Conference turris::womannotes-v2

    Well, I'll be the first to try out the water temperature.
    
    I tutor American Sign Language on occasion, and on one such occasion,
    we got into the more colorful aspects of communication, and then
    The Question came up:
    
    "What's the sign for slut?"
    
    I showed the tutee.
    
    "And for a male?"
    
    Perplexion.  "There isn't one."
    
    "Why not?"
    
    "I don't know.  Maybe because there isn't a clearcut English word
    that conveys the negative connotations of a man who sleeps around
    indiscriminately..."
    
    
    I still haven't found such a word which is strictly limited to the
    negative sexual aspects of the person.
    
    "Scum" is a description, but requires further detail.  "Slut" is
    enough to tell the whole story.
    
    I think that this points out a great failing in society...
    
    Bill

    When "officials" report that sports in school is important "to our
    young people's growth".  Sports in school usually mean male sports
    and traditionally the only benefittors from the experience have
    been males.
    
    When articles on fashion report "our" obsession with "beauty" without
    mentioning that it's "male" obsession with "female" beauty.
    
    When a question on constant female nudity in movies where men stay
    relatively clothed was answered with "our" discomfort with naked
    men without mentioning that it's really only the discomfort of the
    male at the helm.
    
    Far too often the words male and female are eliminated which gives
    the prose a more universal-seeming acceptance.  WE, (the society),
    don't have an obsession with body parts, MEN have an obsession with 
    WOMEN's body parts.  I think the elimination of the full picture
    in a lot of newspaper and magazine articles has the general society
    nodding and agreeing and missing the sexist assumptions underneath.
    I had cut out one such article that I was going to type in here
    in its entirety and then insert the words male and female where
    appropriate.  Because when I did, the article took on a very different
    flavor from discussing "universal" concepts of fashion to admitting
    to male obsession with the female body.

"Sports in school usually mean male sports and traditionally the only
benefittors from the experience have been males."

Traditionally is right... you'd have to go back a decade or so for that to
be true...

"it's "male" obsession with "female" beauty."

"it's really only the discomfort of the male at the helm."

I think these are unfounded assumptions that the crux of the situation lies
solely on men.

JMB 

    
    	re: .4  If sports in school don't usually mean male sports,
    	        why do I see so little coverage of girls and womens
    		sports in the papers?  It's better, but it's not 
    		there yet!
    
    	SLL
    		

>    Far too often the words male and female are eliminated which gives
>    the prose a more universal-seeming acceptance.

Oh yeah! Like the tax forms that say 'taxpayer' and 'spouse'? I got burnt on
those. I fill out the taxes, I'm the taxpayer, Joe's my spouse! Yet the IRS
sent aggravation-mail to Joe when I did that. We got an accountant the next
year, and the little forms you fill out have a key:
	H - taxpayer
	W - spouse

Oh my gosh, it's husband and wife! Why the f*** didn't they say so, and save us
the aggravation of dredging up the DCU check?

I can't _wait_ til gays and lesbians can marry. That'll get rid of some of this
crap!
	Mez

"why do I see so little coverage of girls and womens sports in the papers"

I don't know...  I don't read the sports pages.  I consider the majority
of spectating of sports or reading about sports to be a waste of time.  I'd
much rather be out playing myself.

What little I've seen in local/school papers seems to be about 3/5ths woman's
sports...

JMB. 

    re: .6
    
    My mother had the same "spouse" problem the first time that she
    applied for a credit card, with herself as "homeowner", and my dad
    (who thought the whole thing was hilarious) as spouse.  The store
    in question gave her quite a bit of grief, and she had to go up
    two levels past the immediate manager to get approval.
    
    I've also heard that when the "homeowner" (read "husband") dies,
    then in some (all?) cases, credit cards are (were) rescinded, since
    any MCP *knows* that Harriet couldn't possibly be responsible enough
    to take care of credit cards without Harry watching over them...
    
    Is this still true?

    Bill.

    
    re: .8
     
    Yes, it is still true, at least in some places.  A friend's
    grandmother was recently widowed, and since her MC and VISA 
    were in the names of Mr & Mrs X, they were revoked.  The bank
    told her she could reapply, and that they were fairly certain 
    she would be given a new one, in her name.
    
    In the meantime, she's discovering how impossible it is to do things
    without a credit card: rent a car, reserve a hotel room in another
    city, etc.  
    
    Kasey

    RE: Sports in school
    
    Yes, things have improved. When I was in high school, there *were*
    no sports for women - it was *unladylike*!
    
    When I taught phys.ed. and coached, however, there were many sports
    for the female students. WE *still* had to fight for fields and
    equal time, and equal funding, but there were sports. At the time,
    in the moment, the girls got some good from playing, I believe.
    
    But: looking at the bigger picture, the "old boys' network" which
    forms from the competitive sports milieu doesn't work for the
    women. There is still something missing. For one thing, women coaches
    do not get the access to administrative jobs that the men do.
    
    For another, women student-athletes don't seem to carry their
    athletics past school-days. There is a comraderie that men have
    in athletics with work colleagues that seems to bypass women.
    I have yet t be able to figure the dynamic, here.
    
    --DE
    

    Re:  .10
    
    See the book "Games Mother Never Taught Me" for the connection between
    games, football, war etc. and business language, teamwork and how
    women are treated in this strategy.

    I am in favor of an entirely new and inclusive pronoun for the third
    person singular:
    
    	sheit      pronounced in two syllables:  she-it

    Includes all the existing pronouns!  
   
    There may be a few problems in some areas of the USA where a similar 
    word is already pronounced as if spelled with at least one e.  Since
    that other word is used as noun, verb, adjective, expletive, why
    not pronoun also? 
    
    For those who find this suggestion offensive, I call upon the divine
    spirit of harmony to visit you:
    
    May She-it surround you.  May She-it reward all your efforts.  May
    She-it follow you all the days of your life, and may you dwell in
    She-it's house forever.

