Gender neutrality and language

[Anthea Fraser Gupta]

I feel as if time travel has really happened..... Isn't this like really
really old hat? I was part of this battle (on the other side, obviously)
in the early 1980s and it seems to me that it's now generally considered
best writing practice to avoid generic he (and, indeed, 'one' and
'he/she'). The blogger needs to be directed towards modern styleguides!

As for 'all men are created equal' -- as I recall, when that phrase was
coined women weren't included, nor, indeed, quite a few men.

Here we are in Jakarta: "Cooperatives, Small and Medium Businesses
Minister Suryadharma Ali explained that small businessmen include those
engaged in the informal sector such as fried soybean cake street
vendors, meat ball street vendors, salad sellers and others." Anyone who
know Jakarta will realise that many of these people will be women -- but
would someone not familiar with Indonesia realise?

And in the UK: "Subsection (3) sets out two particular conditions that
may be imposed; subsection (4) makes clear that a resident who breaches
a condition may be required to leave the centre, with his dependants (if
any); subsection (5) provides that a resident and his dependants may be
required to leave the centre if a dependant breaches a condition; and
subsection (6) provides that the regulations setting the conditions
under this section must include a provision for making sure that
residents are informed in writing of any condition imposed on them."
Very hard to find examples outside legal language that use generic he
like this. On the other hand, in some societies only men CAN legally
have dependants. How do we know?

You see that I have not forgotten all the old arguments.

Anthea

Anthea
*     *     *     *     *
Anthea Fraser Gupta (Dr)
School of English, University of Leeds, LS2 9JT
<www.leeds.ac.uk/english/staff/afg>
NB: Reply to a.f.gupta at leeds.ac.uk
*     *     *     *     *
   I'm loath to agree 
> with an AEI fellow on anything, but this guy is correct, at 
> least in part.
> 
> His position, basically, is that the huge feminist campaign 
> to remove 'he' and 'him' as gender-neutral pronouns is, not 
> to put too fine a point on it, idiotic. His reasoning is that 
> it breaks down the elegance of the English language, making 
> it difficult to teach students to write without sounding 
> hopelessly awkward, which including 'one' or 'he/she' in a 
> sentence almost invariably does. See--even that sentence was 
> awkward. Most of his argument revolves around the historical 
> roots of the language and, in typical conservative fashion, 
> his desire that things stay Just The Way They Are; I don't 
> agree with that part, but I think his point is valid 
> nontheless. Here's why.