[WikiEN-l] WikiWomen (was Partial deletion)
Delirium
delirium at rufus.d2g.com
Thu Jul 17 19:26:28 UTC 2003
Vicki Rosenzweig wrote:
> What I think you're actually saying is that you *refer to* people
> whose gender
> you don't know as "he". This has never been entirely standard, and
> will annoy
> quite a few people at this epoch. Using full names, "they", and
> workarounds
> like "that person", is probably a better idea.
I think if you put a dozen grammarians in a room and ask them about
this, you're going to end up with a fight. =] I do think it was
standard to use "he" at one time -- you'd hardly find anything else in
19th-century writing -- but it's not any longer. Many people also
dislike "they", because it's using plural forms (both the plural
pronoun, and to be consistent, plural verbs) to refer to a single
person. Those people seem to be losing that particular battle though.
As of late I've noticed in much academic writing a preferred solution
has been to simply use "she". It's not really any better than using
"he" as far as correctness goes, but people are less likely to complain
about it being sexist, so it has taken off especially in fields that
have traditionally been criticized for excluding women, such as
philosophy and computer science. I do find it somewhat jarring when I
read it though, as I'm used to "she" being used to refer to people who
are actually female, so it takes me a minute to realize from context
that it's being used as a generic pronoun. Sort of along the same
lines, but not particularly jarring, is using female examples when
making up fictional people to explain a point. I've also noticed
somewhat humorously that it's become common when making up fictional
dialogues in philosophy to make the "reasonable" side be female, and
make the "wrong" side be male. I suppose doing it in the reverse would
lead to charges of sexism.
In any case that was a bit of rambling, but I find this all very
interesting.
-Mark
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list