    Pat    :')
    
    Too hot to be serious
    

        
    > Personally, while I use it now and then, I generally feel that
    > "one" sounds too formal and awkward.
    > 
    > --- jerry
      
    I think that the only reason "one" sounds too formal and awkward
    is that no one uses it! I don't see how it is really any different
    than always using "he"/"him", the only difference is that we are used
    to hearing "he"/"him" and not "one". I think that using "he/she" is
    really the awkward construction. Substituting "she"/"her" is really
    no answer, it imposes the same kind of sexism in language as the
    use of "he"/"him". Alternating gender, I find, is as jarring
    as alternating verb tense. I was reading a book on child development
    and they alternated gender every paragraph. I found it uncomfortable
    to read, just as uncomfortable as if they kept changing typeface.
    I think it would not have been so bad if they had lowered the frequency
    of change to a chapter rate.
    
    In conclusion, there already exists a perfectly good alternative
    to the use of the male pronoun, "one". I think its use should be
    taught as the preferred form. By doing so, it will cease to sound
    so formal.
    
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    112.13
    
    nice note steve...I remember when even the word 'she' sounded
    strange
    
    it is question of 'evolution in action' perhaps?

re: .13

    I remember being taught that the correct use of "one" is:
    "...one...he...", ("If ONE has a problem then HE should do something
    about it." but I can't find a reference anywhere except in my memory.
    
    To settle the problem, I use "she" when I write. I get comments
    frequently, for example: 
   	"You have to change this 'she' to 'he'." 
	"No, I wrote that on purpose." 
	"Oh"
    
    It makes people pay attention and notice the inequality. With the
    changing times, there's no right usage anymore. "He" is clearly wrong;
    "s/he" and "she/he" are ugly and hard to keep reading. Maybe "she-it"
    will catch on.
    
    					-- hs 
    
    

    re .15:
    
    > Maybe "she-it" will catch on.
    
    Geeze, I hope not! :-)
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
                                             

    
    re: she-it
    
    as in deep....?

    
    
    The correct use of "one" is to NOT use "he" or "she" - Quote
    for Professor of English - U of Lowell - 1978 when he was
    remaking on an article I wrote in the newspaper that the "wonderful"
    editor has seen fit to "fix" so that "one" was followed by the
    use of "he".
    
    _peggy
    

    From Strunk and White's 'The Elements of Style' 3rd edition. 
    
    One.  In the sense of "a person," not to be followed by his.
    
    Incorrect                   	Correct 
    
    One must watch his step.		One must watch one's step. (You must
    			       		watch your step.)                   
                                         

    ________________________________________________________________________
    
    The use of one may sound a bit formal at first, perhaps because we
    are not used to hearing it.                    
    
    Angela
    
    
                           
    
    
    
    

	"One never knows, do one?"
		- Fats Waller (sometime in the 1920's)

    re: .21
    
    >   "One never knows, do one?"
    
    Was this a play on words that I missed, or a typo which should have
    read:
    
    >   "One never knows, does one?"
    
    (I don't mean to derail the entire train here, just curious... 
    I'm sure others will come up with the same question...)
    
    Bill

    > Was this a play on words that I missed, or a typo ...
    
    Neither. it was a quote -- something that fats waller said on one
    of his recordings. maybe you had to be there, but whenever i've
    heard it, it's cracked me up.
    
    liz

    Hope you all are using that NEXT/UNSEEN key, or this is gonna get
    buried...
    
    I was recently writing a business letter to someone at another facility
    named "Lee".
    
    Now, before I'd come to Digital, and been exposed to some of the
    views in here, I'd have slapped "Dear Sir" on the header, and zipped
    it off without a thought.
    
    But, I've learned.  I hesitated.  What should I put in the salutation?
    
    If the person is male, then it's "Dear Sir"; if female, then should
    it be "Dear Ma'am", or "Dear Madam"?  Personally, I'd go with the
    "madam", but somebody brought up the unfortunately association with
    the manager of a brothel, and god knows, that's not something I
    want on a letter asking for a favor  :^)
    
    After trying about 6 different combinations (screen editors are
    wonderful, are they not?), I finally went along with:
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       October 18, 1988
         
                                       AKO1-2/G5
                                       Digital Equipment Corp
                                       Acton, Massachusetts
         
         RE:   Subject went here
         Attn: Lee Lastname
         
    
         I am writing this letter in the hope that you may be of some
         assistance....
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Now, I know this is a bit, ahh, impersonal, but at least it's not
    sexist...
    
    Comments/ideas/suggestions?
    
    Bill
    
    

When I'm doing the person a favor (like buying something), I _always_ use 'Dear
Madam'. Stimulates those brain cells.

However, if I can't afford to piss the person off, I use 'Dear Sir or Madam'
(or 'Madam or Sir' if I can take a small risk).

I think Madam sounds kinda nice...
	Mez

< Note 112.24 by AKOV12::MILLIOS "Mass.' 3 seasons: cold, -er, -est!" >
                            -< Business letters... >-


If I'm unsure, I always start with "Greetings:"

    RE: .24
    
    I liked it. Why shouldn't it be impersonal - you don't *know*
    the person, right? So it's gotta be impersonal by definition, right?
    Besides which, since you knew the first name, "sir" or "madam" wasn't
    necessary anyway. You could've even said "Dear Lee" or just "Lee,".
    I thought it was OK the way you did it.
    
    
    RE: .25
    
    Isn't "madam" equivalent to "unknown-person-of-the-female-persuasion"?
    
    Whereas...."Madame"....well now.....
    
    :-)
    
    --DE
    

    I tend to use "Dear Ms. Lastname."
    
    If it's in Digital, I'd consider, "Dear Lee."  That's pretty
    informal and not appropriate in a lot of situations.
    
    I have also been known to telephone Mr./Ms. Lastname's office
    and asking the receptionist how to address the person.
    
    If the person has a title, you can sometimes get around the
    problem by using it:  Dr. Lastname or Senator Lastname are
    genderless.  But not all titles are helpful; "Dear Systems Analyst
    II" sounds like I just got out of a military unit -- or more
    likely a mental institution. 
    
    --bonnie

    Often, if I don't have to be super-formal, I'll do:
    
    Good day:
    
    (equiv. of "greetings")
    
    -Jody
    

    I'm with Jenny and Jody:  I use "Greetings..."  (or, sometimes,
    "Friends...")
    
    						=maggie

    When I don't care if it's impersonal, I usually start out, "Dear Sir/Ma'am."
                                                                               
    
    
    -T.
    

    Well, in this case, I had no idea if "Lee" was a man or a woman,
    so I couldn't just pick one...
    
    If I'd said "Dear Sir/Ma'am", as .31 suggested, it's hardly as
    ingratiating as I was trying to be.. :^)
    
    Hmm.  Guess we have to be a bit impersonal, and safe, than stick
    our necks out and actually make a guess, eh?
    
    If I'd said "Ms. X", she could have been one of those anti-feminist,
    pro-husband's-name types (large grin here), and gotten all in a
    huff, which would have blown me away...
    
    Dear One:     ???
    
    (Which would imply that somewhere, there was a Two, etc.  :^)
    
    I guess it takes a while (as has been mentioned before) for language
    to catch up to the user's wishes on ways to express themselves...
    
    Are there genderless greetings in other languages that can perhaps
    be borrowed?  I'd rather be thought of as a bit weird-but-careful,
    than assuming-and-rude...
    
    Bill

    I thought DEC had a written policy (from Ken O.) that we are a first
    name company?
    

    The formal salutation would be: "Sir or Madam," the less formal
    salutation would be: "Dear Lee," or "Dear Madam", etc.
    
    If this person has a title it becomes more complicated.  A Senator,
    for instance, would be addressed as Sir (or Madam) or, less formally,
    'My Dear Senator Smith,'.  The address on the envelope would read
    " The Honorable John Smith".
    
    Ain't this fun?? ;-)
    
jim
    

    When unsure of the sex of the addressee I've seen,
     "Dear M. Lastname"
    
    Nanci

    re:.35
    
    I've long thought that we should adopt "M." as a genderless
    formal address. The problem is that it is the standard
    abbreviation for the French "monsieur".
    
    re: "Greetings"
    
    Many men who are 35 or older would probably have difficulties
    with a letter that started off with that word. :-)
    
    re: the question at hand
    
    If the person had an "androgynous" name, I would probably use
    "Dear Sir or Madam". I'm sure that most people with such names
    are well aware of the problems in this regard that the name
    causes.
    
    --- jerry

A friend always started business letters with

	Cher collegue,

(He was writing in Swedish, but it works just as well in English
or the original French.)

M

    Re .36:
    
    My father addresses mail to my husband and me as: M./M. Tracy and
    Paul Warren.  I thought that was a nice compromise, especially considering
    how basically conservative he is.                                

    	After owning my house for 18 months, my mortgage company still
    	refers to me in mail as:
    
    		Mr. and Mrs. S. E. Conlon
    
    	Either they have assumed that S.E. Conlon is a male, or else
    	they have assumed I am married (and have named my non-existent
    	husband "MR. Suzanne E. Conlon.")  :-)
    

	I won't use Dear ____ 'cause if I don't know who they are (or they me)
	then they are not dear to me.  I won't use Mr. or Mrs. or Miss. or
	Ms. et cetera just to stay out of trouble.  Sometimes I will just
	put the person's name:  <first> <last>, if I know the name.  But if 
	they are as yet unnamed then I may just write:  

		Hi,
		Hello,
		Salutations,
		Human,
		
	Now on the lastone, I feel that people should not be too miffed about
	being called human because chances are they are.  Well, it's better
	than "anthropoid"!

/dunc &'>

    
    	   Lately I have spent quite a bit of my spare time in the
    	endeavor of writing, and avoiding the sexism inherent in the
    	language is indeed something of a challenge.  And this challenge
    	goes beyond mere openings (such as "Dear xxxx", which implies
    	far too much intimacy for my tastes anyway), but extends down
    	to the way we address various sexless object in the world
    	(such as boats, which are usually addressed in the feminine,
    	and business titles, which seem to have adopted a masculine 
    	gender).
    
    	   When gender is unspecified, I usually fall back on the
    	genderless pronouns such as 'they' or 'it', in order not to
    	imply any gender-significance.  This is usually required in
    	documentation and memos, where the audience may well consist
    	of mixed genders.  I also try to avoid gender-specific 
    	possessives such as "his" or "hers" (unless appropriate),
    	using "theirs" or "its" instead.
    
    	   Why go to all this trouble?  Because removing the implied
    	gender-bases opens the material up to wider audiences, and
    	the wider your audience, the more likely you are to get 
    	published (unless you're trying to publish in focused-audience
    	periodicals, such as "Woman's Day" or "Penthouse".)
    
    	   There are lots more examples of this type of implied sexism in
    	the language, but time prohibits me from entering more now.
    
    	- Greg

    When I'm writing a letter to someone whose sex is in doubt, I use
    the form
    
        Dear Lee Lastname:
    
    Now this will really date me - I've been using this form since before
    Ms. came into use, since it also satisfied the problem that used to
    exist of whether a woman was Miss or Mrs.  
    
    I've been told it's a form of address that's used by Quakers.  Does
    anyone know more about that?

    Over in the discussion about the Pledge of Allegiance, I found myself
    writing a sentence that I couldn't figure out how to make it
    genderless. (it didn't get included in the note for other reasons)
    Here it is:
    
    "I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
    his allegiance to his adopted country"
    
    Substituting "one's" for "his" just doesn't work.
    
