    
    I believe there are approximately 200 million people in this country
    plus millions more in Canada, the UK, Australia, etc. who have been
    taught to use the language in its existing form.  Are the relative
    handfull of militant feminists, who are fighting this issue, truly
    representative of the women of this world?  Or are they members
    of simply another special interest group tilting at windmills to
    gain the attention of the media?
    
    If we carried that logic to another arena, we should allow special
    dispensation to impatient Boston and New York drivers (particularly
    cab drivers) who are irritated by traditional traffic control
    regulations designed for the safety and general convenience of
    everyone.
    
    I once heard a judge defuse an irate defendent with a quotation:
    
    "Manners are the lubricant which make the frictions of life more
    bearable."
    
    If we can substitute for "manners" the phrase "accepted norms" it
    may apply to this topic.  We can't eliminate all of the frictions,
    but trying to eliminate those of one element may generate a whole
    lot more for the overall society.
    

    Re .1:  As has been discussed elsewhere in this file, 'it' is the
    correct pronoun to use in British English, when referring to the
    noun 'child'.
    
    Re .5  If we cannot call you Mr. Postpischil without offending you,
    what *can* we call you?  In the immortal words of John MacEnroe
    "You cannot be serious, person".  :-)
    
    Jeff.

    Re .5  The sentence:
    
    If anyone is near the disk drive, would *they* kick it for me.
    
    . . . is not correct.  I hate to be a quibbly English teacher, but
    according to my Warriner's the following pronouns are singular,
    and other pronouns in the sentence which refer to them must agree
    with them in number:                                     
                                                             
    Each, either, neither, one, everyone, everybody, no one, nobody,
    anyone, anybody, someone, and somebody.  
    
    And, yes, I do have the book in my office :^}
    
                    

Believing that the language is responsible for sex discrimination
is abusrd, but then, Mr. E. D. Postpischil also detests periods after
abbreviations in a name, and probably uppercase letters.  He can sign
however he wishes, but it ain't english.  This does, however, bring
to mind a little song:
    
    
    Paranoia, paranoia,
    the whole world is out to destroy ya'
    Even little things annoy ya
    when you're paranoid!
    
    	- Kim Wallach (check the folkie section of your record store)
   

      Re .5
      
>      Re .3:

>>     No, Mr. Postpischil.

>Please do not use a title which denotes gender when referring to me.
      
      He didn't.  He used a title which denotes sex.
      
      Dave C.

Re .6:

> Are the relative [handful] of militant feminists, who are fighting this
> issue, truly representative of the women of this world?

Your prejudice is showing.  I am neither a militant feminist nor a woman.
However, this democratic approach is interesting.  Should we only eradicate
sexual discrimination if most women want it -- i.e., is it okay to continue
to discriminate against many women as long as most want the discrimination?

> Or are they members of simply another special interest group tilting at
> windmills to gain the attention of the media?

There are some pretty nasty windmills out there.  In 1981, the median annual
income for men was $20,260; for women it was $12,001, or about 60 percent of
men's earnings.  (These statistics are from _Scientific American_, March 1986,
"Science and the Citizen", pages 63 to 64, which relates information about a
report issued by the National Research Council of the National Academy of
Sciences.)  A study of businesses in California found that of 393 firms, 30
hired workers of one sex only.  In 201 additional businesses, men and women
shared no job titles.  Only a small minority of businesses appeared to be
relatively integrated according to sex.
    
>     If we carried that logic to another arena, we should allow special
>     dispensation to impatient Boston and New York drivers (particularly
>     cab drivers) who are irritated by traditional traffic control
>     regulations designed for the safety and general convenience of
>     everyone.

Your analogy fails:  Boston and New York drivers are subject to the same
traffic controls as others.  Women are not subject to the same treatment in
our society as men.  It is not a matter of giving anybody special dispensation,
but just _removing_ the special treatment that already exists.

>     If we can substitute for "manners" the phrase "accepted norms" it
>     may apply to this topic.

Your lubricant contains dirt which is participating in damage to the engine
of society.  It is time for an oil change.


Re .7:

>     Re .5  If we cannot call you Mr. Postpischil without offending you,
>     what *can* we call you?

Here are some alternatives:

	Eric,
	Eric Postpischil,
	Eric David Postpischil,
	Postpischil, and
	edp.


Re .8:

> I hate to be a quibbly English teacher, but according to my Warriner's the
> following pronouns are singular, and other pronouns in the sentence which
> refer to them must agree with them in number: 
>                                                              
>     Each, either, neither, one, everyone, everybody, no one, nobody,
>     anyone, anybody, someone, and somebody.  

If that is what your Warriner's says, it is correct.  However, it is also
entirely irrelevant, because nobody said "anyone" is not singular.  The point
here is that "anyone" agrees in number with "they" because "they" may be used
in the singular, as is indicated in the response you quoted, 147.5, as well as
in notes 155.0 and 155.3. 


Re .9:

> Believing that the language is responsible for sex discrimination . . .

> . . . Mr. E. D. Postpischil also detests periods after abbreviations in a
> name, and probably uppercase letters.

The above both indicate beliefs I do not hold and have not professed to hold.

> He can sign however he wishes, but it ain't english.

You have used a title which denotes gender when referring to me, even though
you know I do not like it.  You apparently did this deliberately to offend
me.  If you do not like "edp", there are several alternatives which _are_
English and which are not awkward to use.

You can refer to me however you wish, but it ain't polite.


Re .10:

You may use the word however you wish, but I will stick with the accepted
meanings.


				-- edp

              _by_William_Satire_(alias_Douglas_R._Hofstadter)_
 
                               September, 1983
 
 
    It's high time someone blew the whistle on all the silly prattle about
    revamping our language to suit the purposes of certain political
    fanatics.  You know what I'm talking about -- those who accuse speakers
    of English of what they call "racism".  This awkward neologism,
    constructed by analogy with the well-established term "sexism", does
    not sit well in the ears, if I may mix my metaphors.  But let us grant
    that in our society there may be injustices here and there in the
    treatment of either race from time to time, and let us even grant these
    people their terms "racism" and "racist".  How valid, however, are the
    claims of the self-proclaimed "black libbers", or "negrists" -- those
    who would radically change our language in order to "liberate" us poor
    dupes from its supposed racist bias? 
 
    Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the
    age-old usage of the noun "white" and words built from it, such as
    chairwhite, mailwhite, repairwhite, clergywhite, middlewhite,
    Frenchwhite, forewhite, whitepower, whiteslaughter, oneupswhiteship,
    straw white, whitehandle, and so on.  The negrists claim that using the
    word "white", either on its own or as a component, to talk about _all_
    the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and
    reinforces racism.  Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute
    "person" everywhere where "white" now occurs.  Sensitive speakers of
    our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous.  There is great
    beauty to a phrase such as "All whites are created equal."  Our
    forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood
    the poetry of our language.  Think how ugly it would be to say "All
    persons are created equal.", or "All whites and blacks are created
    equal."  Besides, as any schoolwhitey can tell you, such phrases are
    redundant.  In most contexts, it is self-evident when "white" is being
    used in an inclusive sense, in which case it subsumes members of the
    darker race just as much as fairskins. 
 
    There is nothing denigrating to black people in being subsumed under
    the rubric "white" -- no more than under the rubric "person".  After
    all, white is a mixture of all the colors of the rainbow, including
    black.  Used inclusively, the word "white" has no connotations
    whatsoever of race.  Yet many people are hung up on this point.  A
    prime example is Abraham Moses, one of the more vocal spokeswhites for
    making such a shift.  For years, Niss Moses, authoroon of the
    well-known negrist tracts _A_Handbook_of_Nonracist_Writing_ and
    _Words_and_Blacks_, has had nothing better to do than go around the
    country making speeches advocating the downfall of "racist language"
    that ble objects to.  But when you analyze bler objections, you find
    they all fall apart at the seams.  Niss Moses says that words like
    "chairwhite" suggest to people -- most especially impressionable young
    whiteys and blackeys -- that all chairwhites belong to the white race.
    How absurd!  It is quite obvious, for instance, that the chairwhite of
    the League of Black Voters is going to be a black, not a white.  Nobody
    need think twice about it.  As a matter of fact, the suffix "white" is
    usually not pronounced with a long `i' as in the noun "white", but like
    "wit", as in the terms saleswhite, freshwhite, penwhiteship, first
    basewhite, and so on.  It's just a simple and useful component in
    building race-neutral words. 
 
    But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!"  In
    fact, Niss Moses sees evidence of racism under every stone.  Ble has
    written a famous article, in which ble vehemently objects to the
    immortal and poetic words of the first white on the moon, Captain
    Nellie Strongarm.  If you will recall, whis words were:  "One small
    step for a white, a giant step for whitekind."  This noble sentiment is
    anything but racist; it is simply a celebration of a glorious moment in
    the history of White. 
 
    Another of Niss Moses' shrill objections is to the age-old
    differentiation of whites from blacks by the third-person pronouns
    "whe" and "ble".  Ble promotes an absurd notion:  that what we really
    need in English is a single pronoun covering _both_ races.  Numerous
    suggestions have been made, such as "pe", "tey", and others.  These are
    all repugnant to the nature of the English language, as the average
    white in the street will testify, even if whe has no linguistic
    training whatsoever.  Then there are advocates of usages such as "whe
    or ble", "whis or bler", and so forth.  This makes for monstrosities
    such as the sentence "When the next President takes office, whe or ble
    will have to choose whis or bler cabinet with great care, for whe or
    ble would not want to offend any minorities."  Contrast this with the
    spare elegance of the normal way of putting it, and there is no
    question which way we ought to speak.  There are, of course, some
    yapping black libbers who advocate writing "bl/whe" everywhere, which,
    aside from looking terrible, has no reasonable pronunciation.  Shall we
    say "blooey" all the time when we simply mean "whe"?  Who wants to
    sound like a white with a chronic sneeze? 
 
                                  *   *   *
 
    One of the more hilarious suggestions made by the squawkers for this
    point of view is to abandon the natural distinction along racial lines,
    and to replace it with a highly unnatural one along sexual lines.  One
    such suggestion -- emanating, no doubt, from the mind of a madwhite --
    would have us say "he" for male whites (and blacks) and "she" for
    female whites (and blacks).  Can you imagine the outrage with which
    sensible folk of either sex would greet this "modest proposal"? 
 
    Another suggestion is that the plural pronoun "they" be used in place
    of the inclusive "whe".  This would turn the charming proverb "Whe who
    laughs last, laughs best" into the bizarre concoction "They who laughs
    last, laughs best."  As if anyone in his right mind could have thought
    that the original proverb applied only to the white race!  No, we don't
    need a new pronoun to "liberate" our minds.  That's the lazy white's
    way of solving the pseudo-problem of racism.  In any case, it's
    ungrammatical.  The pronoun "they" is a plural pronoun, and it grates
    on the civilized ear to hear it used to denote only one person.  Such a
    usage, if adopted, would merely promote illiteracy and accelerate the
    already scandalously rapid nosedive of the average intelligence level
    in our society. 
 
    Niss Moses would have us totally revamp the English language to suit
    bler purposes.  If, for instance, we are to substitute "person" for
    "white", where are we to stop?  If we were to follow Niss Moses' ideas
    to their logical conclusion, we would have to conclude that ble would
    like to see small blackeys and whiteys playing the game of "Hangperson"
    and reading the story of "Snow Person and the Seven Dwarfs".  And would
    ble have us rewrite history to say, "Don't shoot until you see the
    _persons_ of their eyes!"?  Will pundits and politicians henceforth
    issue _person_ papers?  Will we now have egg yolks and egg _persons_?
    And pledge allegiance to the good old Red, _Person_, and Blue?  Will we
    sing, "I'm dreaming of a _person_ Christmas"?  Say of a frightened
    white, "Whe's _person_ as a sheet!"?  Lament the increase of _person_
    collar crime?  Thrill to the chirping of bob_persons_ in our gardens?
    Ask a friend to _person_ the table while we go visit the _persons_'
    room?  Come off it, Niss Moses -- don't personwash our language! 
 
    What conceivable harm is there is such beloved phrases as "No white is
    an island", "Dog is white's best friend", or "White's inhumanity to
    white"?  Who would revise such classic book titles as Bronob Jacowski's
    _The_Ascent_of_White_ or Eric Steeple Bell's _Whites_of_Mathematics_?
    Did the poet who wrote "The best-laid plans of mice and whites gang aft
    agley" believe that blacks' plans gang _ne'er_ agley?  Surely not!
    Such phrases are simply metaphors; everyone can see beyond that.  Whe
    who interprets them as reinforcing racism must have a perverse desire
    to feel oppressed.  "Personhandling" the language is a habit that not
    only Niss Moses but quite a few others have taken up recently.  For
    instance, Nrs. Delilah Buford has urged that we drop the useful
    distinction between "Niss" and "Nrs." (which, as everybody knows, is
    pronounced "Nissiz", the reason for which nobody knows!).  Bler
    argument is that there is no need for the public to know whether a
    black is employed or not.  _Need_ is, of course, not the point.  Ble
    conveniently sidesteps the fact that there is a _tradition_ in our
    society of calling unemployed blacks "Niss" and employed blacks "Nrs."
    Most blacks -- in fact, the vast majority -- prefer it that way.  They
    _want_ the world to know what their employment status is, and for good
    reason.  Unemployed blacks want prospective employers to know they are
    available, without having to ask embarrassing questions.  Likewise,
    employed blacks are proud of having found a job, and wish to let the
    world know they are employed.  This distinction provides a sense of
    security to all involved, in that everyone knows where ble fits into
    the scheme of things. 
 
    But Nrs. Buford refuses to recognize this simple truth.  Instead, ble
    shiftily turns the argument into one about whites, asking why it is
    that whites are universally addressed as "Master", without any
    differentiation between employed and unemployed ones.  The answer, of
    course, is that in American and other Northern societies, we set little
    store by the employment status of whites.  Nrs. Buford can do little to
    change that reality, for it seems to be tied to innate biological
    differences between whites and blacks.  Many white-years of research,
    in fact, have gone into trying to understand why it is that employment
    status matters so much to blacks, yet relatively little to whites.  It
    is true that both races have a longer life expectancy if employed, but
    of course people often do not act so as to maximize their life
    expectancy.  So far, it remains a mystery.  In any case, whites and
    blacks clearly have different constitutional inclinations, and
    different goals in life.  And so I say, _Vive_na_difference! 
 
                                   *  *  *
 
    As for Nrs. Buford's suggestion that both "Niss" and "Nrs." be unified
    into the single form of address "Ns." (supposed to rhyme with "fizz"),
    all I have to say is, it is arbitrary and clearly a thousand years
    ahead of its time.  Mind you, this "Ns." is an abbreviation concocted
    out of thin air; it stands for absolutely nothing.  Who ever heard of
    such toying with language?  And while we're on this subject, have you
    yet run across the recently founded _Ns._ magazine, dedicated to the
    concerns of the "liberated black"? It's sure to attract the attention
    of a trendy band of black airheads for a little while, but serious
    blacks surely will see through its thin veneer of slick, glossy Madison
    Avenue approaches to life. 
 
    Nrs. Buford also finds it insultingly asymmetric that when a black is
    employed by a white, ble changes bler firmly name to whis firmly name.
    But what's so bad about that?  Every firm's core consists of a boss
    (whis job is to make sure long-term policies are well charted out) and
    a secretary (bler job is to keep corporate affairs running smoothly on
    a day-to-day basis).  They are both equally important and vital to the
    firm's success.  No one disputes this.  Beyond them there may of course
    be other firmly members.  Now it's quite obvious that all members of a
    given firm should bear the same name -- otherwise, what are you going
    to call the firm's products? And since it would be nonsense for the
    boss to change whis name, it falls to the secretary to change bler
    name.  Logic, not racism, dictates this simple convention. 
 
    What puzzles me the most is when people cut off their noses to spite
    their faces.  Such is the case with the time-honored colored suffixes
    "oon" and "roon", found in familiar words such as ambassadroon,
    stewardoon, and sculptroon.  Most blacks find it natural and sensible
    to add those suffixes onto nouns such as "aviator" or "waiter".  A
    black who flies an airplane may proudly proclaim, "I'm an aviatroon!"
    But it would sound silly, if not ridiculous, for a black to say of
    blerself, "I work as a waiter."  On the other hand, who could object to
    my saying that the debonair Pidney Soitier is a great actroon, or that
    the hilarious Quill Bosby is a great comedioon?  You guessed it --
    authoroons such as Niss Mildred Hempsley and Nrs. Charles White, both
    of whom angrily reject the appellation "authoroon", deep though its
    roots are in our language.  Nrs.  hite, perhaps one of the finest
    poetoons of our day, for some reason insists on being known as a
    "poet".  It leads one to wonder, is Nrs. White _ashamed_ of being
    black, perhaps? I would hope not.  White needs black, and black needs
    white, and neither race should feel ashamed. 
 
    Some extreme negrists object to being treated with politeness and
    courtesy by whites.  For example, they reject the traditional notion of
    "Negroes first", preferring to open doors for themselves, claiming that
    having doors opened for them suggests implicitly that society considers
    them inferior.  Well, would they have it the other way?  Would these
    incorrigible grousers prefer to open doors for whites?  What do blacks
    want? 
 
                                  *   *   *
 
    Another unlikely word has recently become a subject of controversy:
    "blackey".  This is, of course, the ordinary term for black children
    (including teen-agers), and by affectionate extension it is often
    applied to older blacks.  Yet, incredible though it seems, many blacks
    -- even teen-age blackeys -- now claim to have had their "consciousness
    raised", and are voguishly skittish about being called "blackeys".  Yet
    it's as old as the hills for blacks employed in the same office to
    refer to themselves as "the office blackeys".  And for their boss to
    call them "my blackeys" helps make the ambiance more relaxed and comfy
    for all.  It's hardly the mortal insult that libbers claim it to be.
    Fortunately, most blacks are sensible people and realize that mere
    words do not demean; they know it's how they are _used_ that counts.
    Most of the time, calling a black -- especially an older black -- a
    "blackey" is a thoughtful way of complimenting bler, making bler feel
    young, fresh, and hireable again.  Lord knows, I certainly wouldn't
    object if someone told me that I looked whiteyish these days! 
 
    Many young blackeys go through a stage of wishing they had been born
    white.  Perhaps this is due to popular television shows like
    _Superwhite_ and _Batwhite_, but it doesn't really matter.  It is
    perfectly normal and healthy.  Many of our most successful blacks were
    once tomwhiteys and feel no shame about it.  Why should they?  Frankly,
    I think tomwhiteys are often the cutest little blackeys -- but that's
    just my opinion.  In any case, Niss Moses (once again) raises a ruckus
    on this score, asking why we don't have a corresponding word for young
    whiteys who play blackey's games and generally manifest a desire to be
    black.  Well, Niss Moses, if this were a common phenomenon, we most
    assuredly _would_ have such a word, but it just happens not to be.  Who
    can say why?  But given that tomwhiteys are a dime a dozen, it's nice
    to have a word for them.  The lesson is that White must learn to fit
    language to reality; White cannot manipulate the world by manipulating
    mere words.  An elementary lesson, to be sure, but for some reason Niss
    Moses and others of bler ilk resist learning it. 
 
    Shifting from the ridiculous to the sublime, let us consider the Holy
    Bible.  The Good Book is of course the source of some of the most
    beautiful language and profound imagery to be found anywhere.  And who
    is the central character of the Bible?  I am sure I need hardly remind
    you; it is God.  As everyone knows, Whe is male and white, and that is
    an indisputable fact.  But have you heard the latest joke promulgated
    by tasteless negrists?  It is said that one of them died and went to
    Heaven and then returned.  What did ble report? "I have seen God, and
    guess what?  Ble's female!"  Can anyone say that this is not blasphemy
    of the highest order?  It just goes to show that some people will stoop
    to any depths in order to shock.  I have shared this "joke" with a
    number of friends of mine (including several blacks, by the way), and,
    to a white, they have agreed that it sickens them to the core to see
    Our Lord so shabbily mocked.  Some things are just in bad taste, and
    there are no two ways about it.  It is scum like this who are
    responsible for some of the great problems in our society today, I am
    sorry to say. 
 
                                  *   *   *
 
    Well, all of this is just another skirmish in the age-old Battle of the
    Races, I guess, and we shouldn't take it too seriously.  I am reminded
    of words spoken by great British philosopher Alfred West Malehead in
    whis commencement address to my _alma_secretaria_, the University of
    North Virginia:  "To enrich the language of whites is, certainly, to
    enlarge the range of their ideas." I agree with this admirable
    sentiment wholeheartedly.  I would merely point out to the overzealous
    that there are some extravagant notions about language that should be
    recognized for what they are:  cheap attempts to let dogmatic, narrow
    minds enforce their views on the speakers lucky enough to have
    inherited the richest, most beautiful and flexible language on earth, a
    language whose traditions run back through the centuries to such
    deathless poets as Milton, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Keats, Walt
    Whitwhite, and so many others . . .  Our language owes an incalculable
    debt to these whites for their clarity of vision and expression, and if
    the shallow minds of bandwagon-jumping negrists succeed in destroying
    this precious heritage for all whites of good will, that will be,
    without any doubt, a truly female day in the history of Northern White. 

        OK, Eric, you've proven you can type.  But what's the point?
        (Or were you, perhaps, just trying to exercise your fingers?)
        
        Tom

    Re .13:
    
    How did the article sound to you?  A bit strange, perhaps?  Do you
    think the language used in the article is racist?
    
    By the way, I would ask participants in this discussion to let me know
    if you are white or black, so that I know how to address you.  If you
    are black, also be sure to let me know your employment status. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Once again, Pischy (you like that better?) enters an irrelevancy
    and uses it to justify his lack of understanding of etymology.
    
    The funny thing is, he never learns, and he never shuts up.  Use
    the English form of address and he reflexivly tells you he doesn't
    like to be called "Mr.".  Sorta like Pavlov's dog, hearing the bell.
    
    The English language does not use words to refer to ethnicity.
    There is thus no question concerning the common color.  (Although
    I did point out that gender could be orange or blue, for all it
    means etymologically.)  That does not mean that if it had silly
    words like postwhite, that white couldn't be the common color, the
    word used when there is no intended reference to color.
    
    If there is to be a solution to the 57% pay problem, it won't come
    from changing the language.  Hey eric, how about supporting come
    pro-ERA candidates, and working against your local Republicans?
    Or do Democrats believe to much in big, high-tax government?
    
    No, this ain't FORUM. That was a rhetorical question.  Find me a
    "non-sexist" natural language and I'll find sexists who speak it.
    Chinese, f'rinstance.  They bound ta-de feet, not ta-de feet
    (where the first ta-de means her, the second ta-de means his).
    MUNGING THE LANGUAGE WON'T DO JACK SH*T FOR SOCIETY'S ILLS.  IT
    WILL SIMPLY MAKE IT TOUGHER FOR THOSE OF US WHO WANT TO FIX IT TO
    COMMUNICATE WITH THOSE WHO DON'T. 

Re .15:

Would you please explain why you insist upon using my name incorrectly?
Such behavior is adolescent and is not a useful contribution to this
conference.

>     Once again, Pischy (you like that better?) enters an irrelevancy
>     and uses it to justify his lack of understanding of etymology.

What are you talking about?

>     The funny thing is, he never learns, . . .

What is there to learn?  You keep saying the gender-asymmetric nature of the
language is not communicated to people, but you never say why that is so. 
                                                          
>     The English language does not use words to refer to ethnicity.
>     There is thus no question concerning the common color.

Cannibalism is unthinkable.  There is thus no question concerning eating
children.

> That does not mean that if it had silly words like postwhite, . . .

Please explain why words like "postwhite" are silly but words like "postman"
are not.

> . . . that white couldn't be the common color, the word used when there
> is no intended reference to color.

Do you really believe that people who had come to use the language shown in
the article should not be considered racists?  If you were immersed in such
a society, can you say you would not find yourself forming different
opinions about black and white people:  thinking of secretaries as "ble"
and bosses as "whe" or hearing a person referred to as "ble" and assuming
that that person has a lesser role?  Would you not form different opinions
of people introduced to you as "Niss" or "Nrs."?

