The myth of sexist language

[Joanna Sheldon <cjs10 -at- CORNELL -dot- EDU>]

I responded to Callie's posting (below) by saying I knew of no one who would
maintain that words cause oppression.

I do maintain that the use of "he" as generic third-p. s. pronoun (for
example) supports the oppression of women in that it gives repeated, subtle,
almost subliminal preference to men over women in the course of every-day
speech and writing.

What I am about to ask will weaken my argument just a touch, because the
reference to Latin feminine nouns is almost irrelevant, but I'll throw it in
anyway, to emphasise the repetitive, subtle, almost subliminal mischief
performed by the "generic" he:    How many times a day do the Spanish have
occasion to speak of la libertad?  On the other hand, how many times a day
do we all have cause to use a third person singular pronoun?

--- Joanna



>   First, assume that the gender-neutral proponents are correct and that
>writing continually with words that favor one of the sexes will cause the
>other to be discriminated against.  If a girl reads "he" in a manual she will
>promptly assume that the equipment can only be operated by possessors of the Y
>chromosome (or it has some interestingly designed push-buttons) and will
>retreat to the kitchen and conceive.
>   Is it our useage of the words HIStory, MANkind, and the huMAN race that are
>the cause of the long oppression of the feMALE half of the huMAN race.?
>Poppycock and balderdash!
>   If words had that effect on us, why ... how about other languages?  In
>Spanish, the HIStory of MANkind becomes LA historiA de LA razA (all feminine
>words).  They have LA libertad, LA igualdad, and LA fraternidad.  Latin
>America should be a bastion of female power and influence.

>Callie