Re: Political Correctness Re: Manmonth or Peoplemonth?

[Dawn-Marie Oliver <Dawn-Marie -at- CONCUR -dot- COM>]

        > On Tuesday, April 27, 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.
        > Nobody was oppressed *by that aspect of the language* until
        > political types groped around and found something to make into
        > a lever and to mis-represent as representative of what they
        > were *really* (and legitimately) beefing about.

        That may well be the case.  But did you ever stop to consider why
        it may have been "made an issue"?

        I grew up reading everything I could get my hands on. Whenever I
        read about "he", I didn't picture myself.  I pictured my
        (imaginary) male twin.  He got to do all those things that I
        couldn't, since I was a _she_.  I felt oppressed.

        Many easily admit women are able to perform those traditionally
        male roles (doctor, fire fighter, etc.), but until the language
        is adapted, they aren't really backing themselves up.

        Language is indeed power.  We can indeed manipulate thought.  But
        we are changing a status quo that favors men, hence men perceive
        they lose some power (generally, this issue IS split along gender
        lines).

        I like the idea of replacing "man" with "white".  It's very
        enlightening, even to me.

        My two cents.

                Dawn-Marie Oliver
                dawn-marie -at- concur -dot- com
                My opionions are MINE; my employer and I like it that way.


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