If you really believe that, please prove it by cooperating with me a little:
Let's use the language in the article for a little while.  Are you white or
black?  Please sign your name as Master Goldstein, Niss Goldstein, or Nrs.
Olsen, as appropriate.

>     If there is to be a solution to the 57% pay problem, it won't come
>     from changing the language.

Claims of this nature are oft-repeated, but rarely explained.  _Why_ do you
think changing the language won't help?  How can anybody _repeatedly_ hearing
that men and women are different and should be treated differently not be
affected by it?  Over and over throughout a person's lifetime, one hears that
men and women are different and must be treated differently.

Language is used for communication, so why do you think that it does not
communicate these built-in statements of the language?

> Find me a "non-sexist" natural language and I'll find sexists who speak it.

The claim is not that making the language non-sexist will make people
non-sexist, but that it will help.

I'm sure you must of thought the article in .12 sounded ridiculous.  But the
only significant difference between it and our language is that we are used
to our language and we are not used to the language of the article.  That
means that our language would sound ridiculous if we had not already
accepted it as "normal". 


				-- edp

re .-1

> I'm sure you must of thought the article in .12 sounded ridiculous.  
                    ^ 
                    |

Must of?  In *this* conference?  Oh dear.
     

Re: .11

> It is time for an oil change.


Yea!  Let's have a revolution!  Surely the new order will free the oppressed
and liberate the masses from the shackles of sexism.  And in the process, 
the economy will prosper for each will contribute according to _their_ ability
and receive according to _their_ needs!

    Re .18:
    
    What is your point?  That change never helps anybody?
    
    
    				-- edp

    I think Eric's reply proves my point.
    
    So I won't comment further.

    I'll go along with Fred in .20
    
    Some people only hear what they want to hear, not what is being
    communicated.  At least I tried!

    I wasn't going to respond again, but after .21 (You tried _what_?) I
    changed my mind.
     
    
    Re .20:

    It looks like we can bring this note to a conclusion, because when I
    see no rationale, not even an alleged rationale, for a contradictory
    position and no responses to a number of direct questions, I think that
    proves my point.

    So I won't comment further.


				-- edp

    dear edp,
    
    In my opinion, you are correct, and you have explained yourself
    well.
    
    However, I believe that we have here the situation I described in
    143.29; someone was taught grammar correctly, and therefore does
    not believe it should be changed, but does not understand that
    (some? many? most?) others were not as well taught, and that that
    latter case is helping to cause (or at least is not preventing) the
    problem in question.
    
    And I *still* don't know what should be done about it!
    
    							-- Ann B.

I'm fairly new at 'noting' (or whatever participating in these conferences is
called), but I read the guides re: etiquette and it seems to me this note needs 
a FLAME ON someplace! However, I will risk getting burned, labeled, and/or 
libeled and join in this fascinating, albeit occasionally impolite, discussion.

English is _not_ a dead language. It changes and grows. We can add words to it,
some phrases may fall into disuse, common usage may become less common, etc.
Our beloved computer industry is infamous for adding words to the language.
I know - I had to explain 'hardware' and 'software' to my 85 year old 
grandmother (who is a bright, literate, well-read lady). Now she wants to
know what 'compiling' means... I half-expect to find she's subscribed to
"Hardcopy" magazine at my next visit!

I also talked to grandma about why I prefer the term "Ms." and why I use
words like "letter carrier" instead of "postman". What I do not understand
is the negative reaction, the resistance to change, when some of us try to
modify the language to reflect our growing awareness of sexism. Why is it 
"MUNGING WITH ENGLISH" to use say, "chairperson", and perfectly okay to add 
a word like "network"? If we take the stance that English must be preserved 
at all costs, then forsooth, thou must call my name "Sve" - but I think it's 
easier to pronounce:
		 	Sue

    re:.24,
    "Chairman" is common gender, not masculine gender.  There's no need
    to add a new word to replace it.  "...man" as a suffix means "person"
    already.
    
    English is living, but languages don't change overnight by fiat,
    because somebody doesn't like it.  When _society_ is not
    sex-discriminatory, people won't view _words_ as sex-discriminatory
    unless they _really_ are (which implies, not common gender).
    
    Its us male folk who are missing words of our own.  I feel deprived.

    	Maybe the problem is just that we do not have enough genders
    in common use. Several European languages use 3 extensively, and
    other languages use even more. (I am told that in Germany, maidens
    are neuter).
    
    	If we had several genders of "man" (in the humanity sense) then
    we could spread them evenly round the words like manhole, and then
    nobody, of whatever gender, would need to feel any discrimination.
    It just needs a bit of inventiveness, and then persuade people to
    change to something that is clearly superior.
    
    		Dave

Re .25:

> "...man" as a suffix means "person" already. 

"-man" does not mean "person".  It _denotes_ "person".  It does not _connote_
"person".  The proof of that is quite simple:  If you tell a person to go see
the chairman of some organization or another, a number of people will
occasionally be surprised when the chairman is a woman.  Such surprise will
obviously occur more often than surprise that the chairman is a man.  It is
clear that there is more of an expectation that a chairman is a man.

This strikes at the very heart of what words mean and what meaning is:  Words
mean what people think they mean.  And they think "chairman" has more of a
connotation of "man" than "person".
    
>     English is living, but languages don't change overnight by fiat,
>     because somebody doesn't like it.

Who expects a change overnight?  Languages do change and can be changed.

>   When _society_ is not sex-discriminatory, people won't view _words_ as
> sex-discriminatory unless they _really_ are (which implies, not common
> gender).

Again, we have a combined assumption and conclusion.  _Why_ do you think
using a form identical the masculine for a "common gender" is not sexist?
It didn't just happen to be that way by random chance!

Every use of the alleged "common gender" is in part a reiteration of the
belief that made the "common gender" take the form it did:  Men are people.
It's as if somebody said "Men are people.  Women are not people.  Let's use
'man' to mean 'person'.".  And you are going right along with that
terminology. 

>     Its us male folk who are missing words of our own.  I feel deprived.

Statements like that say loudly and clearly that the author doesn't
understand.  You might as well say women's liberation is all wrong because
it's not women being discriminated against since they get supported by men
who must work.


				-- edp

    re. 27
    
    I think you're confused with the denotation/conotation of "chairman".
    As an example you stated that a person told to see the "chairman"
    is apt to be surprised if the chairman is a woman.  This may be
    true, however, I would think that the same person would be just
    as surprised if you referred to the chairman as "the boss".  In
    other words, the surprise is not due to a misinterpretation of the
    word "chairman", but to a preconceived notion of what gender a person
    in such a position will be.
    
    -Kurt*

    Re .28:
    
    The problem you point out is not because of any confusion over
    denotation and connotation.  Rather, you have just shown that many
    words in the English language have sexist connotations, even when they
    do not contain "man".  Obviously we cannot avoid all these words, but
    certainly the worst offenders should be avoided.  Since whether
    "chairman" carries a stronger connotation of "man" than "boss" does can
    be determined by experiment, there is no need to argue over this.
    
    Anybody want to design and perform such an experiment?
    
    
    				-- edp 

    Thank you, Eric, Ann, and Sue.  Between you, you have said most of what
    I wished to say.
    
    I found the attempts to belittle Eric to be quite instructive.  Perhaps
    we should copy them to =forum= as examples of their kind?
    
    					=maggie

    I should also point out that in any argument on this subject, the
    vast majority of the opposition to change comes from men rather
    than women.  Suggestive.

    You don't have to copy me to FORUM.  I'm busy enough arguing with
    Eric there on other issues!
    
    Actually, on many FORUM topics, I agree with him.
    
    The fact that most of the flames in favor of English per se are
    from males (like me) does not prove anything; the worst flamer on
    the other side has a usually-male first name and probably a Y
    chromosome too.  Though he hates to use the male title "Mr.".  I
    believe there are simply more male than female noters.

    Re .28, .29:
    
    Something else occurred to me.  Consider "chairperson".  I would
    not expect many people to be surprised no matter what the sex of
    a chairperson turns out to be.  What happens to the preconceived
    notions of who a chairman/chairperson is?  At the least, using
    "chairperson" tells the listener to avoid those preconceived notions.
    
    Isn't that exactly what we need to do to reduce sexism, tell people
    to avoid their preconceived notions?
    
    
    				-- edp

    re .33
    
    Believe it or not, if I were told to see the "chairperson", I would
    expect thr chairperson to be female.  Why else would the person referring
    me go out of their way to say "chairperson" over "chairman"?
    
    As for your "experiment" suggested, I don't think that "chairman"
    stronger gender connotation than "boss" if the person knows that
    the word "boss" is being used to denote a person with a position
    of that of a chairman.  Again, I don't believe that these words
    really have gender connotations, but are given prejudice connontations
    by the person using them.  As for myself I never assume that a person
    with a title of "xxxman" is either male or female.  For me, I see
    no reasons to add redundant words to an already cluttered english
    language.
    
    	-Kurt*

I agree with the comments about "--person"; these days, if one
sees a statement from a "spokesman", then that person is usually
male, whereas if one see a statement from a "spokesperson", then 
that person is usually female.

We've gone from one sexually definitive term to two -- is this an
improvement?

	Nigel

    I disagree with you, Nigel. I, too, expect there to be more women in
    the set of "spokespersons" than men. However, as time goes on, this
    will change. I can easily imagine the day (20, 40, 60 years from now?)
    when all "spokeswomen" are female, all "spokesmen" are male, but
    "spokespeople" to be mixed. 
    
    Changing the language is like a code freeze -- it happens slowly and
    rarely completely. 
    
    	Jon

    <--(.35)--(
    
    Agreed, in general that is what happens at present.  Note, if you
    will, that you DO make presumptions about sex and gender even given
    such a denotationally-sexless suffix as "-person".  That ought to
    be very instructive to those who claim that denotation is all.
    
    Is it better to have 2 terms than one?  No, just having 2 terms
    isn't any improvement if they both have masculine connotations.
    In the actual event, yeah, I think it is an improvement:  there
    is now some balance, albeit shaky.
    
    					=maggie

    <--(.32)--(
    
    I know that it doesn't "prove" anything, Fred.  But I find it
    interesting and suggestive that in all the times I have participated in
    argument on this topic only ONCE did any woman defend the side you so
    passionately espouse.  That was on the Plato system where there were a
    very large percentage of women doing courseware development.  
    
    Note that I did not attempt to suggest that the issue was a
    fully-polarised one, but rather that the reactionaries are (almost)
    invariably male.

    re .38:
    
    That is a rather sexist remark. There are *lots* of reactionary women
    and the current leader of the reactionary movement is a woman. 
    
    	Jon

Re .34:

> Why else would the person referring me go out of their way to say
> "chairperson" over "chairman"?

Gosh, I don't know.  You don't suppose just maybe there's a small chance it
could be the same reason some people have been giving for quite some time for
using "chairperson" instead of "chairman", do you -- because they think
"chairman" is sexist? 

I don't think I have ever heard a "-person" form used just because the person
being referred to was female -- it's usually an indication that the speaker
prefers "-person" to "-man".  If anybody is using it another way, now is
the time to nip it in the bud.  Please _don't_ use "-person" just for women.
Let's use it for everybody so that it can become a message to people to avoid
their preconceived notions.
    
> Again, I don't believe that these words really have gender connotations,
> but are given prejudice [connotations] by the person using them.

That statement is a contradiction.  Words mean what people use them to mean.


				-- edp

re .40
        > words mean what people who use them mean.
    
    Does that mean if my interpretation of the word "banker" has a
    connotation of "a man who is bald and fat", then this word should
    be phased out and replaced?  I think if a word is going to be replaced
    because of it's connotation, it only makes sense to do so if this
    connotation is accepted by a majority.  Anything less is a predjudice.
    There is a difference.  You can refer to yourself as a "chairperson",
    I'll be the "chairman" since I have no prejudice connotation for
    it.
    
    	-Kurt*

    Re: .26
    
    The reference to the use of genders in the German language brings
    to a suggestion to resolve the _man_ issue in English.
    
