Do you think this is valid or not? Even the document admits that it does not improve communication, but actually makes the language more awkward.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as it may be unrealistic in dialog to omit "offensive" language (some characters might actually use such expletives every other word.) It seems to me rather rabidly "PC" to eliminate Man, or Mankind in all instances. Also "women's lib", etc. would be valid if coming from that kind of a character.
In my professional field, however, I do just that (in fact, I try to eliminate sexual references entirely). But I am not attempting at work to produce something that entertains, or inspires, but something that will not offend my reader.
As far as writing for my own sake, however, I agree with Twink!
Posts: 2506 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This whole thing is so stupid. I mark it as one of the many declines in the English language (and I probably have made errors even in this short post, which is ironic but one of those things that just make me go ) I was all for feminism when it was getting women the right to vote, but nowadays it just doesn't feel right.
Posts: 1744 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The university I attended expected students to use nonsexist language, but there were not any kind of specific guidelines like this issued. In my opinion, this set of guidelines goes way overboard in trying to micromanage how students express themselves.
I do think there is a larger issue here. What this is, in my opinion, is an attempt to change and control not only what people write and speak, but the ways in which they think, as well. The theory is that if students are forced to write and speak in a certain way, they will be forced to change their ways of thinking to conform to what the academic community finds to be politically correct. And I think that is coercive and unfortunate.
I may - and do - prefer to be specific in referring to individuals' genders, but I don't for a moment think that everyone should be forced to conform to my own preferences. I other words, I might use "humankind" as being more inclusive because I am more comfortable with that term, but I am not offended when someone uses "mankind." I know what they mean and I do not immediately assume that by using that word, the writer or speaker is intentionally or maliciously trying to exclude my gender.
Bottom line, I think the people who issue these sorts of guidelines need to get a life and start worrying about more important issues.
posted
I like the fact that the introductory letter emphasizes that there will be no official monitoring or sanctions; rather, the emphasis is that "[the policy] asks for each of us to make a personal commitment to use bias-free language," and "to be sensitive to the impact of language."
As it stands, that's pretty inocuous. I wonder how it'll play out in practice, though.
Personally, I read the long series of examples more as an attempt to clarify an ambiguous topic (sort of just giving others tools to work with), but I can see where it would feel like micromanagement if it was indeed "enforced" or "officially monitored."
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I note the use of the word "shall", and not "must". I also note that there are no sanctions for those who do not conform. He or she (a school official) can cover his or her butt by issuing the decree; the rest of us can ignore it if we want to.
In my opinion, "man/he" applies equally to both sexes, unless a gender is specified.
When I write, I write what I mean. If I meant to say it was a girl, that is what I mean. Some people are a little too uptight.
The Dead_Horse happens to be female, but with a first name that is not gender specific. He doesn't care what you call him, as long as you are nice about it.
posted
I don't think there is anything wrong with these guidelines as a suggestion for how to write more inclusively. If you read the accompanying text, you will see they are quite open about wanting to change people's thought patterns by changing their language. But, and I realize I am simply displaying my own biases here, I think this is a pretty benign change. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to shed language that implies certain limitations on gender roles of superiority of certain genders in certain fields.
And I do find it offensive, for instance, when I read an article in a parenting magazine that tacitly assumes all fathers need to be coerced into being involved in their children's lives or into being useful around the house, even though I know these stereotypes are certainly based on a kernel of truth. I imagine it would be much worse if I were a woman constantly reminded of the notion that professionals are necessarily men, or that women are afterthoughts when it comes to speaking about humans.
I would only find this list annoying if it was mandatory and if it came with consequences for violating it. The original introduction seems to imply that something like this will be done, but the letter introducing it says specifically that it will not:
quote: The UNH policy does not call for institutional monitoring or sanctions. It asks for each of us to make a personal commitment to use bias-free language.
I'm all for this, and I try to use bias-free language as much as I am capable. These guidelines seem like a good resource for doing it better.
