Gender-Inclusive Language

PAGE 2 OF 2

 
There is psychological research that demonstrates that when people
(children, college students, other adults) read passages written in the
supposedly generic "he" and are then asked to illustrate them, most people
(males and females) depict males. This does not happen when male and female
pronouns are equally represented (then half the pictures show males, as
would be expected).  Other research demonstrates that when newly created
jobs are written with male labels (x-man), people reading those job
descriptions are more likely to choose a male applicant for the job than if
the job label was gender-neutral.  So, don't believe for a moment, that
words have no power.
 
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*
Susan A. Basow, Psychology Dept.
Lafayette College, Easton, PA 18042-1781
610-250-5294
Internet:  basows  @  lafayette.edu
*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*

 
This seemed a good time to put in a "plug" for this brilliant book that
vividly diplays the power of language to shape a sexist society.
 
Its full title is "Egalia's Daughters: A Satire of the Sexes," by Gerd
Brantenberg.  It was originially written in Norwegian in 1977, and
translated in to English by Louis Mackay in 1985.  The author has
informed me that the book has also been translated into other languages,
and performed on stage.  It is available through the Seal Press in
Seattle, Washington, and lists for about $10 in paperback.
 
i think that the book would be useful in any literature, english,
linguistics, psychology, sociology, philosophy, or political science
course .... as well as in any women's studies course.
 
rebecca eisenberg
rebeca  @  netcom.com

 
>
>Perhaps we should poll the men in our lives and ask
>them "does it peeve you when the world uses words like womanned
>spacecraft, mailwomen, firewomen, womankind and insist that
>these terms include you?  If you are offended by this,
>are you a radical, vocal advocate of men's rights?"
 
Yes--the man who (inadvertantly) started this thread should be sent a copy
of Lindsey Van Gelder's "The Great Person-Hole Cover Debate," which takes
on the "man means man *and* woman" argument in a blunt and funny way.
 
Kristi Coulter
 
kristic  @  k.imap.itd.umich.edu

 
I am an American in South Africa--the former Transkei area.  I am
both anthropologist (linguistic) and a clergywoman in the African
Methodist Episcopal Church.  Two recent events impact this.  The
first is a statement made by the Women in Ministry Group from this
area (Namibia, the Eastern and Western Cape and the Kalahari area).
This is a diverse episcopal area with Xhosas, Sothos, coloured Nama
from Namibia and a few other assorted ethnic groups.  We recently put
together a statement addressing language, physioology (there was
some negative reaction to a pregnant clergywoman), and equity for
spouses.  In both the Afrikaans and Xhosa languages, we are often
addressed as the equivalent "pastors' wives".  Here whenenver one
stands up to speak s/he first greets the audience by its component
parts.  In Xhosa it is umfundisi for males and unfundisikazi for the
pastor's wives.  In Afrikaans, it is jeffrov.
 
We also have started to respond to another aspect of language.  The
male pastors in Xhosa are called Bawo (father).  Offerings are taken
up by component groups once again.  Dadas (men of the church) or Bawo
and dadas, mamas and then youth.  Twice two of us have refused to go
forward with Bawos.  Once when called upon by the Women's Missionary
Society and another time when called upon by a male.  We are clear
that we did not go into ministry to become men!!!!
 
One of my male parishoners was talking about another term and said
that actually when one used it, it meant male.  By definition or
connotation I asked. His reply: by connotation.  Language can exclude
and distort reality.  And the battle is being fought by women
all over.
 
If anyone is interested in the statement, I'll be glad to share it.
 
Adande Washington
 
A. Washington
University of Transkei
(0471) 302-2682
       302-2595 Fax/Messages
washington  @  getafix.utr.ac.za

 
I have been fighting a battle with editors and copyeditors for years over
"they" and "them" as neutral pronouns.  Such usage goes back to Elizabethan
times.  Much of what people call good grammar (it is I, in English, as
opposed to It is me, which is more natural to the language) comes from 18th
century grammarians attempting to tame a language and establish class-linked
usages at a time when the lower classes were beginning to read and write and
demand materials that spoke to them.  The rules were largely borrowed from
Latin.  Language as we experience it is always class based, race based,
gender based  but that doesn't mean we don't have an obligation
(all of us who speak and write the language) to fight that.
Yes, I always feel excluded when a door says MEN whether that door is the
first sentence in a paragraph or the sign on a toilet.
Whenever people write "MAN" they are seeing a male in their mind's eye, not
a woman.  Prehistory comes in only the masculine flavor, like  history.
We have the advantage in English that unlike Hebrew (re the previous message
from Haifa about using "The Story of X" in English) and French, we do not
need to establish the sex of an object or a person in order to make a
sentence. We should make use of that freedom built into our language.