    The Germans assign gender to a noun by the preceding article.  If
    the same noun could refer to either sex, the article removes the
    doubt.  If we are insistent on making a change in the language so
    that the less learned are not so easily confused, let's emulate
    the masculine, feminine, and neuter articles used in German.
    
    As an example, the members of a family would consist of mas (masculine
    _the_) parent (father), fem parent (mother), fem child (daughter),
    and mas son.  This would then give us _mas chairman_, _fem chairman_, or
    _neu chairman_ (sex unknown or unspecified).
    
    One of the things that I was taught in engineering college was to
    first identify the problem then attempt to brainstorm as many possible
    approaches to a solution as possible.  In the process of analyzing
    the various possibilities, most will be filtered out as unfeasible,
    but the best solution may be the one which seemed somewhat ridiculous
    at first blush.
    
    Unfortunately, I have seen too many people who perceive a solution
    to a problem then proceed to justify their position.  That's when
    they find themselves meeting resistence from those who disagree with
    the proposal.  It is far easier to lead people to a logical conclusion
    than it is to convince them that there is only one!
    as being *the* solution, even though they have not fully analyzed
    and the defined the real problem.  

    Re .41:
    
    > I think if a word is going to be replaced because of [its] connotation,
    > it only makes sense to do so if this connotation is accepted by a
    > majority.                                             
    
    Haven't we already established that a majority of people have a
    prejudicial connotation for "chairman"?
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .42

    My apologies for my editor or my misuse of it.  The last paragraph
    should have read:

    
    Unfortunately, I have seen too many people who perceive a solution
    as being *the* solution, even though they have not fully analyzed
    and the defined the real problem.  They then proceed to justify their
    position.  That's when they find themselves meeting resistence from
    those who disagree with the proposal.  It is far easier to lead people
    to a logical conclusion than it is to convince them that there is only one!

    Also, I should have referred to _mas child_ instead of _mas son_.

    Sorry!

    Re: .43
    
    NO!!!!  I don't believe *we* have established anything of the sort!
    
    The only thing *we* know for sure is that there are a few noters
    that are concerned about the subject and that there are some unknown
    number of people trying to convince others that there is a problem
    which needs a solution.  I'm not even convinced that the problem
    itself is adequately defined.

    re .43
    established? I haven't seen the study giving any proof of your
    statement.

    Re .45, .46:
    
    See response .27.  I do not believe I heard much dissent claiming that
    the way I said people interpret "chairman" is not actually the way they
    do it.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re:  .47, .27
    
    Haven't you ever heard of the _silent majority_?  It would seem
    to be pretty risky to assume that everyone who remains silent must
    be in agreement with you. 
    
    As for your logic in .27, you have concluded that the use of the
    word _chairman_ caused someone to be surprised to find the position
    occupied by a woman.  I would counter that by suggesting that the
    person was more likely surprised because of past experience with
    similar organizations in which males had occupied the position of
    chairman.   
    
    Take a parallel situation....someone calls the home of a young couple
    and a teen-aged boy answers the phone.  Would there not be a lot
    of people who would be surprised that _he_ was the baby-sitter?
    Certainly their is no sexist lexical component in the term
    _baby-sitter_, but I'm quite certain that for most people it conjures
    up an image of a female of the species man.

    Here in Digital, I have seen synopses of seminars.  (Now, this
    was several years ago; I haven't found synopses recently.)  It
    would state who was in charge of the seminar.  This took one of
    two forms.  If the person in charge were a man, the designation
    was "Chairman: <full name>", but if the person were a woman, the
    designation was "Chairperson: <full name>".
    
    I would therefore suggest that edp's contention may, for the
    time being, be accepted as valid.
    
    						-- Ann B.

    I can think of three consistant, non-sexist ways to handle this. The
    first is simply to call everyone "Chairman" since it is by some
    (disputable) means of reckoning "standard." The second is simply to
    call everyone "Chairperson." The third is to recognize that either of
    the first to is bound to offend lots of people (although completely
    different groups) and to try to be flexible. The same informational and
    biographical form that most speakers and attendees of symposia fill out
    could have little check-off boxes labeled "Chairman," "Chairwoman," and
    "Chairperson" (at the risk of proliferating little check-off boxes,
    "Chair" might also be added). Anyone who doesn't check anything is
    called "Chairperson" (or possibly "Chair" -- it doesn't matter as long
    as you're consistant).
    
    	Jon 

    Re .48:
    
    Why a term conjures up any particular image is irrelevant.  The image
    that it happens to conjure up (in whatever sense a term conjures up a
    single "image" for many people) is the meaning of the term. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Prescriptive usage for social change is as surely doomed to 
    failure as prescriptive usage for linguistic conservatism.  
    You can't legislate sexism out of language any more than you
    can legislate "bad grammar" out of language.
    
    You certainly *do* have the freedom to use language as you believe
    it ought to be used--to talk about "chairpersons" ("chairpeople"?)
    and to use "they" and "them" as common gender singular pronouns.
    To the extent that this conflicts with common usage (or with
    the preferred usage of those around you), the effect will be
    much like that of wearing a button with a controversial political
    message:  some people will praise you; some will condemn you;
    you will often find that the *form* of your speech is interfering
    with people's perception of its content; but eventually, if you
    are lucky and persistent, you may effect some small change in
    the language and attitudes of those around you.
    
    	-Neil

    Eric,
    
    You are assuming the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (that language molds
    thought) throughout your arguments here.  While this is a popular
    and persuasive position, I believe that it is unproven, and almost
    untestable, due to the impossibility of distinguishing the effects
    of culture on language from the effects of language on culture.
    
    	-Neil

RE: .1

People with an XXY chromosome compliment are not hermaphrodites.  The condition
is called Kleinfelter's Syndrome and those who have it are male.  Sterile, yes,
but definitely, always, and only male.

--PSW

I once went out with an English teacher who felt that the best choice 
for indefinite gender was 'creature' (thus "chaircreature" in this case) 
because we never know when the dolphins are going to finally get it all 
together and insist that "-man", "-woman", and "-person" are too 
discriminatory.

My personal beliefe is that in 100 years, this will be looked back upon 
as one of those funny transitional periods in history where people did 
strange contortions with the language to solve a non-problem.  If I were 
putting money down, I'd say that after there are enough women who have 
chaired an organization, people will realize that "chairman" gives no 
better clue to sex than "manager." (A word that used to carry an 
implicit "male" but is changing.)
					>>>==>PStJTT

    Re .53:
    
    I think you missed at least one instance where I noted that just using
    the language a different way will make people be a little more aware of
    their prejudices and perhaps reduce their effect. 
    
    
    Re .52:
    
    It is interesting that you say there is a possibility for an effect.
    Note that even a small effect, say a change of a few percent in the
    number of people who are affected by discrimination in this country
    alone, means helping millions of people.
    
    Now, what is the price we have to pay for this possible effect?  Just to
    use words a little differently.  That's about as cheap a price as you
    can get.  It seems like a pretty good deal to me.  We're certainly
    not going to suffer irrecoverable losses if we fail, so the potential
    gain outweighs consideration of cost.
    
    
    				-- edp

Re:  .51

> Why a term conjures up any particular image is irrelevant.


Why is it irrelevant?  You used it as your justification in .27 and drew some
conclusions from it.


> The image that it happens to conjure up....is the meaning of the term.

This implies that only the listener has the right to decide what the
speaker had in mind.  It makes no allowance for possible error on the part
of the listener. 

If an individual has assimilated an image of a _chairman_ (phonetically 
pronounced more closely to _chair'-mun_) as being the person who presides
at a meeting, his experience may cause him to believe that the position is 
usually occupied by a male.  That, in itself, makes neither the speaker nor
the listener sexist.  Sexism is manifested by those who object to or are
uncomfortable (not simply surprised) to discover that a particular chairman is
a female.  To change the word to chairperson will do little to remove the 
sexism.  In fact, I believe that it probably tends to create more sexism by 
causing polarization of people otherwise unconcerned with the lexical issue.

Perhaps you have forgotten (or never realized) that language was created as a
means for conveying an image or a concept from the mind of one person to the
mind of another.  As language has become more refined, the lexicographers and 
grammarians have attempted to minimize the risk of a reader or listener 
conjuring up a different image than that which the writer or speaker had
intended.  At the very least, it provides a means for recognizing the
possibility of a misunderstanding.  

However, I see no reason why anyone must be _bound_ to their dictionary and to
_proper_ grammar so long as they can communicate with understanding among their 
associates.  Many social cliques use a "lingo" which only the initiated
can understand.  We sometimes hear people talking "Jive" or "Pig Latin".
That's fine with me as long as they don't try to convince me that I must use 
it also. 

If the feminists wish to create their own lingo for their own self-serving
purposes, let them do so.  But when they try to convince the world that we
must join them, I still have the right to reject their philosophy and use 
language which the majority of people will still _understand_.  For those 
people who may challenge it, sneer at it, criticize it or feel insulted by it,
they cannot claim that they did not understand it!

    Re .57:
    
    >> Why a term conjures up any particular image is irrelevant.
    >
    > Why is it irrelevant?  You used it as your justification in .27 and
    > drew some conclusions from it. 
    
    In .27, I made use of what sort of image "chairman" brings to mind.  I
    did _not_ make use of _why_ that image comes to mind. 
    
    >> The image that it happens to conjure up....is the meaning of the term.
    >
    > This implies that only the listener has the right to decide what the
    > speaker had in mind.  
    
    If you replace your ellipsis with what I wrote, "(in whatever sense a
    term conjures up a single 'image' for many people)", you should see
    that I was not referring to the single image of a single listener, but
    the combined image of an entire culture. 
                                                                         
    > Sexism is manifested by those who object to or are uncomfortable (not
    > simply surprised) to discover that a particular chairman is a female. 
    
    Why do you omit people who are surprised?  Consider a person who
    is selecting a chairperson.  That person might not object to or
    be uncomfortable about a female chairperson, but still might not
    consider a woman for the position because they have an image of
    a "chairman" as a man.  That person is exhibiting sexism.
    
    Using the word "chairperson" instead may help such people avoid
    their prejudices.  In fact, I do not believe the major battle remaining
    to eradicate discrimination is against people who consciously
    discriminate or object to people in non-traditional roles.  The
    battle lies in eradicating the unconscious values that people have
    been taught.
    
    > In fact, I believe that it probably tends to create more sexism by
    > causing polarization of people otherwise unconcerned with the lexical
    > issue.    
    
    Please explain this.
    
    > But when they try to convince the world that we must join them, I still
    > have the right to reject their philosophy and use language which the
    > majority of people will still _understand_. 
    
    How many English speakers would not understand "chairperson"?
    
    Beyond exercising your "right to reject their philosophy", _why_
    do you cling to your language?  How would you be hurt by using new
    language?
    
    
    				-- edp

Re: .57, .58

> I did _not_ make use of _why_ that image comes to mind.

I submit that was an error of omission.  You concluded that an image was
caused by the use of a word containing -man.  You neglected to consider any
other possibilities.

>...the combined image of an entire culture.

The mind of every listener will probably contain its own unique image.  The
degree to which they are similar is a function of education, social and 
literary experience.

> Why do you omit people who are surprised?

The person who is surprised to _find_ a female chairman had simple not
considered the possibility.  He may, in fact, be pleased with the discovery.
If some other person neglects to consider an available woman as a viable
candidate for a chairmanship, then, indeed, he would proabably be sexist.
In that case, take your grievance to him and his associates.  (He probably
won't care much for the word _chairperson_ either, but perhaps you can
change his mind.)

> Please explain [...causing polarization of people...]

There are many intelligent people (and I include myself) who never gave much 
thought, either pro or con, as to the suitability of females being chairmen
of committees.  I have worked with both men and women serving in what others
may consider stereotyped roles and it is not something which has bothered me.
(I was surprised, but not upset, to find that keyboard entry jobs in Brazil
are considered _man_ual labor and are generally restricted to males.)  But 
when a special-interest group insists that I should use a word such as
_chairperson_ I view that group as an irritant and have developed a resentment
which I believe is shared by other contributors to this file.  That's
polarization!

