Re: women and men (was Re: Hey, take it eas

Subject: Re: women and men (was Re: Hey, take it eas
From: dagmar -at- INFORAMP -dot- NET
Date: Wed, 30 Nov 1994 15:39:21 -0500

beason -at- convex -dot- com (Gary Beason) wrote:

>Dave Meek talked about goose-stepping PC'ers and the
>"he/she" arguments.

>I used to think it was a minor thing to argue, using
>"he/she" or being aware of other such languages uses.
>I won't go into the details of my epiphany except to
>say my mother had credit problems when my father died;
>the accounts were in his name, as in "mr. and Mrs.
>Dewey Beason."

>This legal instance illuminates the significance of
>these seemingly minor offenses, Dave: the woman is

>I love the way it has become so fashionable these days
>to point at such arguments as nothing more than hurt
>feelings. "Chronically offended." (I won't point the
>implied but obvious sexism in this kind of argument.
>Just watch Rush Limbaugh act it out and it'll be all
>the clearer.)

>You want to see another concrete example of what
>happens when women are only implied? Look at medicine
>and the focus on men's physiology at the expense of

Finally someone I agree with in this arguement. We are so
enveloped by language we forget its massive, inherent power.
Changing the language is not a new or a "PC" (A term I hate,
which in reality doesn't exist but more a nightmarish
propaganda vision of the Right) thing, it is an essential and
healthy thing a laguage does.

My 2 cents american or 11.84 Canadian worth.



dagmar -at- inforamp -dot- net
Pulp Fiction

| |
| o o |
| |
| ---- |

Previous by Author: Re: Health Insurance for Contractors
Next by Author: Re: argument!!
Previous by Thread: HEY LIST MANAGER
Next by Thread: I DON'T CARE. WAS RE: he/she

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads