Klarinet Archive - Posting 000152.txt from 2008/07

From: Tom McKay <tjmckay@-----.edu>
Subj: Re: [kl]"man"
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 14:00:30 -0400

I think that I will support Anne on this.

Consider: "I met a craftsman yesterday, and she sold me a fine window."
If the second part of that sentence seemed a little more surprising than it
would have with 'he', then you are not taking 'craftsman' as a
gender-neutral word.

Many people find the second half more surprising with 'she' than with 'he'.
And so for many people, the use of the word 'craftsman' carries gender
specific suggestions that some other term might not.

However, 'craftsperson' is a lousy term, and I assume that 'craftpersonship'
was a small but deliberate joke.

(All of that identifies a problem with the language without suggesting a
solution.)

Tom

On 7/31/08 1:08 PM, "Anne Bell" <bell@-----.net> wrote:

> Mmmm..... but I don't think that carries. I'm sure there are some
> word lovers who can find examples BUT- have you ever heard of a female
> dominated job referred to in that way- nurseman, nannyman, knitterman
> (.... I do think early knitting guilds were male dominated though). I
> also doubt so many men would be thrilled to be referred to as a woman in
> their job title. Maybe that's one reason that titles like barmaid,
> milkmaid etc... aren't in common current usage.
> I was in the Navy and for a time was referred to as a "Fireman" being
> that it is the name of the rank I really didn't give it a second
> thought. Now I guess I consider it sort of a relic- but there was
> certainly open animosity concerning my non"MAN"ness. I consider it
> patronizing to be told that I should just take the word in a gender
> neutral manner and not worry about it. Here's an explanation of subtle
> sexism:
>
> "...subtle sexism represents unequal and unfair treatment of
> women that is not recognized by many people because
> it is perceived to be normative, and therefore
> does not appear unusual."
>
> From: Swim, J. K., et. al., Understanding Subtle Sexism: Detection and
> Use of Sexist Language <javascript: void 0>. Sex Roles v. 51 no. 3/4
> (August 2004) p. 117-28
>
> One of the problems is that (as another research study supports) people
> tend to continue to associate -man or -men with MAN or MEN not as a
> universal "one." So people hearing "chairman" etc.... actually envision
> a man in that role. The only people who would envision someone like
> Crystal after hearing "AIRMAN" would be ones who have actually known a
> female Airman (or have been following this conversation). If the term
> were really gender neutral that wouldn't be the case.
>
> BTW- I'm NOT suggesting that Joe is sexist!
>
> Take Care,
> Anne
>
>
> Joseph H. Fasel wrote:
>
>> Hear, hear! Crystal's got it right. We should think of the suffix
>> "-man" as meaning "one who does or is associated with" and not denoting
>> gender.
>>
>> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 08:03 -0700, Crystal Proper wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Guess you haven't talked with many OTHER women in male-dominated jobs. I'm
>>> in the Air Force and have no problem being called an "Airman". That's what I
>>> am. People can tell by looking at me that I'm a woman. "Airperson" would
>>> just be ridiculous. Maybe if Obama gets elected he can work on that.
>>>
>>>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>

------------------------------------------------------------------