Interesting. I was actually taught that crossing 7’s was an alternative and appropriate way to write.
I saw Ben Sones writing in smallcaps when we were college roommates and switched to it. My regular handwriting was so bad that nobody could read it, and half the time I honestly had to puzzle over it to figure out what I had written. Life has been much better since I switched to smallcaps.
Which people are you referring to? What studies have you conducted, or read?
A 1973 study by Sandra Bem and Darryl Bem directly demonstrates the negative consequences of job advertisements containing ‘he/man’ language. The researchers composed three versions of a job advertisement. In all three cases, the duties listed were identical, but varied terms were used to refer to the position. The first advertisement used ‘linesman’ and the pronoun ‘he’. The second used ‘linesperson’ and ‘he or she’, while the third used ‘linesperson’ and only the pronoun ‘she’. More women applied in response to the inclusive language of the second advertisement (person, he or she) than to the specific exclusive first one (man, he). Notably, more still applied in response to the specific language of the third advertisement (person, she).
Those resisting language reform often say that the meaning of ‘man’ is clear; context alone allows us to distinguish between its sex-specific and its generic use. However, since the early 1970’s researchers have studied what children, high school students and adults understand when they encounter the term ‘man’. Studies show that, in response to the generic ‘man’ and ‘he’, women, men, and children alike form mental pictures of males [like you just did when you read that list above], thus seriously undermining the efficiency of ‘man’ and ‘he’ as generic terms.
I can provide footnotes, if you want to look some of this up, because as we all know, the plural of anecdote isn’t data.
That’s an interesting result, but based on your description it doesn’t imply confusion about meaning. Rather, the fact that “he/she” and “she” got different results indicates the opposite to me, that readers understood the pornouns to be general and were making a judgement about the attitude of the employer based on the pronoun used when deciding whether to apply. I am happy to read the paper, if you think I am missing the point.
The weird thing linguistically in the above list is that standard usage requires use of the female pronoun in situations where the referrent must be female.
“We provide private rooms where a parent can breastfeed or change his baby”
That may bother you, but it doesn’t bother me, since the parent might not be female.
Further, I resist language reform as a political tool in all cases. I don’t want my language monkeyed with by people with my best interests at heart.
When I need to use people in examples, I do what I can to go against prevailing industry stereotypes. For example, I’ll use a female actor to represent the experienced programmer, and a male actor to represent the inexperienced programmer. So, Zach is the junior programmer who always makes noob mistakes, and Yolanda is the star engineer who does things correctly.
It’s contrived, but doing it the other way around is worse.
Haven’t had complaints so far.
You didn’t say “Men aren’t confused…”. Do you not argree that linesperson, rather than linesman, is a more neutral and proper usage?
I didn’t say “men” but we were talking about possessive pronouns, not nouns. And I don’t agree that linesperson is “more neutral and proper” in a linguistic sense. Neutral doesn’t even mean anything in a linguistic sense.
Is “linesman” a gender-neutral noun? Probably, yes. “Linesperson” should enter general usage as soon as the people who discuss linesmen, or linespeople, as part of their day-to-day life start using it. It should not be imposed by a comittee of concerned linguists.
Nothing in the english language is imposed by comittee. We are not French. MLA guidelines are not binding. What comittee are you talking about?
The question is what should be taught in schools. Which is the better usage?
I started crossing my 7’s later on, after I had a paper graded down because the teacher thought my 7 was a 1.
I also would cross my zeroes until my 7th grade teacher explained that was the symbol for “null set,” and thus not acceptable.
‘Linesman’ is not gender neutral because it contains the suffix -man. Possessing male sex characteristics has nothing to do with a persons ability to do that job - ditto Postman, Spaceman, Policeman.
The slippage between meanings of ‘man’ [substituting ‘man’ for ‘person’ as in ‘boldly go where no man has gone before’] contributes to the invisiblity of woman, to the framing of human experience in terms of males’ experience and the concomitant neglect of women’s. If generic terms, in their use or undersanding, actually exclude women then they are not generic.
I think the fact that until relatively recently, women were virtual non-persons and usually illiterate, might have some bearing on the matter. If it was only men who were reading and writing, then they are unlikely to complain about the use of masculine pro-nouns in gender-neutral situations. In fact, with women’s status being lower than men, its unlikely there were so many situations that required a gender-neutral pronoun. Gender roles were far more defined then, so there was likely less confusion about which pronoun woudl be appropriate for any situation.
I think you’ll find plenty of Europeans that are offended by the use of “his” as a gender-neutral pronoun! :)
Whatever the industry uses in the real world of power lines is the correct word and should be taught in schools.
That’s a political argument, not a linguistic one. A gender-neutral term is one that is used by people who don’t intend to specify gender, not one that has been scrubbed of any etymology that is gender-specific.
Really? I am pretty sure this in a non-issue in Hebrew, no one feels a need to use “lahem” instead of “lo” when describing the property of an individual of unknown gender. Has there been a shift in pronoun usage in European languages?