    I suppose I could have just made the whole thing plural:
    
    "I do not think it unreasonable to require new citizens to declare
    their allegiance to their adopted country"
         
    I just usually prefer to talk about individuals than groups.
                                                   
                  /
                 (  ___
                  ) ///
                 /
    

    RE:  .42 and .44
    
    I sometimes spend a great deal of time reworking a sentence to avoid
    this problem!  I __strongly__ oppose using a plural preposition
    with a singular noun.  There's no point in subsituting one problem
    for another!  Sometimes making the sentence plural, as is done so
    nicely in .44, is the only way to go!
    
    Nncy
    

    "...require new citizens to declare allegiance to..."
    
    No need for gender at all, in this case.
    

    re: .44
    
    	   Another way of handling the same problem is to remove
    	the pronouns altogether.  For example:
    
    "I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
    his allegiance to his adopted country."
    
    	This sentence loses no meaning when it is written as follows:
    
    "I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
    allegiance to the adopted country."
    
    	   Note how the absence of the pronouns does not force one
    	to alter the singular object (citizen) and avoids any
    	sexual connotations.  
    
    	   As I said before, I often look for ways of removing sex
    	from the language... call it a hobby of mine.
    
    	- Greg

    I would write either:
    
    I do not think it unreasonable to require a new citizen to declare
    allegiance to his/her adopted country.
                                        
    		      	 	OR      
                                        
    I do not think it unreasonable to require new citizens to declare
    allegiance to their adopted country.
                      
       
    -Tracy
                         
    
    

    don't you really mean:
    
    	I think it is reasonable for new citizens to be required to
    declare allegiance to their adopted country.
    
    <grin>
    liz
        

I thought this had been mentioned, but couldn't find it. From the Wall Street
Journal [sure wish there was more info]:

GENDER-FREE PRONOUNS are devised by Goodwin, Knab & Co., a Chicago marketing
agency. To help writers wrestling with the sexist third-person singular, it
offers "ala" for he and she, "alum" for him or her, and "alis" for his or her.

    I received the following today.  I deleted about a million forwarding
    lists, but the memo is unchanged.  In case you don't want to read
    the whole thing, the following sentence appears somewhere around
    the middle of the memo:
    
  >>With the efficiencies that should come from these improvements, 
  >>we think that selling will be much more efficient, and we should 
  >>get a lot more orders per man.
    
    Guess the improvements aren't expected to improve the productivity
    of the female salespeople, huh?  (^;
    
    							Pat
    
     Attachment to Number:  005895   File:  memo from KO
     ATTACHMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date:      15-Mar-1989 09:31am CST
     SWSCAM - TEXAS INSTRUMENTS          From:      Dave Grainger 
                                                    GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE 
                                         Dept:      U.S.Sales & Services
                                         Tel No:    297-4940
     Subject: 1990 BUDGET




Please disseminate within your Headquarters organization.

Regards,

DG/po


     Distribution: 
       TO:  STEVE BEHRENS @MRO
       TO:  DONNA BLANEY @MRO
       TO:  JOE FABRIZIO @BUO
       TO:  BILL FERRY @MRO
       TO:  LOU GAVIGLIA @WJO
       TO:  DAVE GRAINGER @MRO
       TO:  TOM GRILK @UFO
       TO:  MIKE KALAGHER @CHM
       TO:  RICH NORTZ @WFR
       TO:  CHICK SHUE @MRO
       TO:  BOB HUGHES @MKO
       TO:  HARVEY WEISS @MRO
       TO:  JERRY PAXTON @OGO
       TO:  JACK MACKEEN @UPO
       TO:  ELIZABETH STRONG @OGO





     Attachment to Number:  005895   File:  memo from KO
     ATTACHMENT - INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Date:      23-Feb-1989 08:39am CST
     SWSCAM - TEXAS INSTRUMENTS          From:      Ken Olsen 
                                                    OLSEN.KEN AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE 
                                         Dept:      Administration
                                         Tel No:    223-2301
     Subject: 1990 BUDGET




TO:     ALL FIELD PERSONNEL

FROM:   KEN OLSEN, JACK SHIELDS, DAVE GRAINGER


We've committed for the 1990 budget to make field operations much 
more efficient and much more satisfying.  We promise to eliminate 
the time-consuming steps in preparing quotes and processing 
orders.  We've committed to have districts make their own budgets 
and allocate resources to make things more efficient.  We're 
confident that we will have a system that eliminates the 
time-consuming negotiations between services in the field and 
between districts and the major account managers.

With the efficiencies that should come from these improvements, 
we think that selling will be much more efficient, and we should 
get a lot more orders per man.  However, we want to remind 
everyone that we are not making major organizational changes but 
simply changing the way we are doing our budgeting.  People 
shouldn't expect instant changes, particularly when the budget 
period doesn't start until this July.

We'd also like to remind people that, even though we expect great 
new efficiencies in the future, we must today get a significant 
number of orders before July.  We expect everyone to continue to 
work as hard as ever even though the new efficiencies won't be 
seen for awhile.

Before and during the summer and during the fall, we'll have a 
large number of very exciting product announcements.  We'll have 
the very large, fast VAX computer that so many customers have 
been enthusiastically waiting for, and we'll have a VAX that's 
between the 8700 and the 6300 in price and speed.   We'll also 
continue improvements in the smaller VAX and UNIX machines.  We 
are promising a very exciting year, and we will all have to work 
to make sure these efficiencies really work out the way we 
promised. 

With best wishes.

Sincerely yours,


KHO:lt
KO:2703

 

     Distribution: 
       TO:  BILL MCHALE @UFO
       TO:  HARRY EISENGREIN @RHQ
       TO:  RON EISENHAUER @ACI
       TO:  DICK DOERR @IVO
       TO:  LARRY GOODWIN @WRO
       TO:  RON HEVEY @NYO
       TO:  AL HALL @MEL
       TO:  FRANK BOWDEN @SCA
       TO:  CHUCK PICKLE @OHF

       CC:  Jack Shields                         ( SHIELDS.JACK AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE )
       CC:  Dave Grainger                        ( GRAINGER.DAVE AT A1 AT CORA AT CORE )

    

    I used to think that arguing over such usage was petty. 
    