> How many English speakers would not understand "chairperson"?

Those who have not been exposed to it in the context in which you choose to
use it.  It could very well conjure up an image of a person who constructs
chairs!

> ..._why_ to you cling to your language?

Because I am comfortable with it, just like I am comfortable with my choice of
my home and my favorite chair.  Do you wish to take them away from me also?

If you are uncomfortable with your chair, find yourself a new one.  Don't 
insist that I get a new one too!

Re .59:

> I submit that was an error of omission.  You concluded that an image was
> caused by the use of a word containing -man.  You neglected to consider any
> other possibilities.

What you are saying does not make any sense to me.  I don't see any
rationale behind what you say.  Perhaps we should start over.  In .27, I said
that the image/meaning of "chairman" generally included some amount of
maleness.  This is simply an observation.  I know it because I have observed
people for some time.  I do not consider "other possibilities" any more than I
consider other possibilities when I observe a tree -- I know it's a tree and
not some other possibility because I am observing it.

Thus, the term "chairman" is sexist -- it cannot truly be used for a person
of completely unspecified sex.  None of this reasoning depends at all upon why
the term has the image/meaning it does, so there is no problem with omitting
consideration of the reasons why the term has its image/meaning. 

> The mind of every listener will probably contain its own unique image.  The
> degree to which they are similar is a function of education, social and 
> literary experience.

Are you saying that words do not have any common meaning?  How can you
understand this question? 

> The person who is surprised to _find_ a female chairman had [simply] not
> considered the possibility.  He may, in fact, be pleased with the discovery.
> If some other person neglects to consider an available woman as a viable
> candidate for a chairmanship, then, indeed, he would [probably] be sexist.

These two people are the same!

> In that case, take your grievance to him and his associates.

That's just not possible in many, if not most, cases.  How do you prove what
a particular person was thinking?  I believe much of the remaining sexism in
this country is _not_ overt and might not even be conscious.  It _cannot_ be
fought directly, because it can't be found directly.  It must be fought by
teaching people to avoid prejudices and/or by preventing the teaching of
prejudices.

> There are many intelligent people (and I include myself) who never gave much 
> thought, either pro or con, as to the suitability of females being chairmen
> of committees.

I submit that this is not true, that you have many prejudices of which you
are unaware, as the next quote shows.

> (I was surprised, but not upset, to find that keyboard entry jobs in Brazil
> are considered _man_ual labor and are generally restricted to males.)

Interesting.  Here is a case of overt sexual discrimination, and you are not
upset by it.  THAT'S THE WHOLE PROBLEM!

> But when a special-interest group insists that I should use a word such as
> _chairperson_ I view that group as an irritant and have developed a resentment
> which I believe is shared by other contributors to this file.

If you believed the assertions made about words involving "-man" being sexist,
would you still reject replacements?

If you were informed by various special-interest groups that words like "nigger"
were considered offensive, would you stop using them (assuming you had been),
even if you saw nothing offensive in them?

If a person asked you to call her "Kate" instead of "Cathy", even though
you had called all the other people named "Catherine" you knew "Cathy", would
you do it?  How about if she requested you to call her "Sal"?

>> How many English speakers would not understand "chairperson"?
> 
> Those who have not been exposed to it in the context in which you choose to
> use it.  It could very well conjure up an image of a person who constructs
> chairs!

I doubt that very much.

> Because I am comfortable with it, just like I am comfortable with my choice of
> my home and my favorite chair.  Do you wish to take them away from me also?

When your favorite chair starts hurting people, I would wish you to choose
another.  Or, for a better analogy, when it is discovered that your car has
a flaw which could cause harm to others, I would wish you to choose another.


				-- edp

        edp, you are always so marvelously picayune.  Do you honestly
        believe that changing the words will change the attitudes behind
        them?  Horsefeathers!
        
>What you are saying does not make any sense to me.  I don't see any
>rationale behind what you say.
        
        What you are saying does not make any sense to me.  I don't see
        any rationale behind what you say. 
        
>Thus, the term "chairman" is sexist -- it cannot truly be used for a person
>of completely unspecified sex.
        but later,
>                                                      How do you prove what
>a particular person was thinking?        
        
        This is an interesting assertion.  Clearly you believe this.
        However, that does not make it so.  If you believe it to be a
        sexist term, then don't use it, but don't presume (in your "holier
        than thou" way) that because someone else claims to not consider
        it so, he or she must be lying, and further that, because you know
        what's best, you should prescribe to everyone else what words may
        be used. 
        
>If a person asked you to call her "Kate" instead of "Cathy", even though
>you had called all the other people named "Catherine" you knew "Cathy", would
>you do it?  How about if she requested you to call her "Sal"?
        
        Hey, I'm even willing to call you "edp" and avoid the term "Mr."
        if it bothers you.  But if you come along and try to tell (preach
        to) me that I'm a sexist if I use common forms of address with
        others (who are _not_ offended, but might be offended if I did
        not), I tend to think you're just a little bit off the wall! 
        
        As for favorite chairs and your analogy to language, you have NO
        EVIDENCE that the current usage harms anyone.  You have your
        UNSUPPORTED BELIEF, which you trot out as if it were the word of
        God, inscribed on the tablets, brought down from the mountain.
        Sorry, I'm not convinced. 
        
        Tom

    Re. .60, .58, ...
    
    If I were told that the chairperson of some internal DEC technical
    committee were node::name, I would assume that the chairperson was
    probably male.  Thus I would be slightly (and pleasantly) surprised
    if the chairperson turned out to be female.  I would make a similar
    assumption if I were told just the first initial and last name of
    an ANSI committee's chairperson.  However, given similar information,
    I would assume that the chairperson of a DEC personnel or employee
    activities committee was female.
    
    If you substituted "chairman" for "chairperson", it would have no
    affect on these assumptions.
    
    Why am I making these assumptions?  Because this has been the case
    99% of the time in the past.  The senior technical community, out
    of which technical chairpersons/chairmen are usually selected, is
    overwhelmingly male.  I wish it weren't so.  The personnel / employee
    activities community is heavily female.  My assumptions are based
    on experience, not the use of the word chairman or chairperson.
    
    By your definitions, this means "chairperson" is sexist.  It conjures
    up a sex specific image in my mind.  I believe this is true for
    many people other than myself -- probably everyone who is arguing
    with you at the least.
    
    Inventing another term will not eliminate this problem, no more
    than inventing "chairperson" eliminated it.  The sex specific image
    is coming from experience, not from the term.  When my experience
    changes, so will my image.
    
    Using "chairperson" instead of "chairman" when you speak to me has
    two effects.  The first is that I'm slightly less likely to understand
    you correctly, if there's background noise and you speak softly.
    I'm more used to hearing "chairman", and can understand it slightly
    better when hearing conditions are poor.  The other effect is a
    slight feeling of annoyance at the speaker (not the chairperson/chairman),
    as they are contributing to abuse and obfuscation of the (American)
    English language.  
    
    Inventing new terms for concepts that did not exist before is
    justified.  This is the case with most computer and other technical
    terms.  Inventing a new word because you don't like the spelling
    of the current term is not justified.  It merely confuses people
    and contributes to mis-communication.  Mis-communication is all
    too prevalent without people aiding its cause.  I realize that you
    may feel that changing "chairman" to "chairperson" aids communication.
    I disagree.
    

Re .61:

> Do you honestly believe that changing the words will change the
> attitudes behind them?  Horsefeathers!

Let me take this opportunity to point out a number of straw men that various
people have created in this note.  Hopefully, after I point them out, people
will stop setting them up and knocking them down.  They are: 

	The use of words with sexist meanings causes discrimination.
	Changing the words will prevent discrimination.
	Every word involving "man" is too sexist to be used for a common
		gender.
	I insist people use "-person" instead of "-man".    
        
>         What you are saying does not make any sense to me.  I don't see
>         any rationale behind what you say.

My statement was not a protest that the other noter was wrong, but merely a
a notification that I did not understand.  Unlike you, I went on to invite
a rephrasing of what R. Stone was trying to say, and I restated what I had
been saying in what I hoped was a clearer form.  Is there something wrong with
that?
        
>         This is an interesting assertion.  Clearly you believe this.
>         However, that does not make it so.  If you believe it to be a
>         sexist term, then don't use it, but don't presume (in your "holier
>         than thou" way) that because someone else claims to not consider
>         it so, he or she must be lying, and further that, because you know
>         what's best, you should prescribe to everyone else what words may
>         be used.

Here we have another straw man.  I have not claimed any meaning for the term
"chairman" based solely on my belief of that meaning.  It seems quite obvious
to me that .27 explains _why_ I think "chairman" as the meaning I claim.  I am
perfectly willing to explain why I hold whatever positions I have put forth,
unlike some people who have not answered direct questions of that sort.  I
have no idea where you get the ideas that I have implied that something should
be believed by others because I believe it, that I am presenting things in a
"holier than thou" way, or that others are lying because they do not hold the
same meaning for a term that many people do.  These are your impressions, and
they are quite clearly incorrect -- I _always_ am willing to explain why I
believe something, and I _never_ claim others should believe it because I know
better.  Please retract your statements. 
        
>         As for favorite chairs and your analogy to language, you have NO
>         EVIDENCE that the current usage harms anyone.

This note is filled with evidence!  If you don't like the evidence, please
ignore the note or address the evidence and reasoning presented; do not
falsely declare it does not exist.


				-- edp

It's been a week or so since I got back into Notes. Thank goodness I put on my
asbestos suit before opening this conference! I'm fascinated by the exchange
of opinions and can't resist leaping into the flames with the rest of you. 

Here is how I feel about some of what has been discussed. Please do not infer 
that I think I know better or am holier than thou (unless of course thou art 
Attila the Hun or Mata Hari). I am sharing how and why _I_ use certain words,
and satisfying my curiosity as to what the rest of you are up to.

> Do you honestly believe that changing the words will change the
> attitudes behind them?  Horsefeathers!

I agree with earlier remarks that much of the battle today is to change those
unconscious attitudes and comfortable habits which manifest themselves in our
choice of language, and which _may_ make _others_ feel _un_comfortable or 
discriminated against.

I don't think anyone has _proven_ whether or not words like "chairman" are 
sexist, although they may very well be the result of sexism from more 
unenlightened times. They certainly don't do anything to change attitudes, or
reflect our awareness of sexism. 

That's where I think the deliberate use of other words comes in. We don't
know if it will change attitudes, but some of us think it's worth a try. 
If nothing else it can serve as a conversation opener for the discussion of 
said attitudes, and that exchange might indeed lead to change.

For instance, the other night a friend and I were talking about God. He said,
"When I want to find God I look for Him in solitude." I said I did that too,
but added that "I often find Her in other people. I think She sometimes chooses 
to manifest Herself through us". My friend looked startled at my use of the
feminine pronoun, but it opened the door for us to share our views on the male
and female aspects of God. If They were listening They probably enjoyed it!

>Let me take this opportunity to point out a number of straw men that various
>people have created in this note.  Hopefully, after I point them out, people
>will stop setting them up and knocking them down.  

What?! straw _men_! why didn't you say straw _people_! I'm suprised at you
edp!   :-)  ^/^


>	The use of words with sexist meanings causes discrimination.
>	Changing the words will prevent discrimination.
>	Every word involving "man" is too sexist to be used for a common gender.
>	I insist people use "-person" instead of "-man".    

I'm glad you pointed out that those of us in favor of modifying the language 
are not doing so because of the above false assumptions. Those of you who wish
to continue to use words like "chairman" instead of "chairperson" are welcome
to do so; but please be conscious of the fact that others of us consider that
to be a perpetration of sexist phraseology. I _do_ object to the statements that
_my_ desire to change or invent words that are non-sexist to replace words that
I think are sexist is "munging with English".

Someone made a comment that new words used to describe new technology were okay
because those concepts had not previously existed. I submit that the idea of
women in positions of authority (such as chairman) was in fact a new idea not 
all that long ago, and therefore the invention of the words to reflect this
social change (such as chairperson) is indeed justified.

	Sue

    Re .62: 

    Thank you for your response; it is refreshing to see some constructive
    opposing comments. 

