In 2004, Rady Ananda joined the growing community of citizen journalists. Focused mainly on elections, her blogs also address religious, gender, sexual and racial equality, as well as environmental issues; and are sprinkled with book and film reviews on various topics. She spent most of her working life as a legal investigator for private lawyers, and five years as an editor. She currently serves as a senior editor at OpEdNews.
All material offered here is the property of Rady Ananda, copyright 2006, 2007, 2008. Permission is granted to repost, with proper attribution including the original link.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. Tell the truth anyway. Sign this petition: http://www.electiondefensealliance.org/ny_levers_petition
The first resistance to social change is to say it's not necessary ~ Gloria Steinem
If you hope to defeat the military-industrial-media complex, you'll need as many allies as you can get. Trivializing half the population won't serve your cause, but weakens it.
Mutual respect within our movement will only strengthen it.
by
Rady Ananda (110 articles, 262 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 888 comments)
on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 8:04:22 PM
If juxtaposed to the phrase "ascent of women" it becomes obviously limited in scope, and clumsy. It was intended to sound more profound than “ascent of humans”, but it fails miserably.
by
John R Moffett (80 articles, 14 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 610 comments)
on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 6:46:22 PM
It's surprising how many gender specific terms are still commonly used.
I especially like the tip at the end suggesting writers insert [sic] when quoting a sexist term used by someone else. [Sic] is commonly used to denote a grammatical error or that an uncommon spelling has been quoted verbatim from the original.
I would add "congresscritter" to the list of gender neutral terms for Congressman.
by
Kathlyn Stone (42 articles, 220 quicklinks, 26 diaries, 638 comments)
on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 7:27:48 PM
A man's happiness consists in the free exercise of his highest faculties. Aristotle Nichomachean
"No man is free who is not master of (commands not) himself." Epictetus, Encheiridion, c.110
...everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms-- to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way. Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning
Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world he is responsible for everything he does. Jean-Paul Sartre
As long as men are free to ask what they must, free to say what they think, free to think what they will, freedom can never to be lost, and science can never regress. J. Robert Oppenheimer, in Life mag., 10/10/ 1949
The man who asks of freedom anything other than itself is born to be a slave. de Tocqueville
I took these fromthe freedom page on quotations central.
Some are translated to english. Some were originally in english. How do you deal with quotes from times when this was not an issue?
rob
by
Rob Kall (808 articles, 3922 quicklinks, 332 diaries, 1703 comments)
on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 8:29:07 PM
The last paragraph of the handbook discusses this.
I've read other ideas that suggest the quote be changed, e.g. "One is never free..." Since we learn that paraphrasing still requires attribution and quote marks, we can make such changes and still retain the integrity of the quote.
I tend to prefer changing the quote (vs. using "sic"), but sometimes it gets awkward to do that. In those cases, I'll do this: (forgive the sexism) or (forgive the racism).
Actually, I'll avoid quoting something racist or sexist as much as possible. (Unless I'm making that point)
Rob, truly, egalitarianism has always been an issue, even if it didn't make it into the history books. Now I'll check out your quotations cite...
by
Rady Ananda (110 articles, 262 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 888 comments)
on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 8:35:41 PM
My favorite is the "gender neutral plural possesive" as used in the subject of this comment.
English teachers would tell me that it should be "his/her" or another "gender neutral pronoun combination" but I like the "their" and don't think it "sounds clunky" (which is often a (false) reason people give for not wanting to adjust their language) so I use it.
I admit to not having read the handbook, so perhaps this is covered better. You'll have to let me know.
CharlieL "Words DO matter!"
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 676 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 8:36:03 AM
I've long tried to incorporate inclusive language into my writing where appropriate, so I'm largely sympathetic to the overall point.
I wonder, however, on a philosophical level what the consequences of "nonsexist" language usage may be.
Do we run the risk of "republicanizing" American English in a way the French revolutionaries did in terms of calendar reform during the Reign of Terror?
What about the use of the term his/tory itself?
American English is interesting for its lack of the neuter category, although it is itself neuter, I suppose.
Also, what would be the consequences of purifying language of gender and sex in terms of subject/object relations?
I wonder sometimes whether the message is really about inclusion and embrace or whether its about neutering and desexualizing?
I'm not a purist at all in that respect to the degree that I hold a sex-positive view of life.
I don't mean to undrmine your project because, as I say, I remain largely empathetic.
But I do wonder what are the larger consequences...
Interesting to note that Napoleon was offended by Josephine's constantly referring to him in their personal correspondence as vous (you - formal) as opposed to the common parlance between married couples as tu (you - informal).
Just to take another view of the matter, what about using the sex-specific pronouns he and she when referring to subjects that are without question male or female?
I'm interested in your thoughts.
by
Constance Lavender (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 83 diaries, 213 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 9:08:41 AM
When you refer to a fireMAN, you are simply saying to somebody who hears the word that all fighters of fires must be MEN. As with policeMAN, garbageMAN, congressMAN, and chairMAN.
If the chairperson of a committee happens to be a male, you can definitely refer to them as Mr. Chairman, and when they are a women as Madam Chairwoman -- you are making a specific reference to a person whose gender you know.
And when you are talking about a male nurse, you can definitely say that "HE took my blood" and when talking about a female doctor you can definitely say that "SHE told me I was going to live."
It's when you DON'T KNOW the gender of the person you are referring to in some general way that you need to be careful not to make a linguistic ASSUMPTION that merely propogates the sociatal STEREOTYPES.