    On the advice of someone in Notes, I started reading "Wishcraft"
    by Barbara Sher (sp?)  She works extensively with groups of
    women. Her book generally adresses the reader as female. "No
    problem, I can adjust", I thought to myself. Then it hit me, 
    what if I had to make those adjustments *all the time* ? 

    I don't think we can change the whole language, but we do need
    some gender-free pronouns to work with. And maybe a new concept
    for 'Mankind'.
         ---
    
    

    Well, Dana, I can deal with a new *word* for "Mankind" -- "Humanity".
    But a new *concept*, wow!  Maybe "Humane-ity"?
    
    							Ann B.

  Virtually every engineering-meeting I've been to talks about "manhours" and
"man months."  You should see the expressions on people's faces (men and women)
when I talk about my component taking 40 person hours to complete.  That's one
term that hasn't made it into the business lexicon just yet.  

    Or "Engineer Hours", a term that's in common usage in our group.
    
    John

    Or just "worker hours" or "work hours," which is what I try to remember
    to say...
    
    Perhaps we'd make change less slowly if we all used the same term???
    Then others would think it was in general usage and start using
    it to be "in"?

    Like, how 'bout, like, "dude-hours", ya know. Like, way rad.
    
    --- jerry

    From the "Guide to VAX Software Project Manager" Glossary:

    Effort:  Work performed by resources toward completion of project tasks,
    	     expressed . . . in staff-days, staff-weeks, staff-months, or
    	     staff-years.

    -Jim

           <<< MOSAIC::$2$DJA6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 112.63                    Sexism in Language                       63 of 63
TOMCAT::JONES "Leslie"                                0 lines  28-MAR-1989 19:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

<    Effort:  Work performed by resources toward completion of project tasks,
<    	     expressed . . . in staff-days, staff-weeks, staff-months, or
<    	     staff-years.

We use the term effort days, effort months, etc. to describe the effort
time required for a project __Leslie

I have been requested to write in this file that the use of the word 
"girl" in conversation to represent a woman, particularly when referring
to a woman in a sexual context, may be especially painful to those women
who have suffered sexual abuse when children.  Perhaps we need to make
even more of an effort to emphasize in words the difference between a
woman who is able to make choices of a sexual nature, and a girl who is
not capable of making those choices.  Continuing to use the word "girl"
for "woman" is not only painful for some of those who have been abused, 
but may actually lend subtle approval (however unintentional by the user)
to abuse perpretrated on girls by people who have a hard enough time drawing
distinctions.

Thank you for making an effort to consider the feelings of these women and
girls the next time you speak.

            Carol

	I was at a talk at IDECUS today where a speaker refered to the
	"sec-operator" as a girl a number of times.  Yes it bothered me
	BUT the speaker was from Europe and was having a difficult time
	with American English (the speakers native language is French 
	with British English pronouncation).  If I ever go to Europe to
	meet with this person I will try to explain why some American
	women do not like the term "girl" when it is used to refer to
	a woman.

	In the mean time "it is not in MY job descirption" to educate
	the world about the power of language.  But if you are less than
	an arms length away you may get my point about the power of 
	words.

	BTW:  On one of my drives to or from work I was musing over the
	terms woman and man and thought about fixing the problem by 
	using fe-per and ma-per for woman and man and just plain per for
	both?  What do you think?  Would it work?  Nah that would be
	mucking with the language and how we interface with it and no
	one would ever want to munge with English.

	_peggy

               
       Peggy,
 
       Your final remark is correct.
 
       The latin word 'per' has been adopted into English already and
       is in widespread use (in phrases such as "one neologism per note
       is tolerated" :-)). Neither 'fa-per' nor 'ma-per' seem to
       have obvious pronunciations (though 'fa-per' looks like it
       might be a near homophone of 'father').
       
       If you want a gender neutral word for both cases, then you
       can use 'person' (which is singular - the plural is *NOT*
       'persons' but rather is 'people'). 
       
       /. Ian .\

    Actually, both persons and people are plurals of person.  The first
    definition of people (Webster's Collegiate) says: 1. pl. HUMAN BEINGS,
    PERSONS--often used in compounds instead of persons <salespeople>.
    

    
    "peoples" is also acceptable in its limited sense. It would be used
    in referring, say, to the "aboriginal peoples of America", and would
    roughly equate to "tribes" or "races" or "clans"
    
    Similarly I was taught that "persons" is only acceptable when used
    in certain limited constructs. Hence "persons who earn their stipends 
    by working in a sales related capacity in a retail organization
    are known as sales-people" is acceptable (though stilted) style, 
    whereas, "salespersons are people who sell things" is poor style, 
    though possibly grammatically accurate.
                 
    /. Ian .\

    Yes, that's pretty much my understanding of the preferred uses of
    people and persons.
    
    It occurs to me that I shouldn't have gone down this rathole.  I
    hate to provide an excuse for people (or persons) to avoid non-sexist
    language.  "Gee, I didn't know whether to use people or persons,
    so I just said men..."
    
    -Tracy
     

    
    Gee Tracy, I wish I hadn't gone down the rat-hole too.
    
    Unfortuantely for me it is a (very) hot button when people introduce
    a neologism to avoid using a perfectly valid word...
    
    Anyway, for now perhaps we should declare truce, and resume noting...
    
    /. Ian .\

    .65 mentioned alternatives to "man" and "woman", here are a couple
    from some science fiction books i have read recently:
    
    in david brin's Startide Rising and also The Uplift War, humans
    are collectively known as the race of Man.  individuals are either
    mel or fem, depending on their gender.
    
