Gender-Inclusive Language and "Man"

PAGE 3 OF 3

At 12:48 PM 1/14/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>can someone recommend a VERY short piece or, better-- any material--
>demonstrating masculinist normativity in language...The students where I
>teach almost unanimously reject the feminist claim that "man" in language is
>problematic as a term for "human"...


I have used Casey Miller and Kate Swift's article, "Liberating Language"
from the Sept./Oct. 1997 issue of Ms. pgs. 50-54.
Also, Sherryl Kleinman has a piece called "Goodbye 'You Guys'" on
www.feminista.com in Volume 4.3, and you can check out a related website at
www.youall.freeservers.com.


Donna M. Bickford, Ph.D.
dbi6066u  @  postoffice.uri.edu
University of Rhode Island
Women's Studies Program
Roosevelt Hall, #315
Kingston, RI 02881

Try asking them if they would find "woman" problematic as a term for
"human" . . .

At 04:47 PM 1/14/02 -0500, you wrote:
>At 12:48 PM 1/14/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>can someone recommend a VERY short piece or, better-- any material--
>>demonstrating masculinist normativity in language...The students where I
>>teach almost unanimously reject the feminist claim that "man" in language is
>>problematic as a term for "human"...

You could also read "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men
are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness."  Then point out that women couldn't vote, hold office, get an
education, hold most jobs; if they were married, own property, enter into
contracts, etc.  Is that liberty?  Can one pursue happiness under those
circumstances?  Does "men" mean "women"?
         Irene


*********************************
Irene C. Goldman-Price
Penn State Hazleton
76 University Drive
Hazleton, PA 18202
(570) 450-3052
icg2  @  psu.edu

Great idea, Irene--I'd just go ahead and assign Elizabeth Cady Stanton's 
Declaration of Sentiments for this--short and makes precisely this point 
(please forgive me if I've duplicated someone else's posting on this--I've 
been having technical difficulties lately.)

Jennifer Tuttle

In addition to Jennifer Tuttles excellant response about using
men   generically we should add that when Susan B. Anthony used the
language our founding fathers used to justify her voting she was refused
saying that did NOT include women.  Remember those guys, or at least most
of them, owned slaves and to some extent their wives.  So much for their
equality statements.

Best, Pauline B. Bart Bart  @  ucla.edu

Good point, Pauline--indeed, Stanton herself complains that the
founders withheld from [white, native-born, presumably middle-class]
women those "rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded
men -- both natives and foreigners."  So if we use her as a model for
challenging gendered language, we should also look at how her own
language is still coded by other categories.

Jennifer

A Canadian reference.

In 1927 it was determined under the British North America Act, which
was the British Parliamentary Act that gave Canada independent
government that women were not "persons" and could be denied Senate
seats. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and
subsequently to the British Privy Council, which in 1929 declared that
women were "persons" and entitled to all rights entailed by the
British North America Act.  This case is generally regarded as the
cornerstone event in Canadian Women's fight for Equal Rights.

Should anyone care for more info the relevent web site from the
National Archives of Cananda is

http://www.archives.ca/04/042412_e.html

Janet Forbes
janetforbes  @  stn.net