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

[dagmar -at- INFORAMP -dot- NET]

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
>implied.

>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
>women.



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.

Mark

**************************************************************

dagmar -at- inforamp -dot- net
"Warmer....Warmer...Warmer....
Disco"
Pulp Fiction

/\_____/\
|        |
| o   o  |
|        |
|---\/---|
|  ----  |
 \______/