 
Thanks to Kris Nelson for bringing up what has been on my mind in this
discussion.  I'm 46 and have been a radical feminist for about 25 years.
My mind just keeps ringing with astonishment that we are STILL having
this debate.  I remember a professor of mine in graduate school about 10
years ago (at a seminary, of all places) saying, "The inclusive language
debate is no longer a debate.  It's over.  Women won."  This (male)
professor then went on to specifically state that inclusive language
would be required on all papers (including references to God).  A more
relevant question: how do we get off this culture-loop and STOP going
round and round on whether or not language is or ought to be an issue?
It is, it ought to be, and I'm TIRED of re-making a case that has been
made so WELL so many times.  There's a deeper question here.  Doesn't
continuing to do this drain us of strength which might be put to better
use constructively as we re-invent feminism and women's studies (yet
again)?  This is an important task, I think, and perhaps we are
repeatedly drawn away from it by continuing to defend well-established
positions.  Note, this is NOT a critique of those who continue to clarify
these points.  I find myself in that position repeatedly.  But perhaps
raising these issues again and again is an effective tactic to keep us on
the defensive.   Tess Tessier (ltessier  @  cc.ysu.edu)

 
In re gender neutral language, in case no one has mentioned this handy
book:  _Words and Women_ (I forgot what comes in the title after the colon;
something like, New Language for New Times) by Casey Miller and Kate Swift;
the two of them also have a handbook for editors.
 
Laura Suzanne Gordon

 
Marge,
What do you mean by "they" and "them" in a battle with editor?  Are you
mixing plural with singular -- which I am beginning to be comfortable with
in my writing even though it isnt proper and when teaching I point out
the mistake.  Example of such a sentence:  Everyone (sing.) took their (pl)
lunch in a paper bag except Anna.  Of course it should be his/her to be
gender neutral but so awkward.
 
Is that what you mean?  Can you find an example in one of your books?
Please reply to list since this seems to be of interest to so many.
Miriam Harris
 
On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Marge Piercy wrote: [see Piercy's message above]

 
On Tue, 11 Jul 1995, Miriam Harris wrote:
 
> Marge,
> What do you mean by "they" and "them" in a battle with editor?  Are you
> mixing plural with singular -- which I am beginning to be comfortable with
> in my writing even though it isnt proper and when teaching I point out
> the mistake.  Example of such a sentence:  Everyone (sing.) took their (pl)
> lunch in a paper bag except Anna.  Of course it should be his/her to be
> gender neutral but so awkward.               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
Why should it?  From what I have read once upon a time "they" and "them"
and yes, "their"  could be used as as both sing or pl.  "His/her" is
NOT gender NEUTRAL, it uses two genders.  And why is the male pronoun
always first?
 
Merry part, merry meet again,
Erina Moriarty   )0(
emoriart  @  osf1.gmu.edu
 
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each
citizen to defend it.  Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do
his [or her] share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure."
                                                          Albert Einstein

 
I hate when plural and singular are mixed.
 
You can avoid this and still be gender neutral by omitting pronouns
altogether.
 
One could rewrite Miriam Harris' sentence.
 
> Everyone (sing.) took their (pl)lunch in a paper bag except Anna.
 
Everyone took lunch in a paper bag except Anna.
Another possibility is to make the entire sentence plural:
All the workers except Anna took their lunches in paper bags.
 
Chris
********************************
Chris Saad
saad  @  dolphin.upenn.edu
********************************

 
>one thing to do is to tell the person to substitute feminine pronouns for
>masculine ones in their conversations and correspondance for one day
>and see if it makes a difference in how they see things.
 
Try using feminine pronouns with a young girl and see what a difference
it makes.
 
I ceased to believe that the gender of pronouns was a non-issue when,
in showing a picture book to my 3-4 year-old daughter (about 19 years
ago and before I myself would have had anything to do with feminism), I
decided to use all feminine pronouns in describing the animal pictures
(e.g., "here's a monkey -- she likes to sit in trees, and sometimes she
likes to hang by her tail,...")  It took about 2 of these picture stories for my
daughter to exclaim, "Mom, are these *really* all *girls*?"  Not wanting to
tell a fib, I replied, "well, it doesn't say whether they are or not -- why
don't we just assume they're all girls since we're both girls here together
reading this."  (There were no clues in the pictures to suggest
female-ness -- e.g., cubs sitting next to; babies at breast, etc...)  My
daughter thought for several seconds before replying back (I'm not
making this up!):  "Well, I guess they could be girls -- I don't see a penis."
I was stunned that she had noticed the pronoun -- and was even more
amazed that she felt it necessary to justify (graphically!) making the
assumption of female-ness.
 
Gendered language matters a lot.
 
Audrey Crawford
crawford  @  shell.com
 

 
I can't remember who, but someone on this list pointed out a couple years
ago that the use of "they," etc. in the singular in order to make
language more inclusive and democratic parallels the shift a couple of
centuries ago to use "you" in the singular for everyone, rather than only
for social "betters"--also to make language more inclusive and
democratic.  I have felt much more comfortable with the plural "they"
ever since then.
 
 
John Berg                berg  @  tron.clas.suffolk.edu
Department of Government            Tel: +617-573-8126
Suffolk University                Fax: +617-367-4623
Boston, Massachusetts 02108-2770
U.S.A.

 
No one has mentioned the 1980 resolution by the National Council of
Teachers of English calling for the teaching of gender neutral
language in the classroom.   When students ask me about the "Gender-
fair language policy" of the School of Humanities and Social Sciences
at my school, I tell them that this rule is already 15 years old.  If
they were taught differently in their pre-college training, their
English teachers were working against the policy of their own professional
organization.  Coupled with a little history of the language (cf. Marge
Piercy's post), this information generally serves to inform students
that gender neutral language has quietly passed into the area of
rules and laws of usage and out of the realm of "politics."  (Of course,
we all know it is all political.  But it seems long overdue to stop
approaching this issue defensively.)
 
Cheers,
 
Roxanne Mountford
Assistant Prof. of Rhetoric and
Director of Writing
Rensselaer Polytechnic Insitute

 
I have just returned from an Audubon field ecology workshop in Wyoming.
I was struck, as I have been many times before, that almost everyone
refers to birds and animals as male.  "Look at him," etc.  I want to
scream.  I imagine about half the birds and half the animals are female.
Sometimes, of course, one can tell the difference by coloration or horns
or whatever.  But in the cases where it is not obvious, most people use
"he" and "him."  Obviously people hear it and repeat it.  It seems we
have become more sensitive to words used about humans, but what about
words used about wildlife?  I think we establish the same idea of male
domination when we keep refering to wildlife as masculine.  I don't
propose "he or she" for wildlife, but what about "it"?  That seems
perfectly appropriate.  What do other people think?  And how does one
broach the issue?  I just kept my mouth shut--I didn't want to criticize
individuals, and there was no larger forum in which to raise the issue.
What about in women's studies classes--I suppose most of us never talk
about wildlife there.  But when we teach about gender-specific language,
couldn't we include a point about referring to birds and other wildlife?
 
Jane Bowers
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
414-332-9420 (phone)
414-229-6154 (fax)

 
Linda Tressier argues that she is tired of arguing on a topic that is
already won.  While I agree that within universities (at least the liberal
arts where many of us are situated) and within feminist communities the
battle has been won, this is MOST DECIDEDLY NOT TRUE within the larger
community.  If we really want people's attitudes to change about language
we have to be prepared to argue the case every time it comes up.  The
feminist community is losing the battle in many areas these days...I think
largely because we have stopped proseletizing.  I do not believe that just
because our (largely liberal and feminist) communities have settled the
issue that it is time to ignore it when the question is raised.
 

Lee Ann Banaszak
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science      E-mail:    LAB14  @  PSUVM.PSU.EDU
The Pennsylvania State University    FAX:       814/863-8979
107 Burrowes Building                Telephone: 814/865-6573  or
University Park, PA  16802                      814/865-7515

 
As a college English prof. and long-time feminist, I agree about mixing
pronouns.  Let's don't  take apart the language in order to solve our
problem.  Avoid the pronouns all together or switch to plural.
 