It's amazing how UPSET people were when we started to integrate words like firefighter, police officer, sanitation worker, and such into the language. They said it was "klunky" and "difficult" and they couldn't see how it would ever catch on. But, you know what? It did, and now the original words would sound "out of place" if you said them in public.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 676 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 9:33:45 AM
I remember the days when the Help Wanted ads were divided by sex or gender. I prefer sex, as I think gender refers to something else.
I usually refer to" "Chairpersons," personally speaking. Particularly with "chairpeople" I'm sensitive to not so much the sex/gender implications, but more so to the problem of hierarchy.
And that is really my question: in desexualizing or neutering language do we merely replace one hierarchy with another equally oppressive one?
And what about transexuals? or transgendred persons whose sex is not at all obvious?
by
Constance Lavender (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 83 diaries, 213 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 9:42:26 AM
I suspect, that if a person WANTS to de-humanize or dimish the work or existance of another, they will always find a way, even using the "correct" words.
The idea with nonsexist language is just to change as much as possible towards a language that doesn't make an ASSUMPTION (policeman says that all police officers must be men, and that the woman will be the EXCEPTION, rather than just another person who has chosen this line of work) or that doesn't carry within the words an implicit judgement ("lady doctor" implies that the doctor SHOULD be male, and that this one is an unusual case).
As for transexuals, transgendered, and such, I have a number of friends who fall into this area, and the gender pronoun is the least of the issues, as sometimes they are in name transitions and not going by the name I have known them as before. Just ASKING seems to work wonders. I believe the "general protocol" (far from accepted or universal) is to judge based on the persons SELF-PERCEPTION of their gender, whether they have made a physical adjustment yet or not.
Oh yeah, I hate forms that say "Sex?" I often put "as frequently as convenient, or did you mean 'GENDER?'"
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 676 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 9:54:50 AM
Yes, I meant "sex." I carefully distinguish between sex which is biolgically constructed, and gender which is socially constructed, although gender is commonly accepted as the more inclusive term. I happen to disagree with that assessment, but at this stage in human development I give credit to the idea.
Most college students are oblivious to the distinction and use the terms interchangeably without much consideration.
I often treat my college students to an exercise: they are to note in writing on a notebook during the course of a given day how males and females are treated differently.
Their findings are usually a big self-revelation: women have doors held for them (I'm not so sure that's true so much these days) and the archaeology of sexism (e.g. bathroom construction being the most pervasive example).
by
Constance Lavender (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 83 diaries, 213 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 10:01:41 AM
maybe the difference in the materialist over the idealist account? Like Plato and Aristotle or Marx and Hegel?
As I said: I'm sex-positive; I think the gender account is idealist and has problems, in America, with its Puritan history, or herstory, if you will...
by
Constance Lavender (83 articles, 0 quicklinks, 83 diaries, 213 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 10:06:37 AM
This reminds me... before posting this to OpEdNews, I sent a rough draft out to several people, men and women.
One of the men responded by sending me a link to a George Carlin joke entitled "feminist blowjob." No comment on the compilation; no acknowledgement of the rancor sexism produces within our ranks.
I can't begin to express how offensive that was, especially since he knows I'm a lesbian, altho it does indicate to me the need for this discussion. I'm glad to see both men and women chime in on it.
by
Rady Ananda (110 articles, 262 quicklinks, 30 diaries, 888 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 4:25:46 PM
What about gender-free pronouns (epicene or androgenous): he, him, she -> se his, her, hers -> sez himself/herself -> seself
Then, "Jane claims it's her ball, but John himself says it's his" becomes "Jane claims it's sez ball, but John seself claims it's sez".
Where gender is significant we would employ current usage: "She claims it's her ball, but he claims it's his" would become the rather meaningless "Se claims it's sez ball, but se claims it's sez".
Apparently Chinese is gender-neutral.
From Wikipedia: Historically, there were two gender neutral pronouns native to English dialects, 'ou' and 'a', but they have long since died out. According to Dennis Baron's Grammar and Gender:
In 1789, William H. Marshall records the existence of a dialectal English epicene pronoun, singular "ou": "'Ou will' expresses either he will, she will, or it will." Marshall traces "ou" to Middle English epicene "a", used by the 14th century English writer John of Trevisa, and both the OED and Wright's English Dialect Dictionary confirm the use of "a" for he, she, it, they, and even I. This "a" is a reduced form of the Anglo-Saxon he = "he" and heo = "she". By the 12th and 13th centuries, these had often weakened to a point where, according to the OED, they were "almost or wholly indistinguishable in pronunciation." The modern feminine pronoun she, which first appears in the mid twelfth century, seems to have been drafted at least partly to reduce the increasing ambiguity of the pronoun system...
by
cam (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 54 comments)
on Tuesday, August 14, 2007 at 11:11:07 AM
Talk about a pathetic rhetorical fallacy (strawMAN argument).
"Jane claims it's her ball, but John himself says it's his." NOTHING WRONG WITH THAN SENTENCE that needs to be corrected. It works just fine.
It's this sentence:
"The spectator claims it's his ball, but the policeman himself says it's his." which should be changed to "The spectator claims it's their ball, but the police officer themself says it's theirs."
It's a stupid sentence, but it works.
You don't have to NEUTRALIZE a pronoun when you KNOW the gender of the subject, only when you DON'T.