    I have a question for you.  You point out that you might assume a
    chairperson is a particular sex, depending on the situation.  Suppose
    the situation is slightly different, and you are asked to select a
    chairman for some committee.  In this case, there is no definite person
    who has the position already.  Would you go into the selection process
    in the same frame of mind whether you were asked to select a chairman
    or a chairperson? 

    I also think it is much to restrictive to permit changing the language
    only to admit terms for new concepts.  Other reasons for changing a
    language include convenience (ease of expression), changing styles
    and societies, improving its usefulness for various applications,
    such as technical use.  Our language basically is changed at whim.
    
    Since I see that masculine forms of expression developed as a result
    of the "Men are people" philosophy, I guess I can't help seeing
    such forms as a symbol of that philosophy, just as a cross is a
    symbol of Christianity, and I can't see where that symbolism was
    ever removed from the phrases.
    
    
    				-- edp

    
    Sophocles:
    
    I beg you, do not be unchangeable.
    Do not believe that you alone can be right.
    The man who thinks that,
    The man who maintains that only he has the power
    To reason correctly, the gift to speak, the soul...
    A man like that, when you know him, turns out empty.

    Re .66:
    
    > Was Sophocles sexist?
    
    Think about it.
    
    The rest of your response is a straw man argument.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re: .67
    
    Argument??  Whose making an argument?  I merely asked a question?
    
    The quotation is subject to interpretation.

    Re .68:
    
    Fine, the rest of your response sets up a straw man and is ad hominem.
    It certainly doesn't have anything to do with the issue of sexism. 
    
    How would you answer the question "Was Sophocles sexist?"?
    
    
    				-- edp

Yesterday at a meeting I attended, the discussion leader read some text from a
book about women's issues. The topic of the meeting was NOT women's issues and
the passages read were about competition and self esteem. The leader prefaced 
his reading with the remark that the statements applied to the _human_ 
condition not just to women, and that the writer was using the feminine form 
because she had studied women and written about them.

When he was through, a man in the group said, "Those points apply to men too".
Another chimed in with a similar comment; then a third. "Those are _human_
problems," they asserted, "not just women's issues".

The leader smiled and said, "Let's return to the original topic, but I can't 
resist pointing out that your reaction is a perfect illustration of the 
argument in favor of inclusive language".

'Nuff said....	
			Sue

    Re: .69
    
    >How would you answer the question "Was Sophocles sexist?"?
    
    I have no idea.
    
        o  He presumably wrote in Greek.
    
        o  I don't know if his original writing of that quotation
           was gender specific.
    
        o  I have no idea who created this English translation nor how
           that individual may have interpreted the original.
    
    He does seem to have a point, however!
    
    

    Re: .70
    
    I'll vote for using inclusive language.  That's what we've had for
    a long time.
    
    How about a retake on .25:
    
    >It's us male folk who are missing words of our own. I feel deprived.
    
    If you need to be specific about someone being a male chairman you
    have to add the gender adjective or place it in context.

    SOPHISTRY
    
       A tricky, superficially plausible, but essentially fallacious
       method of reasoning.

    1.  Yes, Sophocles was almost certainly a sexist; the society
    from which he came was sexist.  (To the extreme that women were
    not considered to be worthy of love, either eros or agape.)
    
    2.  There is a simple solution to the complaint that there is
    no word that refers only to male humans.  We shall just hereafter
    use "she" and "woman" as the inclusive terms.  This is much better
    than the current set, because "he" is included in "she", and "man"
    is included in "woman".  "He" and "man" can be just for the males.
    
    Is everyone happy now?
    
    							Ann B.  :-)

    Re .71:
    
    >> How would you answer the question "Was Sophocles sexist?"?
    > 
    > I have no idea.
    
    Considering the time when Sophocles lived, the answer is almost
    certainly "Yes.".
    
    Since your other remarks continue, I point out again:
    
    	They have no bearing on the issue at hand.  They make no
    	support for your position.  Regardless of what you say about
        _me_, I have presented my _reasoning_ separately, and it
        stands on its own, without me.
    
        They are inappropriate to apply to me.  I have at no time
        maintained that only I have the power to reason correctly.  If I
        did believe that, I wouldn't bother to show you my reasoning
        for analysis.  Instead I would present only conclusions, and I
        would not answer questions about my reasoning.  (Hmm, that
        brings something up.  Is there anybody around here who doesn't
        present reasoning for analysis?)
        
    Can we return to the subject now?
    
    
    				-- edp

Re: .25 and .70

The use of the suffix "Man" as common gender originated in a sexist society.
While those who use it today may not intend it to be discriminatory, certainly 
using another suffix for common gender would _ensure_ no misunderstanding.

> When _society_ is not sex-discriminatory, people won't view _words_ as 
> sex-discriminatory unless they _really_ are (which implies, not common 
> gender). Its us male folk who are missing words of our own.  I feel deprived.

If "man" is BOTH common AND masculine gender, how will we know whether the
person using it means it to be sex discriminatory? If we agreed on a new
common gender we could be sure (and you men could get your suffix back and
you wouldn't feel depraved - oops! deprived - anymore).

	Sue

    
    NOTE: This is an 'I' statement.
    
    I consider you ALL to be a dour, humourless, BORING bunch of wankers.

      Re .76
      
      >If "man" is BOTH common AND masculine gender, how will we know
      >whether the person using it means it to be sex discriminatory? 

      Why should anyone WANT to know if a person using "man" means
      it to be sex-discriminatory?  Would/should a person's attitude
      toward a user of the word "man" depend on the latter's INTENT?
      Seems to me that would be a discriminatory practice in and of
      itself.  Sexismism.  I wouldn't want to be known as a sexismist.
      
      Dave C.

    One of my dictionaries (American Heritage) defines _sexism_:
    
    "Discrimination by members of one sex against the other, esp. [sic]
    by males against females, based on the assumption that one sex is
    superior."
    
    It implies that the assumption is being made by those practising
    the discrimination, but it does not indicate which sex is supposed
    to be superior.  Maybe it's an _inferiority_ complex.
    
    
    

    Re .79:
    
    Please see response .27, last paragraph, last sentence.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Re .65:
    
    > I have a question for you.  You point out that you might assume a
    > chairperson is a particular sex, depending on the situation.  Suppose
    > the situation is slightly different, and you are asked to select a
    > chairman for some committee.  In this case, there is no definite person
    > who has the position already.  Would you go into the selection process
    > in the same frame of mind whether you were asked to select a chairman
    > or a chairperson? 
      
    I was actually beginning to find these arguments slightly
    compelling, until I came to this observation, and realized, "Of
    course, I would go into the selection process in the same frame
    of mind."  
    
    I.e., if you tell me about a chairman, mailman, etc., I may 
    experience a moment's cognitive discord on realizing that "he" 
    is female; but if you ask me "Who is best qualified to be chairman, 
    mailman, etc.", it wouldn't even occur to me to exclude women
    from consideration.
    
    Thus, for me personally, the introspective exercise that you
    have suggested leads to the conclusion that changing terms would
    be irrelevant to the problem--that the solution to people's
    preconceptions is not to starting calling chairmen "chairpeople",
    but to let people see chairmen who are women.
                      
    	-Neil

    Re .81: 
    
    > Thus, for me personally, . . .

    It is clear that most people do _not_ go into a selection process
    prepared to consider men and women equally (equal consideration would
    have resulted in equal pay for equivalent work and a strong tendency
    for sexism to vanish from employment, and those do not exist in our
    society).  Thus, although you may claim not to exclude women from
    consideration, that is atypical.  For the majority of people who do not
    consider people equally, would asking them to select a "chairperson"
    change their frame of mind? 


				-- edp

    Eric,
    
    In .65 you proposed a thought experiment for the reader.  I presumed
    that you intended this seriously, and not just as a rhetorical
    device.  However, when I posted the results of carrying out this
    experiment, you stated, in effect, that my results are irrelevant.
    "Thus, although you claim not to exclude women from consideration,
    that is atypical."
    
    Why did you post this question in the first place, if you intended
    to discount any answer that was not in accord with your
    preconceptions?
    
    To put this another way, your original question (in .65) was
    a personal question to the reader, which could be answered only
    by introspection; and the essentially statistical arguments in
    .82 ("most people do _not_ ...", "For the majority of people")
    are simply irrelevant to this question.
    
    	-Neil

    .82 does seem to prove that its author had preconceived notions
    and his mind was made up.  Why bother him with the facts?  If he
    doesn't care about the integrity of the language, why should he
    care about the integrity of what he said?  After all, he said it
    in English!

    Re .83:
    
    In .65, I asked a question of the author of the note to which I was
    responding.  That is the way I normally address the author, although
    the response is for everybody to read.  When I wish to ask a question
    of participants in general, I usually include a reference to others,
    such as asking "Can anybody else provide . . . ?".  I asked that author
    specifically because I trusted them more than others.  Had I been
    responding to another author, it is likely I would have framed the
    question in terms of a hypothetical "average" person, to avoid a
    response saying that author is always perfectly fair, a condition which
    is indisputably not the standard. 
    
    In any case, the statistical arguments are still valid.  Can you
    dispute that it is more common in this country to select men rather
    than women for certain positions?  Do you deny that you are atypical?
    
    In addition, I note that you again attacked me.  In this case, there
    might be some justification for that if you believe I am being biased.
    However, there is no justification for ignoring my argument.  In
    attacking me, you said nothing about the case I presented.  Do you
    dispute it?
    
    
    Re .84:
    
    Your second sentence is irrelevant -- facts about a single, atypical
    person are not significant in the face of overwhelming discrimination.
    
    Your last two sentences are non sequiturs.
    
    
    				-- edp

    Perhaps we should make allowances for _edp_. It appears that he
    has not had sufficient experience to realize that the chairman of
    a group is almost always selected from among the members of the
    gorup. (The members may be either volunteers or appointees, but
    that is immaterial.)  Therefore, the field of candidates for the
    position of chairman is limited to those in the group, be they all
    males, all females, or a mixture.  
    
    Rather that cite vague observations, I shall mention that I have
    had nealy 40 years of experience with groups which include one or
    more *chairmen*, both male and female.  These include business groups
    (several dozen companies for which I have done professional
    consulting), social organizations, and town political groups (both
    as an elected and an appointed member of various committees).  In
    all of that experience, I cannot recall any specific instance where
    the chairman of a group was selected on a basis other than:
    
    1.  Ability to perform the duties of the position.
    
    2.  Availability and willingness to accept the responsibility.
    
    The SEX of the individuals was NOT a consideration, nor do I recall
    any (male or female) who were disturbed with the title *chairman*.
    
    The few instances where I have seen people deliberately use the
    term _chairperson_ were when they were trying to patronize perceived
    political antagonists. 
    
    That's my basis for my opinions.  I welcome others.
    

    If you go back and read through these last 80+ replies as well as
    those 100+ in a related note, it becomes quite clear that the most
    sexist contributor has been _edp_.  I think that _edp_ has very
    prejudice opinions that everyone but himself has very sexist attitudes
    and can't be fair when it comes to treating people equally regardless
    of sex.  In reality, the opposite appears to be the case as he has
    shown that if a person carries the title "chairman", or "whatever-man",
    he assumes that they are male.
    Enough said, and enough time wasted reading the same thing over
    and over.
    
    	-Kurt*
    
    p.s.  Nothing personal _edp_, but you really shouldn't place your
    	  own prejudices on other people.  Learn to deal with it, not
    	  hide it.
    

   Re .85, .83, ...
    
    [Warning:  if you feel that this entire discussion should have
    been put out of its misery 70 notes ago, please press "NEXT UNSEEN"
    now.]
    
        (A)  I apologize for stepping into a private conversation
    (with my note .81) and answering a question that was not directed 
    to me.
    
        (B)  Since you did choose to respond to my .81 (in your note
    .82), rather than simply telling me that the question had not
    been addressed to me, I presumed that you found my response worth
    consideration none the less.  Therefore, the remainder of this
    this note will disregard point (A) (since otherwise, .81, .82,
    .83, and .85 are *all* irrelevant).
    