I’m not sure why you think that renders the argument moot.
Nilsen (1977) had noted in her discussion of sexism in children’s books and classroom materials that girls and boys have different experiences in relation to rules for marking gender in lexis and grammar. [Did you find it jarring that I wrote ‘girls and boys’, it is so often we see ‘boys and girls’ it can take some of us a second to parse it.] A boy will, throughout infancy and childhood, become accustomed to hearing ‘he, his, him’ used to apply to him while a girl hears ‘she, her, hers’. This affects their learning of, and understanding, of generic ‘he’. Nilsen conducted a range of studies with children at different stages of their formal education to investigate their use of pronouns with neutral antecedents like ‘child’ and found girls tended to extrapolate from their own sex and use ‘she’ while boys did they same, using ‘he’. Nilsen notes that in adult life, ‘he’ is used far more than ‘she’ and that girls have to switch their understanding of ‘he’ to include themselves in it. Boys, on the other hand, are automatically included in ‘he’ used generically. In fact, they may well not learn to include ‘she’ in their pseudo-generic ‘he’.
Resistance to new, neutral generics and feminist coinages such as ‘Ms’ can be viewed as an indicator of our culture’s desire to mark gender and women’s sexual availability. It is sobering to read Nilsen’s list of 80 terms containing the item ‘man’ if one has pretensions to help effect language reform of a gender-inclusive kind. Included in the list are nouns like ‘baseman, countryman, fore-father, middleman’; compounds such as ‘workmen’s compensation, one-man show’; verbs like ‘to patronize’ or ‘to fraternize’, and adjectives such as ‘statesmanlike, sportsmanlike’ and ‘masterful’. Are women meant to feel included in the ‘brotherhood of man’? Can a woman be trusted to be a ‘man of his word’? Are women capable of a ‘masterstroke, a masterpiece’ or of making a ‘gentleman’s agreement’? Although anti-feminists, such as William Safire, and some feminists have argued that the issue of language is trivial compared to the issue of, say, equal rights or equal pay, we should not forget that rights are enshrined in law by means of language.
oops! double post.
Not so much.
Did you find it jarring that I wrote ‘girls and boys’, it is so often we see ‘boys and girls’ it can take some of us a second to parse it.
No, I didn’t notice the order, sorry. But now that you mention it, Castle on a Cloud is clearly a sexist song with the “boys and girls” sexist ordering taking precedence over making a rhyme.
Resistance to new, neutral generics and feminist coinages such as ‘Ms’ can be viewed as an indicator of our culture’s desire to mark gender and women’s sexual availability.
Can, I suppose, but shouldn’t. They are probably better viewed as opposition to the concept of language engineering. Ms. may have failed to take off because using it made a political statement that a given women may not have wanted to make. Almost like trying to change a language is an inherently non-neutral act.
It is sobering to read Nilsen’s list of 80 terms containing the item ‘man’ if one has pretensions to help effect language reform of a gender-inclusive kind.
Politics, not linguistics.
Are women meant to feel included in the ‘brotherhood of man’? Can women be trusted to be a ‘man of his word’? Are we capable of a ‘masterstroke, a masterpiece’ or of making a ‘gentleman’s agreement’?
Are you saying you aren’t? That’s kinda fucked up. I personally thought “Art” by Yasmina Reza was a masterpiece. “The Unexpected Man” was pretty awesome as well. If only she had called it “The Unexpected Person” it might have lasted longer on Broadway.
We should not forget that rights are enshrined in law by means of language.
Really? Law is written in words? Words that retain meaning well because language evolves naturally by common consent? Well, then, we should immediately start a campaign to change the language.
I’m not sure why you have a burr under your saddle about separating a political argument from a linguistic one. It feels to me like you’re just pissed at ‘feminists’ (although I doubt you could name any, and if you did we’d probably disagree on their feminist credentials). I don’t know of one serious feminist scholar who has ever used the phrase ‘political correctness’, which is what you seem to think this is about. ‘Political correctness’ is a tool of the Right, used to discredit those who argue for language reform.
However. since we’ve now entered the realm of ‘I know you are but what am I?’ (‘Not so much’, is not the most well-argued retort I’ve ever seen) I’m going to bow out. You’re just taking what linguists call ‘second speaker slot’, and not actually producing an argument.
Peace, man.
I started crossing my 7s in high school for some reason I can’t remember. I also cross my Zs, and I’m surprised to see that others do it. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone but myself do it. I’m not alone! I’m not alone!
It can also be viewed as an indicator of our culture’s desire to not have rules about language and culture dictated to us by others. If you would suggest that, contrary to its historical usage, “he” is not a valid gender-neutral pronoun, then you should also provide another single syllable word that can be used as a gender neutral pronoun. This would preferably be an already existing word such as the “they” previously indicated in this thread. It would also be good for you to provide another single syllable that can be added to words such as “lines”, so that you don’t take easily pronouncable two-syllable words and turn them into three syllable monstrosities.