    (sorry if this already was mentioned....i saw something, and didn't
    want to wade through XX replies to see if it is already here, i
    just wanna go to bed now.  in fact, think i will)
    

    in david brin's Startide Rising and also The Uplift War, humans
    are collectively known as the race of Man.  individuals are either
    mel or fem, depending on their gender.

And, more then that, an individual human is referred to as a "man" even
if she is female, unless they are deliberately trying to express gender.
As in "See that man over there, the female one?"  Honoraries are also
gender neutral...higher-ups are called "ser" (except occasional use of
"Ma'am" which is considered archaic and strange.)  I was personally 
amazed and pleased at how well David Brin handled the lack of sexism.
(I noticed he was more sexist in dealing with the Chimps...I wonder if that
was deliberate, given their client/inferior status...but that is getting
off track for the note...sorry.)   

Makes sense that sexism would become obsolete when we realize we are one
of literally thousands of intelligent species, an to them the difference
between mel and fem is almost negligible.  Some don't even have genders, or
have variable more more than two genders!

D!   

What's the plural of Ms.? I understand that the plural of Mr. is Messrs. 

Wonder what the plural of Mrs. and Miss. are too...
	Mez

    Since Ms isn't an abbreviation of anything, logically the plural would
    be Mss. 
    
    Mmes. and Mlles. I think, but a french speaker would know for sure.

           <<< RAINBO::$2$DUA8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V2.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 13.538        Sexism Is Alive And Well And Living In....         538 of 623
SYSENG::BITTLE "to be psychically milked"            85 lines   3-JAN-1990 00:52
                 -< a sample nastygram about sexist language >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	The text below is the body of the letter I sent to the managing
	editor of Computer Shopper magazine concerning the use of 
	sexist language on their January 1990 cover issue.  

	Permission is granted to anyone who wishes to use part or all
	of the text below in a similar letter.  Any feedback on choice
	of wording, etc., would appreciated (I'm not comfortable with
	the ending).

							nancy b.



          Dear Mr. Thomason:

          Two feature  titles on  the cover of your January 1990 issue con-
          tains language  that exhibits  a semantic  bias  exclusionary  of
          women.   The phrasing  used in these titles assign masculine gen-
          ders and  denotations to terms that should apply equally to women
          and men.  Seeing this  in a  computer magazine  surprised me,  as
          technical publications  have typically  been on  the forefront of
          eliminating the usage of sexist language.

          The titles I'm referring to are:

               1)  THE ONE MAN OFFICE
                   Computing the perils and payoffs of going it alone

               2)  BOYS!  BUILD YOUR OWN APPLE LASERWRITER!

          Since the  mid-1980's, linguists,  editors, textbook  publishers,
          and professional  and academic  groups have  recognized the  term
          "man" as  being a false generic - a term used of a class or group
                            _____________
          that is  not applicable  to all  the groups members.  While it is
          true that  dictionaries still  define the  word "man" or "Man" in
          both it's  narrow and broad definitions, the word that was once a
          synonym for  "human being"  is being transformed into a word that
          now means  "adult male  human being".  The continued use of "man"
          as a  generic delivers  a subliminal  message that reinforces the
          conception of  maleness as the default state of existence and fe-
          maleness as the exception, or the "other".

          The specific  context in  which you  used "man" as a generic also
          displays ignorance  of the fact that a large percentage of people
          starting small home businesses happen to be women.  
          A gender-neutral term such as "person" would be inclusive of your 
          entire audience.

          The second  cover title is worse yet because the term "boys" car-
          ries absolutely  no connotation of including both male and female
          readers.   The general  context of your usage of "boys"  perpetu-
          ates the  cultural inclination that boys are the ones who are en-
          couraged to  be able  to understand how things work, to be handy,
          to be  able to put together their own Apple Laserwriter.  I imag-
          ine some men become weary of being expected to know how something
          works, to  be able  to fix the car or plumbing, just because they
          are male. Destroying gender stereotypes can be just as liberating
          to men  as it is to women!  Referring to any gender at all in the
          second title above is absolutely unnecessary.


          As editor  of a  technical publication, the pursuit of clarity is
          undoubtably one of your primary concerns.  To continue using  the
          former connotation of a phrase or word whose meaning has  changed
          is both  imprecise and unclear.  The importance of language usage
          was mentioned in the latest Association for Humanistic Psychology
          Newsletter.   It states that "language not only reflects society,
          but helps  to shape it," and it also, "helps us think, but limits
          our thinking".

          Using gender-neutral  terms in  your publication  may seem like a
          very small  step in  a very  large issue.   However,  these small
          steps being  made in  all major  channels of  communication  will
          gradually result  in  modern  English  language  recognizing  our
          daughters as fully-participating members of society.



                                   Sincerely,




                                   Nancy Bittle
                                             

          Appended below is the response I received from the Computer
          Shopper Editor-in-Chief (Bob Lundstrom) to the letter in the
          previous reply.  My letter and the response appended below is
          located in the "Feedback Forum" on page 220 of the March, 1990,
          Computer Shopper magazine.

          The last sentence in his third paragraph sums it up - basically,
          he claims that the terms "One-Man Office" and "Boys! Put Together
          Your Own Apple Laserwriter" have nothing to do with sexual
          prejudice. I found the last sentence of the reply most annoying -
          I didn't ask for an apology, so why does he tell me he's not
          giving me one??  For that matter, I care much less about whether
          I have his sympathies than I do about the titles he approves for
          his magazine.

          {yes, can you tell I am going to write him another letter :-)??
           Any and all suggestions will be appreciated}

                                                  nancy b.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

          A quick glance at the masthead should persuade Ms. Bittle that we
          aren't a group of uncaring, narrow-minded, sexist, macho nerds
          (or is that a contradiction in terms?) at Computer Shopper.  In
          fact, our editorial, sales, production and marketing staffs
          represent a healthy mix of individuals, no matter what your
          method of pigeonholing.

          While we have the January 1990 issue open, let's take a look at
          the actual stories, rather than stopping short at the cover.  The
          cover storied on the "One-Man Office" were, in fact written by a
          talented New York (female) writer, Karen Paxton.  On pate 152, we
          focus on Patsy Harris who has created her own successful "One-
          Woman" data processing business.

          The "Boys!" of the laser printer story was merely a light-hearted
          variation on a phrase that most of us encountered (usually on the
          back pages of children's magazines) during our youth.  The lead
          of the story, itself, and the accompanying artwork additionally
          clarified the tongue-in-cheek intention. These "Boys!" had no
          more to do with sexual prejudice than the "false generic" of the
          lead story.

          Ms. Bittle may be gratified to know that some members of our
          staff, both male and female, agreed with her perception.
          However, generic is generic, humor is humor, and there was no
          malice aforethought in the creation of the January 1990 cover.
          So, you have my sympathies for your concern, but not an apology.

                                                       --BL

    In re: .77
    
    nancy -
    
    It seems to me you've won already, and maybe you should lay off.   Yes,
    his response is rather silly and defensive, but that's the way editors are
    about critical letters from readers.  Look again at the rest of that
    last paragraph.  He says that your letter was circulated and discussed
    among the staff; isn't that just what you would have wanted?  I gather
    that your letter was also printed uncut, pretty good in itself.  When
    he says that "there was no malice aforethought," it sounds about as
    close as you could get from this guy to an agreement that you were
    right.  
    
    So, it seems to me that you have succeeded in consciousness raising
    among both readers and editorial staff, and I bet it will have some
    effect. Further correspondence might tend to deflect attention away
    from their unfortunate usage towards your individual irritation.  Save
    your next letter until they (or others) do it again.
    
    			- Bruce

    Maybe you raised his social conciousness.  If you didn't he was
    hopeless anyway but perhaps you had an effect on some of his staff.
    
    ed

    What bothers me is his apparent attitude of "Angry man-hating scenery
    chewing feminist!  Prepare to repel the boarder!"

<lifted off the net w/o permission. this edited version of "the whole" is 
  the way i received it.  imo, this demonstrates how powerfully oppresive
    language can be as it evolves in a culture that values some less than
    others.   ~robin>
    
                                                                
 
	A Person Paper on Purity in Language
	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"...
 
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,...whitepower,whiteslaugter,oneupwhiteship,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_
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"...
 
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.
...Niss Moses says that words like "chairwhite" suggest to
people--most especially 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...
 
But Niss Moses would have you sit up and start hollering "Racism!"...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?
 
...
What conceivable harm is there in 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." 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 Anerica 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.
...
 
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 ans 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 lively Ticely Cyson is a great actroon, or that
the hilarious Quill Bosby is a great comedioon?...
 
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 superior to call them "my blackeys" helps make the ambiance more
relaxed and comfy for all...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 hirable again.
Lord knows, I certainly wouldn't object if someone told me that I
looked whiteyish these days!
...
 
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....
 
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 the words spoken by the 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.
 
Post Scriptum.
 
Perhaps this piece shocks you.  It is meant to.  The entire point of
it is to use something that we find shocking as leverage to illustrate
the fact that something that we usually close our eyes to is also very
shocking.	...
 
A couple of weeks after I finished this piece, I ran into the book
_The Nonsexist Communicator, by Bobbye Sorrels.  In it, there is a
satire called "A Tale of Two Sexes", which is very interesting to
compare with my "Person Paper".  Whereas in mine, I slice the world
orthogonally to the way it is actually sliced and then perform a
mapping of worlds to establish a disorienting yet powerful new vision
of our world, in hers, Ms. Sorrels simply reverses the two halves of
our world as it is actually sliced.  Her satire is therefore in some
ways very much like mine, and in other ways extremely different.  It
should be read.	...
 
[He goes on to recommend some other books on sexism & language]
 

	Posted for  friend who entered this note in a women's issues discussion
	of another conference.

	-Erik


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The following is from an r&d network....
    
       -----------------------------------------------------------------

Friends of mine are writing a scholarly monograph on the subject of
gender roles as seen in the Associated Press.  Here are the early
returns on "him" and "her" as direct objects of transitive verbs.  If
the direct object is "him," here's what happens to him in AP-land,
in decreasing order of correlation:

    convict him
    give him
    oust him
    show him
    accuse him
    remove him
    elect him
    know him
    succeed him
    replace him
    endorse him
    quote him
    offer him
    indict him
    cost him
    extradite him
    nominate him
    urge him
    expel him
    back him
    salute him
    link him
    allow him
    agree with him
    view him
    appoint him
    charge him
    bar him
    join him
    lead him
    challenge him
    identify him
    vindicate him
    thank him
    let him
    wish him
    support him
    serve him
    be against him
    deport him
    portray him
    grant him
    arrest him
    recognize him
    call him
    oppose him
    strip him
    place him
    embarrass him
    mention him
    suspend him
    earn him
    help him

(You'll notice that the parser is pretty weak.  "Give him" is probably
the indirect object, i.e.. "give him something," not direct object.
Ditto "cost" etc.)


If, on the other hand, the direct object is "her," here's what happens to her:

    say her
    rape her
    lose her
    marry her
    strangle her
    proposition her
    include her
    live with her
    pay her
    grab her
    assault her
    celebrate her
    leave her
    abuse her
    kill her
    begin her
    claim her
    change her
    kiss her
    fondle her
    end her

(Again, they're not using a very good parser.  "Say her" is probably
possessive, e.g. "say her name," "say her lines," "say her piece,"
not direct object.)

    .81 looks an awful lot like 147.12 in the JOYOFLEX conference, entered
    more than four years ago.  That's the same stream in which Ann
    Broomhead said:  "dear edp, In my opinion, you are correct, and you
    have explained yourself well.".
    