    	(C)  I deeply regret that you interpret my note .83 as a
    personal attack on you.  [Aside:  I "again" attacked you?  Have
    I really been making a practice of this?]  I intended simply
    to suggest out that you were engaging in rhetorical practices 
    that I considered questionable (to wit, posing a question for
    its effect, but then discounting an answer that was at odds with
    that intended effect).  I do not believe that this is any more
    of a personal attack than a criticism of the logic of an argument
    would be.
    
    	(D)  In my note .83, I very deliberately ignored your argument
    in .82.  Far from there being "no justification for ignoring
    [your] argument", I explicitly stated my justification:  that
    regardless of its validity, a statistical argument (i.e., a 
    discussion of the beliefs or behaviour of "most people") was
    completely irrelevant to question .65 and response .81.
    
    	(E)  My personal perception of this exchange is rather like
    this:
    
    	.65:  Doesn't the use of the word "chairman" affect you in
    		a particular way?
    
    	.81:  No, it doesn't.
    
    	.82:  Well, regardless of how it affects you, it does affect
    		many other people that way.
    
    	.83:  You asked me how it affects me.  Why are you bringing
    		other people into the discussion?
    
    	.85:  Why are you ignoring my arguments?

    Re .86: 

    > Rather that cite vague observations, I shall mention that I have
    > had nealy 40 years of experience with groups which include one or
    > more *chairmen*, both male and female.

    The statistics reported by _Scientific American_ are hardly vague
    observations.  I am tired of people telling me how perfect they are in
    regard to sexism and how perfect everybody else they know is.  Okay,
    you're perfect, but it doesn't matter, because sexism exists and is
    widespread and should be dealt with regardless of how you are.  Do you
    really think that sexism is only displayed in open statements, e.g.,
    "Let's not pick that person because . . . ."?  Do you think it is
    always even a _conscious_ act?  Given that sexist practices may be
    subconscious, coming from values taught early and largely invisible
    once ingrained, what observations can you cite for saying you are sure
    sexist decisions do not exist, whether in the selection of a chair or
    any other action?  You cannot look, not see something which may be
    invisible, and decide it does not exist.  Use other means of
    observation.  Describe a breakdown by sex of the population from which
    you have seen chairs selected and the population of people selected.
    Were half the people selected male?  Did the number of females chosen
    even correspond to the fraction of females in the population being
    chosen from, let alone approach fifty-fifty? 
    
    > The few instances where I have seen people deliberately use the
    > term _chairperson_ were when they were trying to patronize perceived
    > political antagonists. 

    Re .87: 

    > If you go back and read through these last 80+ replies as well as
    > those 100+ in a related note, it becomes quite clear that the most
    > sexist contributor has been _edp_.  I think that _edp_ has very
    > prejudice opinions that everyone but himself has very sexist attitudes
    > and can't be fair when it comes to treating people equally regardless
    > of sex.  In reality, the opposite appears to be the case as he has
    > shown that if a person carries the title "chairman", or "whatever-man",
    > he assumes that they are male.

    Oh, that's good.  Very good.  So if I report that most people do not
    live in the United States, you will conclude that I do not live in the
    United States.  Just great. 

    Once again, I note that you are attacking the messenger and not the
    message.  First, two jumps in your logic are flawed:  My descriptions of
    many people or of "typical"/"average" people cannot be generalized to
    everybody, as you have done.  Second, my descriptions of such people
    cannot be extended to include myself.  They may or may not. 

    Next, even if they do extend to me, it has nothing to do with the
    issue!  The statements I made remain -- they are not affected in the
    least by your "observation". 

    Re .88: 

    >     (B)  Since you did choose to respond to my .81 (in your note
    > .82), rather than simply telling me that the question had not
    > been addressed to me, I presumed that you found my response worth
    > consideration none the less.  Therefore, the remainder of this
    > this note will disregard point (A) (since otherwise, .81, .82,
    > .83, and .85 are *all* irrelevant).

    Oh, because I said your response was irrelevant, I thought it was
    worthy of consideration?  Could you explain that?  How is my noting of
    the irrelevancy an indication of my belief in worthiness of anything
    more than such noting? 
    
    > 	(C)  I deeply regret that you interpret my note .83 as a
    > personal attack on you.  [Aside:  I "again" attacked you?  Have
    > I really been making a practice of this?]

    I did not say it was an attack; I merely mentioned it was a discussion
    of _me_ and not the issue. 

    > 	(D)  In my note .83, I very deliberately ignored your argument
    > in .82.  Far from there being "no justification for ignoring
    > [your] argument", I explicitly stated my justification:  that
    > regardless of its validity, a statistical argument (i.e., a 
    > discussion of the beliefs or behaviour of "most people") was
    > completely irrelevant to question .65 and response .81.
    > 
    >	(E)  My personal perception of this exchange is rather like
    > this:
    > . . . .

    That's putting the cart before the horse.  Yes, a statistical argument
    is irrelevant to the question/response we went through.  But the
    question/response is irrelevant to the issue, and the statistical
    argument is not.  It is the issue we want to be connected to.  The
    question/response has no merit -- unless you can explain what
    conclusions we can draw from it.  I can see nothing other than
    information about _you_ and not information about the larger problem
    (or alleged problem). 
                         

				-- edp

    Please, please, please - edp....sit back, relax and take a deep breath.
    Think about the new spring flowers, the green grass, and think about
    some of the pleasant things around us.

I don't believe that anyone is _attacking_ you.  Rather, I think it is fair to
say that we are merely reacting to what we perceive as abrasive, inflamatory
rhetoric.  That sort of interchange really does not help to promote whatever
cause you may choose to espouse.  It turns people off to the point where they 
see further discussion as fruitless.  That doesn't _win_ arguments.

I have never meant to imply that I was perfect.  I'll be the first to admit
that I am not (I even misspelled a few words....shame on me!)  I and others 
have tried to provide some insight as to why we have certain opinions.  You 
have made certain references to "Scientific American" and other sources, but
which I have not seen, and must assume that others have not also.  I certainly
am not prepared to accept as conclusive any observations drawn from _any_
survey or study unless I am satisfied that all causal factors have been
analyzed.  Such observations may be correct or they may not.

The question has been posed: "Is _man_ sexist?"  Various noters have 
volunteered their personal opinions.  You have tended to reject certain
opinions as irrelevant because you happen to differ with them.  In this
country we are all entitled to our own opinions and beliefs, and we are also
free to reject those of others.  To continue learning and to allow ourselves
to grow, we should operate on the premise that the opinions of others may
have some merit.

I will readily accept the premise that sexism does exist in many cultures and
in many social, business, and political environments.  To call it widespread
is perhaps misleading....Earth's atmosphere contains tons of various inert
gases and pollutant particles which are unquestionably _widespread_, but the 
overwhelming bulk of that atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, and
carbon dioxide.  To reduce the pollutant level may be a worthy cause, but
a lot of people are really not going to get very stirred up about it.

We also must recognize other inequalities which exist....racism, hunger,
poverty, illiteracy....I don't deny them.  It just happens that I have 
chosen to concentrate my energies in a social and work environment which
allows me to be reasonably content and productive at something which I 
believe I can do well.  My associates tend to be reasonably intelligent and 
educated people and we co-exist with a minimum of friction.  For those who
wish to crusade on behalf of an element of the oppressed, let them do so.
All that I ask is that be more careful about defining the real problem and to
be sure that the cure is not worse than the disease.

Q.  Do I think _man_ is sexist?

A.  No, and I cannot recall any of my associates who have been disturbed by
    the use of the term.

Q.  Is the proportion of female chairmen to male chairmen in the same ratio as
    the mix of sexes in the populations involved?

A.  I doubt it, but I've never seen anyone take a head count and cry "foul".
    If I did find myself in such a situation, I would consider the merits of
    the issue and would take a position based on the factors involved.  I
    would hope others would do likewise.


Q.  Do I think that changing words containing _man_ to _person_ will reduce
    or eliminate sexism? 

A.  No!  I believe that it does not address the root of the problem and that
    it only creates a backlash reaction.


[End of sermon, now let's pass the collection plate.... :^} ]

    I have been reluctant, up to this point, to reply to this note.
    However, since it seems to have been going on for some time now,
    I will offer an encapsulated version of my views on the subjects
    addressed.
    
    1.  RE:  The uses of "Man" and the common gender in current proper
    English:  I do not feel, nor do I know anyone who feels that the
    terminology is sexist.  It depends on the emphasis.  "Chairman"
    is not offensive but, when attention is drawn to it, (ChairMAN!!!),
    then it is offensive.  Without exception, this attention is brought
    to it by those who purport to defend women and their rights, which
    brings me to my next point.
    
    2.  RE:  edp's ardent defense of women and women's rights:  From
    my point of view, he is the worst type of chauvinist.  His argument
    says to me, "Women are so helpless they need my loud voice and others
    like mine to get their rights for them.  AND women are so silly
    and stupid that they don't even know this is happening to them!
    And even if they did know, they wouldn't be able to help themselves.
    Look how many years they've been oppressed, discriminated against,
    underpaid and undervalued.  And they're too ineffectual to be able
    to do anything about it without my help." 
    
    I don't need him coming to my defense, paving the way for me in
    business.  As far as I'm concerned, people like him only accentuate
    the differences between men and women, hindering equality.  If I'm
    going to work side by side with men, I want them to treat me as
    an equal, not falling all over themselves trying to avoid inflammatory
    terminology.  If they think, "watch what you say when she's around",
    they it's hindering an equitable relationship.
    
    3.  RE:  The subconcious sexism rap:  When I was  in college I wrote
    a paper for a management class which dealt with my philosophy of
    management.  In it I said that 
    I would not want to be hired because I was the best female for the
    job, I would only want the job if I were the best person.  My teacher
    returned the paper to me with an article attached entitled, "The
    Non-Concious Ideology".  Basically the article stated that people
    act in sexist/racist/..n..ist ways because they harbor these feelings
    non-conciously. Not SUBconciously, which implies that the feeling
    can ever be brought to the surface, but Non-conciously.  In otherwords,
    they don't know they feel that way but they do.  A typical argument
    with a proponent of the Non-Concious Ideology theory would go something
    like this:
    
    P1:  I'm not sexist.
    P2:  Yes you are, you just don't KNOW that you are.
    
    Sound familiar?  My question to that line of reasoning is, if the
    feeling is non-concious and can never be brought to the surface,
    how can someone else know it exists?          
    
    
    By way of concluding this Postpischelian diatribe, I think people
    who loudly extol ideas such as edp's do more to hurt equality than
    to help it.  When I have to work with people like that, it makes
    me embarrassed and self-concious because I'm afraid it will destroy
    the rapport I have developed with my male colleagues by making them
    embarrassed, self-concious, and more than anything else, aware that I
    am different and I demand special treatment.                   
    
    The above are my OPINIONS.  They are not fact, but they are also
    not irrelevent.
    
    
    Susan
    
    

    Re .90: 

    Most of response .90 is ad hominem remarks.  I will take the bulk of
    .90 as evidence supporting my previous statements about such remarks
    and not mention the matter further here, although I may reply via mail.

    Here are the parts of .90 that are relevant to the issue of sexism and
    language. 

    > You have made certain references to "Scientific American" and other
    > sources, but which I have not seen, and must assume that others have
    > not also.  I certainly am not prepared to accept as conclusive any
    > observations drawn from _any_ survey or study unless I am satisfied
    > that all causal factors have been analyzed.  Such observations may be
    > correct or they may not. 

    The material I reported on consists of pure observations.  It is just
    raw data condensed into totals, means, and similar things.  THERE ARE
    NO CAUSAL FACTORS ANALYZED BY THE REPORT, and so there can be no error
    in such analysis.  What we have is observations, and the conclusions
    drawn from them are my own and have been presented for your analysis. 

    > To call it widespread is perhaps misleading....Earth's atmosphere
    > contains tons of various inert gases and pollutant particles which are
    > unquestionably _widespread_, but the overwhelming bulk of that
    > atmosphere is made up of nitrogen, oxygen, and carbon dioxide. 

    Calling the problem widespread is not misleading.  I have cited figures
    which demonstrate the magnitude of the problem.  It is misleading to
    give an analogy with an element which does not correspond -- the
    magnitude of the problem.  Not only is sexism widespread in that it
    exists over a wide area, it is a large problem because of the _large_
    differences in the way men and women are treated.  8,000 dollars a year
    is not a small amount to almost anybody. 

