Re: PC Manmonth

[steve <steve -at- SOFTLINESYSTEMS -dot- COM>]

Regards,
Steven Ward              Email:   steve -at- softlinesystems -dot- com
Technical Writer         Phone:  (604) 266-1995
Softline Systems Inc.  Fax: (604) 266-1949
850-1200 West 73rd Ave. Vancouver, B.C.
WWW: http://www.softlinesystems.com



-----Original Message-----
From: Melissa Morgan <mmorgan -at- CDG-HARGRAY -dot- COM>
To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU <TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU>
Date: Wednesday, April 28, 1999 6:38 AM
Subject: Re: PC Manmonth


>Kevin McLauchlan wrote:
>>Oh, by the way, my observation of the PC-language thing is
>>that the formerly-standard usage (man, mankind, he, him, etc.
>>for indeterminate or group designation) was not a problem to
>>anybody until a few vocal people decided to *make* it a problem
>>and then harangued us all until it became a fait-accompli.
>
>And following this logic, not allowing women and African-americans to vote
>was not
>a problem either until a few vocal people decided to *make* it a problem.
>
>Sorry to throw this in so late, but I think some of the "It doesn't really
>matter" attitudes
>I've seen here are kind of disturbing. I know PC is a pain in the neck, but
>it too might
>someday become the "traditional usage", and at least this time it will be a
>result of
>an informed society attempting to eliminate stereotypes and exclusionary
>politics.

Melissa Morgan wrote:
>Also, I don't think we can say, with any certainty that the traditional
>usages were not a
>problem, per se, because it deals with more than who is offended or not. It
>also deals
>with the continuation of stereotypes that can be dangerous if only on a
>subconscious
>level.  For example, what about those who have read the traditional usages
>all their
>lives, and without even realizing, moved toward careers and/or mindsets
>that would
>not stray from the traditional constructs because it had been so ingrained
>on the
>subconscious level by the traditional usages? Why should we continue to
>support
>stereotypes that might not seem to have much of a surface impact, but could
>deeply
>impact the subconscious? More food for thought.

>A very interesting side note here is a phrase many of us use fairly
>regularly, "As a
>rule of thumb." This phrase originated from the once prominent idea that it
>was
>acceptable for a man to beat his wife with a stick, so long as the stick
>was not
>larger in width than his thumb.  It's pretty incredible what we can take
>for granted
>when it comes to language.



So according to your theory, phrases like "rule of thumb" have a causal or
even sub-conscious contribution to domestic violence? It seems irrational,
but it must be true since you believe that eliminating such phrases will
result in social change. It's funny that your very example disproves your
rule.
I said it before and I'll say it again...

C'mon.
Let's stop the pretentious navel gazing. We write words to help people
quickly understand processes and procedures and apply that understanding to
solve an immediate need or complete a task. That's it!

All this talk reminds me of the self-absorbtion of architects in the 50's
and early 60's who believed in social engineering through architecture. If
we change the person's surrounding's, they thought, surely the person will
change also. So we seem to think, if we change the words people use, then
their thoughts and attitudes will change also. If language can socially
engineer society, NATO should be showering Serbia with dictionaries replete
with ethnic-neutral names for Albanians.

Let's get back to business.

Steve


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=