    
    				-- edp

          The following was a letter that somehow made it to my PO Box in
          Maynard, with only my name and Maynard, MA for an address.  It
          concerns the response of the editor of Computer Shopper magazine
          to my letter regarding their use of sexist language.
          
          On the upper right side of the letter is a blue stamped message
          that reads:
          
          The enclosed is a document in a matter of interest to you, and is
          sent for your information.
          
          { When I read that and saw the return address was from a lawyer
          whose name I didn't recognize, I thought I was being sued for
          some letter I had written.  Luckily, that wasn't the case... ;-}
          
          
                                   ALESSI & ALESSI
                           ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
                                   [their address]
          
          
          Computer Shopper
          [their address]
          
          ATT:  Letters to the Editor
          
          
          Dear Editor,
          
               I took you up on the challenge expressed in your response to
          Nancy Bittle, regarding sexist use of the terms "Man" and "Boys";
          (March 1990 Vol 10 No. 3).  You intimated that a glance at your
          masthead would show a "healthy mix..." - Not so.  I found the
          following:
          
               Editor-in-Chief               Bob
               Senior Editor                 Charles
          *    Assistant Editors             Shireen, Chris(?)
               Managing Editor               Paul
          *    Assistant Managing Editor     Susan
               Copy Editor                   Ken
          *    Assistant Copy Editor         Marta
               Sr./Production Ad Coord       Jack
          **   Ass't Prod/Ad Coord           Pauline, Arline
          
               Every executive office is male-occupied, and the assistant
          positions are where we find the females.  This exemplifies the
          subtle sexist attitude which pervades our society and is found in
          the offices of those who consider themselves to be in the
          forefront of the battle against discrimination.  You owe Nancy
          and all women an apology.  And the next time you have a vacant
          position to fill, you should consider carefully whether you are
          hiring with this pattern in mind.
          
          
                                             Very truly yours,
          
                                             ALESSI & ALESSI
          
          
          
                                             Robert H. Alessi
          
          

    I wonder whether both Alessi's are male?
    
    ed

    
    	RE: .85  ed
    
    	> I wonder whether both Alessi's are male?
    
    	As a sad commentary on the state of our society - the impact of
    	a letter like this one is far *greater* when it comes from a male 
    	instead of a female.
    
    	Otherwise, it's too easy to blow it off as the ravings of some
    	unreasonable, radical woman.
    

    
    	RE: .84  Nancy
    
    	Thanks for sharing the letter with us!!
    

    re:.86:  I agree there, but I still wonder who the other Alessi is.
    
    curious to the end.
    
    ed

    .86 > As a sad commentary on the state of our society - the impact of
    .86 > a letter like this one is far *greater* when it comes from a male 
    .86 > instead of a female.
    
    I don't agree.  By the time I had gotten to the staff listing, I had
    two reactions.  1) Way to go, nancy b., your letter really did have an
    impact.  2) Alessi & Alessi -  hmmm, I bet they're sisters, clever
    enough not to take this guy's assertions at face value.  I was
    slightly disappointed when I got to the signiture line, but concluded
    that the author's sex wouldn't do _much_ to _lessen_ the impact on our
    favorite editor.
    			- Bruce

    Nancy,
    
    Gee, what a pity that letter was written by a lawyer, someone who
    is morally bound to be stodgy and proper in all public and
    quasi-public arenas.  Otherwise, he might have been tempted (as
    I was) to be highly offensive and, instead of writing:
    
    	"those who consider themselves to be in the forefront of the
    	battle against discrimination."
    
    
    would have written:
    
    
    (Really, reader, this will offend you.  You do not have to hit KP0.)
    
    
    	"those who are on the foreskin of the battle against discrimination."
    
    							Ann B.

re: 112.90  (Ann Broomhead)

> those who are on the foreskin of the battle against discrimination."
  
!!!!!!!  Ann, I am still laughing over this :-] :-].

							nancy b.

    re .90, Yes, it's very funny Ann!  *Really!*  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    
    Get McKenzie Brackman's office manager to send the letter..

	re: 14.195 (Amy Goldman)

>    	"All references in this book to personnel of male gender are
>    used for convenience only and shall be regarded as including both
>    males and females."

    	Amy, I'm with Marge.   I don't think I'd call this an 
	improvement.  Maybe in the sense that they're openly
	acknowledging they're being sexist for the sake of
	"convenience" [she says cynically :-].  

	I wonder why it isn't as convenient to use she in one
	example or he in the next.  Or he in one chapter and
	she in the next.    Or singular "they".

	In the last Digital This Week I saw an example of this.
	In one sentence "she" was used in an indefinite context,
	and in the next sentence "he" was. 
	Way to go, Kate Nelson!!!
						nancy b.

>   	Amy, I'm with Marge.   I don't think I'd call this an 
>	improvement.  Maybe in the sense that they're openly
>	acknowledging they're being sexist for the sake of
>	"convenience" [she says cynically :-].  

    	Well, as I said, I wasn't sure that was the string in which to
    place that note, but I couldn't find the discussion on the use of 
    he/she/they that I'm sure I've read in here.  I do remember someone
    (one of the writers?) saying that it was still acceptable to use 
    "he" when "he or she" was meant.  (I think someone had said you
    were supposed to use they or something like that.)  If that's true, 
    then stating it, instead of just assuming people know, might be 
    considered an improvement.  I was just suprised to see any kind of 
    statement at all.  But I do agree, it doesn't seem to be that much 
    harder to alternate.

    	amy

    In the May issue of Scientific American, there is an article about
    automobiles.  One inset is a display of automobile advertisements over
    a span of decades.  The caption notes that in the Packard copy about
    "the man who drives it", the man would be only a person today.  I
    suppose we can give them credit for trying, but what diminution is
    there in going from a man to a person that makes them "only" a person?


    				-- edp