 
On Wed, 12 Jul 1995, Joan Samuelson wrote:
 
> As a college English prof. and long-time feminist, I agree about mixing
> pronouns.  Let's don't  take apart the language in order to solve our
> problem.  Avoid the pronouns all together or switch to plural.
 
Clearly linguists are divided on this issue!  But surely whatever
your personal preference, you would agree that there _is_ a division?
And that the rules of "grammar" were indeed made up, or if you like
laid down, by c19 Oxford grammarians who borrowed rules from
elsewhere?
I went to state schools - your public schools.  But I was taught
old-fashioned grammar.  So _I_ know that English has strong and
weak verbs - eat your hearts out, listmembers!! - except that it
doesn't.  That was taken from German.  The info. came in quite
handy when I learned German :).
 
I think that you are right in part.  That is: 'they' can be used
with the plural to avoid the problem, quite a lot of the time.
But not always.
The British list found some convincing examples - I will try to
locate those.
 
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Evans       +       Politics       +       jae2  @  york.ac.uk
---------------------------------------------------------------

 
Hi, Judy--  [see preceding message]
 
It's not a "personal preference"; I've taught college writing courses for 22
years, and my "choice" is based on the logic of modern grammar as it has
evolved.   I think my being a feminist suggests I know there is a division.
 However, I do not feel tearing down one system to right a wrong one is
satisfactory.    In our almost 21st cen., "they" is plural.  So we either
deal with that in commonsense ways, or we come up with a non-gender pronoun
referent.  My_ preference_ is actually for the latter.  Marge Piercy, as one
example, deals with this concern in WOMAN ON THE EDGE OF TIME, by using
"per."
 
When my students ask me what to do about pronoun reference, I suggest plural
nouns and pronouns when possible, s/he and him/her  if they feel comfortable
with those alternatives (I find them awkward), or use of the pronoun of
_their_ choice--keeping audience, logic, and the writer's voice in mind.
 
I'd be very interested in the British List.  But where the pronoun cannot be
substituted, I'd rephrase the sentence rather than encourage a faulty
referent.  Call me a purist, but there it is.
 
Regards,
 
Joan Samuelson
jsamuels  @  kc.nhmccd.cc.tx.us

 
Coleen, you're right, of course, about the effects of masculine pronouns.  But
in considering male domination of women, I think we must probe the overarching
pattern to understand situational differences in domination: when and how the
domination does and doesn't work, and when, where, how women comply, resist, an
d fight back, and when, where, and how women dominate others (women and men).
It's not an all-or-nothing issue.  to get to change, we have to know where the
soft and hard spots are.   A major problem in Tannen's work, which a few poster
s have mentioned, is that she totalizes women, talks about "tendencies" as tho
there's a universal rule operating.  beatrice  bfdgc  @  cunyvm.cuny.edu

 
Tess, the language problem comes back because it hasn't been solved for every-
one.  It returns in different ways in different contexts, must be re-addressed.
Not everyone knows the history - and everyone sure doesn't act as tho the issue
is resolved.  For the god aspect of it, which your professor solved, he thought
, by fiat the S. African woman is struggling with (name Anande? sorry, I don't
remember exactly) and some (many) students in your class, there's a major issue
If the god is male in the sacred texts and common usage, changing language to
include women tears at a deeply-held belief system.  Same problem if the cleric
who mediates between the god and people is "supposed to be" a man and is a
woman.   beatrice  bfdgc  @  cunyvm.cuny.edu

 
OK, I need to be more clear, but I'll be brief.  Yes, absolutely, we need
to continue making clear to those who genuinely wish to understand what
the language issues are and why they are important.  As I said, I do
this, and I will continue to do this.  My fatigue is directed toward a
conversation which has not evolved at all over the past 20 years in which
some anti-feminist voice asks, "Isn't this whole language thing really a
non-issue which is only a concern to a few radical feminists?"  Although
in question form, I suggest that this is not a question, and we lose
considerable energy engaging in debates that take "is too" "is not" "is
too" "is not" form.  I absolutely agree that we need to keep aware, keep
informing, keep these issues alive, but we also need to learn from the
fact that the above question really hasn't changed form at all over many
years, in spite of so many splendid responses, and it's still getting
attention.  Re language and God, there's a huge discussion on this topic,
but it seems to me, except in cases of direct translation, that using no
pronouns at all (common practice in feminist and womanist theology) is
true to the prophetic monotheistic traditions.

 
Re: the discussion of "they"--it is my understanding that a singular
"they" is gaining acceptance.  Two friends of mine--Ann Reed and
Sharon Zuber--recently published an articvle on this in something
like "College English."  I'm sorry I don't have more precise info,
but they are both on vacation at the moment.
 
Deborah Green
College of William & Mary
Williamsburg, VA 23185
dxgree  @  facstaff.wm.edu

 
Joan,  I, too, teach college writing, and deal with this issue in other
courses (including WS and American lit).  But I am not at all
uncomfortable with  "they" or other plural pronouns used with a singular
referent; indeed, I don't even "hear" this as an error anymore.
You say that your "'choice' is based on the logic of modern grammar as it
has evolved . . ."  This seems to me to be a crucial point: grammar
evolves.  As such, I find it hard to accept the idea of "purity' in
language or grammar.  And given the importance of gender neutral language
(I think this is something about which those of this on the list already
agree), I lean towards increasing the options we have for handling these issues.
I do feel a need to warn students that the choices they make will not
always be warmly accepted by other professors or other people or even
other feminists, in other words that all language use is contextual . . .
I know I have had students in WS classes who were very excited about
using variant forms of "woman" (Womyn, wimmin, etc.), usages which haven't
ever appealed to me, resulting, at any rate in some interesting dialogues
about the politics of language.  That's my two cents . . .
 
Deborah Gussman
Liberal Studies/Mount Vernon College
2100 Foxhall Road, NW
Washington, DC 20007

 
I am confused about comments regarding mixing plurals and singulars in
response to Judy Evans and Marge Piercy.  It seems to me that they VERY
CLEARLY SAID that they/them/their were not always regarded as solely
plurals.  If they/them/their are not plurals then one is not mixing
singulars and plurals when one uses they/them/their with everyone and
other singulars.  THEREFORE, Judy Evans and Marge Piercy were not
speaking of mixing plurals and singulars.
 
The posts about mixing singulars and plurals SIMPLY IGNORED the
contention of Judy Evans and Marge Piercy that THERE IS AN ARGUMENT in
support of using they/them/their as singulars as well as plurals,
although they only gave the barest outline of what that argument might
be.   Arguments are not countered by merely digging in one's heels and
reasserting one's original position.
 ---
The catch in their (plural :-) argument is the past tense.  Even if
restricting they/them/their to the plural was just a power play by 19c
Oxford grammarians, it is now commonly understood and accepted as the
correct usage.
 
This, however, is only further confirmation of how language changes.  If
they/them/their can evolve from singular-or-plural to plural only, I
see no reason why they/them/their cannot evolve back from plural only
to singular-or-plural.  Language changes constantly to meet the changing
needs of its users (that us).  Let us allow it to continue to evolve to
meet our needs.
 
(The belief that the only REAL English is Contemporary U.S. Textbook
English is a pet peeve of mine  -- I recently met a student from England
whose spelling had been corrected because she used the common British
spellings.)
 
                                 Nic Rosenau
                        (rosen014  @  maroon.tc.umn.edu)
Philosophy Department, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
MINITEX Library Information Network, MN Higher Education Coordinating Board

 
The reference for the article by Ann Reed and Sharon Zuber mentioned
in Deborah Green's post is as follows
Sharon Zuber and Ann M. Reed, "The Politics of Grammar Handbooks:
Generic 'HE' and Singular 'THEY,"  College English, Vol 55. Number 5.
September 1993, pp. 515-530.

 
Deborah, I _am_ uncomfortable with encouraging my students to make what many
of their other professors and future employers _will_ consider an error.  I
am much more interested in _developing_ gender-free language than in forcing
modern grammar to our will.  Yes, the language is evolving; currently,
however, "they" in the kind of formal writing we are all talking about is
plural in the world we are preparing our students to write in and for.
 
My politics are critically important to me; but they do not take precedence
over my responsibility to my students as their _writing_ instructor.  I will
not deliberately encourage them to commit a grammatical error; instead, I
will help them find gender-neutral solutions.
 ----------
[in response to Deborah Gussman's last message above]

 
It may be gaining "acceptance," but that does not mean it is correct.  A lot
of people say "theirselves";  lots of folks say "Billy and me are going. .
."  My son's principal said "irregardless" in a parents' meeting; lots of
people do.  Shall we accept these errors in formal writing because people
use them?  These words and constructions are utterly illogical, and so is
"anyone/a person. . .they/their."  Until we come up with gender-free
pronouns, I encourage my students to use plural; s/he; him/her; or to use
the singular pronoun of their choice--with some logic and attention to
audience.
 
