Re: Manmonth or Peoplemonth? -Reply

[Kathryn Northcut <KNorthcut -at- TASC -dot- USDA -dot- GOV>]

Warning: Rant follows.  I do not work "man-hours" and do insist on
gender-neutral language, at least in my own writing where I can control
it. Reason: I have been told in no uncertain terms that positions I sought
(at state-funded universities for example) would be better filled by men,
even though I was extremely qualified (and in one case, received the job
after complaining to a female faculty member about the hiring process).

Once you've been slapped in the face by this phenomenon, you no
longer see "chairman," for example, as a neutral term. Especially so after
you note the looks of surprise and disgust when the Chair"man" turns
out to be a woman and the attendees didn't know that in advance.
Women at meetings are still too often expected to take notes and make
coffee just because they're women. Most professional women I know
don't have a problem with that, fortunately for them.

I suggest reading about unmarked vs. marked forms and semiotics (other
topics available upon request) for those of you who believe language is
powerless. Lite explanations are written by Deborah Tannen, more
scholarly versions also available. I also suggest reading H. Zinn's
_People's History of the United States_ for anyone still believing that our
country was founded and developed on egalitarian principles.

It's still sometimes a struggle for professional women combating sexism.
Other marked forms of personhood, such as racial deviation from the
unmarked Caucasian form, make it harder still for many. In our insulated
high-tech world, I think many of us tend to forget this.

Kathryn Northcut


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=