Hmm, I forgot I use "one" fairly often too. Maybe I use it often enough that that's why nobody rags on me for this sort of thing. I'm politically correct and didn't know it.
Women and the generic masculine pronoun
- Thread starter Rii
- Start date
Hmm, I forgot I use "one" fairly often too. Maybe I use it often enough that that's why nobody rags on me for this sort of thing. I'm politically correct and didn't know it.
I once use the term "ladies" when referring to a group of ladies walked into our office at school. One of them took offense that I referred to them as "ladies."
So I asked her specifically would you have preferred that I called you "broads". She didn't take that very well.
I generally use "he" as a gender nonspecific; as well as a gender specific terms depending upon the circumstances.
So I asked her specifically would you have preferred that I called you "broads". She didn't take that very well.
I generally use "he" as a gender nonspecific; as well as a gender specific terms depending upon the circumstances.
It often takes a while for changes to be accepted by the establishment-- look at how long it took them to realize that English isn't Latin and it's okay to split infinitives
--but it kind of amuses me that Political Correctness will ultimately drive academia to accept 'they' as the singular gender-neutral pronoun. It doesn't, because when it's used as singular then it's no longer plural. Just like 'you' and 'you.'
The correctness of that usage is debatable at best. I avoid it and use "one" instead if I feel there is some reason not to use "he." Does that make me part of "the establishment" in "the ivory tower"?
Yes.
I don't know if the 'correctness' is really debatable, since it's technically against the rules, as far as I know. The point is that it's a natural evolution of the language-- usage has filled a gap that needed to be filled. That's how language works. And now it's time-- long past time, given that this has apparently been going on since the 15th Century-- for the rule book to be updated. Why make up awkward solutions when the right one has already been adopted?
I think it's funny when some women get upset when the term "man" is used in certain contexts ("no man has gone before", "all men are created equal") thinking it's talking about men, males. Forgetting that it's the shortform of what we are. Human.
Well, I guess it comes down to personal preference then, but I do understand your point. I'm a thorny nitpicker in other instances, I assure you.
Point of correction: the words "man" and "human" are unrelated. "Man" comes from a germanic root and it's related to "thinking" (IIRC, too lazy to check with google); "human" comes from a latin root (homo) and it's related to "earth", the stuff the gods used to make the first people and it was gender-neutral. Romans used "vir" when talking specifically about a male.
Sorry...can't get past the fact that you're serious.^ So correctness is pompous. Good to know.
Keep rockin' that pomposity jeeves!
Rii
Rear Admiral
It's a basic inequity in the language that serves to privilege men over women. Indeed "she", "woman", and "female" all reveal the same systemic bias and the implication that women are imperfect and unequal derivatives of men.
Well, hopefully we don't need Shakespeare to allow English to grow; otherwise it will stagnate. There is certainly a lot of ignorance and error when it comes to language, but language is also a living thing. As this Thread demonstrates, there is a need for a singular gender-neutral pronoun-- and English has had one for at least five hundred years. I've yet to hear any justification for the academic establishment not accepting it, and instead coming up with contrived and awkward solutions.^ That is a convenient argument, but a specious one since the usage you propose is still, well, wrong by most accounts. Too bad Shakespeare can't be resurrected to use "they" as a singular and lobby for that use to be included in the OED.
Sounds like He-Man and She-Ra's hermaphrodite friend.
If you're single... prospects
Acting is a little different. For one thing, there are much more actors than there are directors or anything else. As mentioned there are also different roles written for different genders which is an argument that could be discussed to death...
You could also consider the idea of role models, one woman one man. Or playing fair as you know some femenist nutjob would go nuts if a woman lost to a man in the one 'Best Actor' category and some press would pick up on it.
I'm still annoyed about an incident we had at a wrestling show this year - we put a female wrestler in a tournament and she pinned a guy in the first round. She's a better wrestler than he was, absolutely brilliant up and coming talent who's only flaw is the lack of female opponents. In an effort to prove she was a pro who could fight anyone other than 'just a woman' as she put it, we had people walking out as they were heavily offended.
I really hate the fact that if the female wrestlers don't look butch, they aren't taken seriously. And that's by the women in the audience!
The situation may be different in the US, but here 'policeman' and 'policewoman' were the accepted terms pretty much since females joined the force (at one point, there were even separate ranks 'PC' and 'WPC'), and it was the drive for equality (what I assume you mean by 'feminism decreed') that led to both terms being abolished in favour of 'police officer' and the abolition of 'WPC' as a title.
Which has the benefit of being both confusing and ridiculous, so I see why it caught on in academia
Agreed.
^ That is a convenient argument, but a specious one since the usage you propose is still, well, wrong by most accounts. Too bad Shakespeare can't be resurrected to use "they" as a singular and lobby for that use to be included in the OED.
The OED is hardly the arbiter of English usage, for many years they insisted on a number of non-standard spellings just because the editors preferred them. Needless to say, everyone else ignored them. Dictionaries should report the language, not themselves shape it.
I don't know about "policeman", but many words that end in "-man" are gender neutral. For example, in the word "chairman", the "-man" ending has the same root as "maniuplate". It refers to one who "mans" the chair, not a man who sits in the chair.
I've seen "chairman" shortened to just "chair" in certain contexts: Chair, Board of Regents.
I sometimes use "they" in speech as shorthand for he or she, but only because I'm often verbally lazy. I'm sure there are other rules of grammer I disregard in speaking that I wouldn't in writing. But in writing, I tend to use "he or she", "him or her" (if it doesn't complicate the sentence structure too much), plain vanilla "he", or, if it's formal enough, "one." Otherwise, I'll just go for the obvious gender-neutral term: actor, officer. I've never met any male midwives, but I probably would keep the term unless told otherwise; "male nurse" grates on my nerves.
Like when people think that mano a mano means "man to man" not "hand to hand"?
I sometimes use "they" in speech as shorthand for he or she, but only because I'm often verbally lazy. I'm sure there are other rules of grammer I disregard in speaking that I wouldn't in writing. But in writing, I tend to use "he or she", "him or her" (if it doesn't complicate the sentence structure too much), plain vanilla "he", or, if it's formal enough, "one." Otherwise, I'll just go for the obvious gender-neutral term: actor, officer. I've never met any male midwives, but I probably would keep the term unless told otherwise; "male nurse" grates on my nerves.
Similar threads