The one extreme I will not stoop to, however, is using the word "their" as a gender-neutral singular possessive. I will never consciously do this.
:Locke, were you around when feminism was about getting women the right to vote? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was gonna say, "Man, don't be such a little girly about the whole thing", but then I realized I was being a sexist jerk.
So I say to you, "Person, do not be an upset human being about the whold thing", and it sounds so much better!
But seriously Mack,
I yearn for a revisit to a time when we were Guys and Dolls, Lords and Ladies, Dudes and Chicks, Knuckle-dragging hairy buhemoths and Voluptuous little minxes. Well, maybe not the last one. Geez, it IS hard to not fall into a pattern of sexism for me. I apologize to the fairer sex of Hatrack. SEE! I did it again!
However, even if the consequences are not "official", there will most certainly be consequences for ignoring these guidelines. There always are in such cases. There were such consequences at my university, which did not have mandatory enforcement of their policy, either. I remember one specific instance where a professor came down brutally on a male student who was not careful of his usage during a class disucssion. Even though I tend to use inclusive language more often than not, I felt the chilling effect of the policy simply in feeling like I had to carefully monitor every word that came out of my mouth lest I say something that could be misconstrued.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Although I dislike the "Mr and Mrs John Smith." thing, I always think that "man" and "mankind" refer to all humanity, especially the word "mankind".
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
yeah, it's kind of like political theory. Anything may look good on paper, but the real test is how it plays out in practice. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
lma, I definitely agree that academia is full of abuses of the sort, and the freedom of speech is most threatened there. I still remember grad school, and thoughts I knew I had to keep to myself. I'm just saying that this is a baby and bathwater thing. If the problem is the informal thought police of higher education, then lets come out against that, rather than against inclusive language as a whole.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no patience for that degree of political correctness (suprise, suprise). I think the general and gender neutral "he" is good enough for anything.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem, of course, is that the English language lacks a good gender-neutral pronoun, like the french "On" or the German "Mann." While I can bear with the supposedly-gender-neutral "he," I have a hard time really buying into it because I feel like it isn't referring to me. But...that's just me Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, sure it's better than it...if you actually are a he. If you are NOT a he, then he is just as distancing as it. That's why we need a gender neutral pronoun! Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does this really have anything to do with the students? I assumed it was for the teachers. You know, so that they try to monitor their speech during lectures. Not the students. Maybe I just misunderstood.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Icarus...Mea culpa. I'm sorry if I wasn't as clear as I could have been. I'm not against the use of inclusive language at all, and I use it myself. It should absolutely be encouraged. But I don't believe that it should be mandated, even in an informal way.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that there ought to be a gender-neutral pronoun in English. (On another board I frequented, long long ago, it was the custom to use the Swahili "yeye" instead of the painfully awkward he/she.) However, since there isn't one, I don't particularly mind being referred to as "he" -- unless it indiactes that someone actually thinks I am a "he" .
I skimmed the guidelines, and found some of them perfectly reasonable. And some just too weird! You can't say "freshmen"? Can you say "frosh"? Yeesh!
This is how you end up with "perchild perchild" instead of "mailman"! Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What really fries my goat is when people refer to bees or wasps or ants as "he". The bees and ants you usually see are FEMALE!!! Sterile females, yes, but far from male. So quit calling sterile female hive insects "he"!
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, next are we going to see protests about using the word 'human' because it contains 'man' but not 'woman'?
There are some lines that do need to be drawn, while I'm all for unification on speech/language; This paper seems downright silly to me.
Posts: 1132 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
This whole thing is so stupid. I mark it as one of the many declines in the English language (and I probably have made errors even in this short post, which is ironic but one of those things that just make me go ![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
) I was all for feminism when it was getting women the right to vote, but nowadays it just doesn't feel right.
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
I'm not against the use of inclusive language at all, and I use it myself. It should absolutely be encouraged. But I don't believe that it should be mandated, even in an informal way.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