Joan Samuelson
 ----------
In reply to:
 
> Re: the discussion of "they"--it is my understanding that a singular
> "they" is gaining acceptance.  Two friends of mine--Ann Reed and
> Sharon Zuber--recently published an articvle on this in something
> like "College English."  I'm sorry I don't have more precise info,
> but they are both on vacation at the moment.
>
> Deborah Green
> dxgree  @  facstaff.wm.edu

 
Hi Nic--
 
Marge Piercy is a novelist, not a list member.  I was using her example of
"per" as a non-gender pronoun.
 
I'm confused by your reference to tense; pronouns have case and number, not
tense.
 
I did not dig in my heels: they/their is simply not  singular, and the
attempts to force them (!) is political rather than logical.  Nor did I
avoid the issue of gender neutral language: I was specific in my suggestions
for working to solve the problem.
 
Although I do discuss audience, I never correct a British student's spelling
in my classes--because these are NOT misspellings.  Mixing singular and
plural referents IS incorrect in Standard American Edited English used in
formal writing.
 
Standard American English may be a pet peeve of yours, and I do understand,
but it is what professors and employers generally expect in this country.
 
Joan Samuelson
 ----------
[in response to Nic Rosenau's message above]
 

 
As far as common usage of "they" when referring to one person, I think
many people use it (and perhaps don't even realize it).  For instance,
if someone phones and someone else answers the phone, I am inclined to
say, "What'd they want?" even when I know that only one person was making
the call.  [Hope I made myself clear!]
 
Marilyn Bonnell
MFBONN  @  ark.ship.edu

 
I have been following the discussion of gender-neutral language
with some interest.  Much of my research has been examining
metaphors for understanding personal epistemologies and underlying
theory.  I'd like to play devil's advocate and suggest there is no
such thing as gender-neutral language.  The metaphors we use
reveal an ontology steeped in patriarchy.
 
Jayne Fleener
University of Oklahoma
da5234  @  uokmvsa.backbone.uoknor.edu

 
        [Note: this message preceded one or two of the above messages but
may not have reached everyone before they submitted their postings.  Also,
some of the messages that prompted this one have been excluded from this
file.   Normally, I wouldn't include "let's end the discussion" messages,
but this one contains information both about WMST-L's focus and about other
lists where linguistic sexism discussions might be pursued.  JK]
 
        Hi.  The discussion of singular vs. plural pronouns has been
interesting, but I think the time has come to bring it to a close.  It is
now producing few genuinely new insights and too much repetition and
unproductive arguing ("it's OK" "no it's not!" "yes it is!" "no it's not!").
Those who still want to take issue with what has been said should contact
the posters privately, not via WMST-L.  Please be considerate of the many
subscribers for whom the heavy volume of mail is a serious problem.
 
        And please let's NOT move from this linguistic issue to a
consideration of the hundreds of other ways in which English language usage
is problematic or offensive.  General discussion of gender-related societal
issues lies mainly outside WMST-L's focus.  Those who wish to discuss
linguistic sexism should probably take the discussion to a list like
GENDER, whose focus is gender and communication, . . . or (to see what can 
happen if such discussions AREN'T kept in check) to WORDS-L, an English Language
Discussion List whose listowner has at times had to raise the "threshold"
to permit the list to send out more than 300 messages PER DAY!  Here are
the subscription details for these lists:
 
        GENDER is a moderated list devoted especially to "discussion of
issues pertaining to the study of communication and gender."  Send
subscription requests (SUBSCRIBE GENDER Your Name) to COMSERVE  @  VM.ITS.RPI.EDU .
 
        WORDS-L is a VERY active English Language Discussion List.  To
subscribe, send the message SUBSCRIBE WORDS-L Your Name to
LISTSERV  @  UGA.CC.UGA.EDU .  (It is also available on Usenet as 
bit.listserv.words-l .)
 
        Many thanks, once again, for your understanding and cooperation.
 
        Joan Korenman (korenman  @  umbc2.umbc.edu)