    > We also must recognize other inequalities which exist....racism,
    > hunger, poverty, illiteracy....I don't deny them.  It just happens that
    > I have chosen to concentrate my energies in a social and work
    > environment which allows me to be reasonably content and productive at
    > something which I believe I can do well. 

    As you present it, there appears to be a choice between working on
    other problems and working on sexism, but I hardly believe using
    non-sexist language will detract significantly from other activities. 

    Earlier, you have said you had only heard "-person" used in attempts at
    some sort of political appeasement.  I have checked several
    dictionaries regarding the use of "-person" or words with that form,
    and I find no mention of such usage.  Certainly I would expect such
    information to be presented if the usage you describe were indeed the
    principal usage.  _The American Heritage Dictionary_ has a usage note on
    this matter: 

       _Person_ is used _increasingly_ [emphasis added] to create
       compounds which may refer to either a man or woman:
       _chairperson_; _spokesperson_; _anchorperson_; _salesperson_.
       These forms can be used when reference is to the position itself,
       regardless of who might hold it:  _The committee should elect a
       chairperson at its first meeting._  They are also appropriate
       when speaking of the specific individual holding the position:
       _She was the best anchorperson the local station had ever had._
       _The group asked him to act as their spokesperson_. . . . 
                              
    I can also give two examples drawn from popular media.  _Saturday Night
    Live_ introduces their news with "anchorperson Dennis Miller".  I doubt
    they are trying to appease anybody with such usage.  A more interesting
    example occurred on a game show, _$100,000 Pyramid_.  The answer to
    part of a game was "salesman", but the contestant said "salesperson".
    At first the judge refused to accept the answer, but the audience booed
    rather loudly.  The audience is not usually heard from on this show.
    This dramatically shows not only popular acceptance of "-person" words,
    but acclaim for them.  I hope this puts to rest objections that the use
    of "-person" will cause friction.  It is quite obvious that
    non-acceptance of "-person" caused friction in this example.
                              

				-- edp

    Re .91: 

    You attribute motivations to me which are false and irrelevant.  My
    purpose in objecting to sexism in no way stems from a feeling that
    "women are so helpless they need . . .".  If I felt women were
    "helpless" or "silly and stupid", I would not object to sexism (because
    it would then represent true beliefs).  I oppose sexism because I
    dislike it and it represents false beliefs. 

    > My question to that line of reasoning is, if the feeling is
    > non-concious and can never be brought to the surface, how can someone
    > else know it exists? 

    That is a trivial problem.  If you observe somebody do something but
    they say they do not do it (and you believe they are not lying), you
    know they do it non-consciously. 

    > . . . I think people who loudly extol ideas such as edp's do more to
    > hurt equality than to help it. 

    I do not "loudly extol" anything here.  An appearance of such may be
    given by the fact that the argument is concentrated in one place; we
    have here a continuing progression of responses all on one topic.  But
    they were actually made over a period of months and are a small part of
    my and others' activities.  Most of the people I work with are probably
    totally unaware of any "loud" argument going on, or any argument at
    all.  This is a conference on language and is the place for such
    discussion.  If the subject arose in another situation, it would
    take a different and more relaxed form.

    Your descriptions of making people "embarrassed" and "self-conscious"
    are inaccurate.  Such feelings need not exist when using non-sexist
    language.  See the previous response for a description of how
    non-sexist language is become well-accepted, so well that it can
    be used knowing it will be welcomed without any pressure that could
    cause embarrassment.

    > . . . aware that I am different and I demand special treatment. 

    That's certainly interesting.  The whole point is that you are NOT
    different and you do NOT need special treatment (but neither should
    anybody else receive special treatment). 

    > The above are my OPINIONS.  They are not fact, but they are also
    > not irrelevent.
    
    That is not true.  My motivations are irrelevant, and I ask you to stop
    speculating about them and libeling me. 


				-- edp

     Re: .92

Finally, we have some specific information from which edp has formed his
opinions:

1.  Some "raw data condensed into totals, means, and similar thins." in
    Scientific American.  (Were there any figures given about the sampling
    technique, the universe sampled, and the calculated confidence factors?)
    And since there were NO CAUSAL FACTORS ANALYZED, it would appear that 
    edp has assumed his own and has discarded (or not even considered) any that
    would not support his own conclusions.

2.  One television program where there was an audience reaction to the
    *judge's decision* regarding the use of a word used to answer a 
    question.  Had the contestant answered "chairman", I doubt that there
    would have been any audience reaction whatever.
    
    That's kind of slim pickin's for winning a collegiate debate.
    
    ------------------                                  
    
    It still remains that "widespread" is more of an antonym of 
    "localized"  and contains no connotation of relative magnitude.
    
    -------------------

    As for "using non-sexist language"....I generally avoid blatant sexist
language anyway, so I see no need to adapt something different in order to 
appear non-sexist.  I carry no illusions that one sex is necessarily superior
to the other.  Various individuals of either sex may be superior to other
individuals in certain characteristics, and in some attibutes there may be
collective weight on one side or the other....that's a fact of life, but
not necessarily sexism.

And lest anyone's perspective get too far out of focus, consider the image
of the statistical mean for the average person: it would have only one
developed breast and one testicle! (:^})
    

    Re: .94
    
    	"Finally, we have some specific information ...
    
    	1.
    
    	2."
    
    Sorry, but you can't get away with that tactic in a notefile where
    everyone can see the history of the debate.  "edp" has given lots
    of other support for his argument in numerous notes.  Even in reply
    number 92, which you purport to quote, he gave additional evidence
    that you deliberately ignored so you could cleverly argue that he
    had only made 2 points.  Cheap trick, but it didn't work.
    
    Lew Lasher

re:.95    
>    Even in reply
>    number 92, which you purport to quote, he gave additional evidence
>    that you deliberately ignored so you could cleverly argue that he
>    had only made 2 points.  Cheap trick, but it didn't work.
    
    Let's not quibble over which reply addressed which reply when and
    with what information.  Mr. Postpischil (insert Pavlov here) was
    attempting, it appears, to give his (its?) "best shot" and came
    up with some sily Scientific American article that didn't even discuss
    causality, yet causality is the principal justification for his
    argument:  He purports that the English language, as literally
    constituted, is the cause of sex discrimination.
    
    His use of "Saturday Night Live" as an example of mainstream English
    usage is funnier than most of the past few years' shows have been.
    When they began to use that introduction, I took it to be part of
    the humor (it's a comedy show, after all) -- deliberately using
    a strange-sounding neologism to distinguish their made-up "news"
    show from reality.
    
    I thought .91 went unanswered because it put the matter to bed.
    It certainly was the best summary I've seen on the topic.  Quibbling
    over whether a summary of an argument contains sufficient justification
    of its point is second-rate sophistry.

    
    
    The tone of this NOTE has strayed far enough.  I nolonger consider
    the discussion productive and I am requesting the participants to
    discontinue any replies to this note.
    
    Thank You,
    
    The Moderator

    Re .97:
    
    I think a call for closing statements would be better than an abrupt
    termination.
    
    
    				-- edp

re .97:  Thank you Mr. Moderator.
re .98:  Why?  Nothing new has been said in the last 50 or so notes.

-Mike

    Since I have been misrepresented, I wish to clear up one point.
    This response is not intended as an argument for or against the
    issues discussed in this note; it is just a clarification of my
    position and is not intended to cause further responses.
    
    In 147.96, Fred Golstein says:
    
    > He purports that the English language, as literally constituted, is
    > the cause of sex discrimination. 
    
    That statement is not true, as I said in .63 and .11 (a direct respose
    to another response by Fred Goldstein).  A more accurate indication can
    be found in 143.24 and other responses. 
    
    
    				-- edp

    Gee, I was taking the moderator's advice.  This topic is tired.
    
    Having just re-read the replies referred to in .100, though, I'd
    say that I've been misrepresented.  I simply accept the clear
    inferences of one of the paragraphs in .24, etc.  At this point
    the discussion degenerates into inference vs. statement, relevant
    paragraph vs. aside, etc.  Hence the moderator is right.

    Re .101:
    
    Oh, come on.  Let ME be the authority about what _I_ say, all right?
    (See new subject in note 198.) 
    
    
    				-- edp

        It's perfectly reasonable for you to be authority about what
        you meant.  Each of us can see what you said, although some
        of us may interpret it differently than others.  Each of us
        is the authority on how we have individually interpreted it.
        
        If we were all perfect communicators, there might be fewer
        arguments over what we meant, but there would still be many
        disagreements on what we believe.
        
        Tom

    Proposed at an Anglican Conference in Sydney recently:
    
    "Parent, Child and Holy Spirit"
    
    Seriously folks... if the good Lord had wanted to be called Parent,
    she would have indicated so :-)

    This is only tangentially related to this topic, but no one has
    replied here for a while:
    
    How to explain "womanize"?  It sounds like what a surgeon does to
    a man who requests a sex change operation.  Is there such a word
    as "womanization"?
    
Lew Lasher

    Re .105:
    
    I think that "womanize" came in the backl door.  A "womanizer" is
    generally accepted (though in neither dictionary I had quick access
    to) to mean a male who actively seeks out women for sexual reasons,
    with a significant modicum of success.  Derivitively, I suppose,
    "womanize" would be the process of seeking out women ....
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

>                                        ...Derivitively, I suppose,
>   "womanize" would be the process of seeking out women ....

Does that make a procurer, pimp to some, a "womanizee"?

DEC software is up to date. When I ran my reply to this note through SPELL, I 
found that the dictionary carried "womanize".

        Mike

>Does that make a procurer, pimp to some, a "womanizee"?

No, a pimp would be the womanizOR; the woman would be the womanizee.

					>>>==>PStJTT

>     I think that "womanize" came in the back door.


No, that would be something else entirely.

    Of course a female womanizer would be a womanizess.
    
    ;-)       
    
    
    John M.

    re .111:
    
    By that logic, John, a female employer would be an employess. :-0
    :-)
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

Re: .112

	No, no... a female employer would be an employtrix. (Or 
exploitrix depending on your political views.)
						>>>==>PStJTT

    No, an employster!
    
    (As spinster is the feminine for spinner, seamster is the
    original feminine for seamer, and baxter is the feminine for
    baker.)
    
    						Ann B.

    Heard on WBCN as a name for the Hart/Rice "scandal"--
    
    			Tailgate

    Re: .114
    
    I don't suppose you have an explanation for "monster" or "rooster."
    
Lew Lasher

    	Can we then complete the possible sexual variants with the words
    "manizer" and "manstress"?
    
    	Actually, I am rather dubious about the original word. Bearing
    in mind the meaning, would not "womenizer" be more appropriate?
    "Womanizer" would seem more to imply associating with a particular
    woman frequently.

>    			...would not "womenizer" be more appropriate?
>    "Womanizer" would seem more to imply associating with a particular
>    woman frequently.

I think of it as meaning "izing" one woman (but not the same one) at a
time.  You'd have to be much more successful (and need greater stamina 
<any latin scholars out there?>)  to be a womenizer.

					>>>==>PStJTT 

And of course, to stare at someone with a vacuous, wide-eyed look would be to 


	"Betty-Davisize"


(I couldn't resist.)

Larry

    "Womanize" is quite an old word -- 1700's at least -- and had a
    particular connotation of spending a lot of time falling in and out of
    love.  Lots of women but one at a time, sort of like serial
    extramonogamy. 
    
    In contrast: "to wench", seek out young working women looking for
                              some fun on the side;
                 "to stew", to look in the poor parts of town for an
                              available slum girl;
                 "To whore", find someone who charges for it. 
    
    (All of these in their eighteenth-century cloak, of course.)

    --bonnie, always willing to throw in word history when it's least
    appropriate

    Re .117:
    
    > "Womanizer" would seem more to imply associating with a particular
    > woman frequently. 
    
    Does a firefighter fight only one fire?  Does a race car driver drive
    only one race car?  Does a newspaper deliverer deliver only one
    newspaper? 
    
    
    				-- edp