![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Reading: Martyna
Wendy Martyna - Beyond the He/Man Approach: The Case for Nonsexist Language
#1 I have previously tried to use "s/he" in place of pronouns before, to be met with resistance by a friend who would rather I wrote "he or she" (or "she or he"). Something like that, however, brings up the issue of "which one comes first? Does it become an issue?" and the unfortunate thing is that it DOES seem to become an issue after a while. "S/he" thus becomes the next viable alternative - we just don't know how to pronounce it.
#2 It can be agreed that "man" does not always "embrace woman", and even today, the word "Man" lacks the holistic sense that "human" does. I'm not sure why men would take issue to this, though, probably because I grew up with a language that doesn't really have male-centered terms. (Let's face it, Malaysians, we don't say "Sejarah Lelaki" as we would say "Sejarah Manusia".)
#3 I think I once said to Nolan about how gender roles don't so much matter, how loving someone shouldn't be about how male or female they are, but rather for how human they are. So when Martyna writes "the nonsexist language I and others envision will be humanized rather than de-sexed", I can't help but agree. (Again, this is being written in 1980, so it's rather dated. The equation of "maleness" to "humanness" no longer stands. Are we seeing some progress?)
#4 Ann Bodine: "Despite almost two centuries of vigorous attempts to analyze and regulate it out of existence, singular "they" is alive and well" - referring to the use of "they" in place of "he", to the detriment of grammar rules. I've seen "they" being used quite often, even in the singular form, and I think grammar rules these days aren't so much about the mathematical equation on paper, but how it SOUNDS. If "they" sounds right, of course it's going to persist. There's nothing anal grammarians can do about that.
#1 I have previously tried to use "s/he" in place of pronouns before, to be met with resistance by a friend who would rather I wrote "he or she" (or "she or he"). Something like that, however, brings up the issue of "which one comes first? Does it become an issue?" and the unfortunate thing is that it DOES seem to become an issue after a while. "S/he" thus becomes the next viable alternative - we just don't know how to pronounce it.
#2 It can be agreed that "man" does not always "embrace woman", and even today, the word "Man" lacks the holistic sense that "human" does. I'm not sure why men would take issue to this, though, probably because I grew up with a language that doesn't really have male-centered terms. (Let's face it, Malaysians, we don't say "Sejarah Lelaki" as we would say "Sejarah Manusia".)
#3 I think I once said to Nolan about how gender roles don't so much matter, how loving someone shouldn't be about how male or female they are, but rather for how human they are. So when Martyna writes "the nonsexist language I and others envision will be humanized rather than de-sexed", I can't help but agree. (Again, this is being written in 1980, so it's rather dated. The equation of "maleness" to "humanness" no longer stands. Are we seeing some progress?)
#4 Ann Bodine: "Despite almost two centuries of vigorous attempts to analyze and regulate it out of existence, singular "they" is alive and well" - referring to the use of "they" in place of "he", to the detriment of grammar rules. I've seen "they" being used quite often, even in the singular form, and I think grammar rules these days aren't so much about the mathematical equation on paper, but how it SOUNDS. If "they" sounds right, of course it's going to persist. There's nothing anal grammarians can do about that.
no subject
no subject