Man oh, man, did I ever have a rough day! Well, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if I ever have a day like today. You see, Monday, Labor Day was a holiday. I went to the office to do some of Tuesday’s work on Monday, and there was no one available to man the office.
Perhaps some 30 years ago, none of the above would have caused a ripple. Today, it seems, there are many who might argue that using all those masculine terms is offensive and sexist. http://rezio.net/woa/wp-admin/post-new.phpThat makes it difficult to say or write anything.
Let me unscramble what I’ve just written. Today, without even being aware of it, there are many ways to offend — even if the offense is inadvertent. The first paragraph uses the word “man,” if only as an exclamation, along the lines of “boy, oh boy!” The term “monkey’s uncle” excludes females, and the final sentence turns the second usage of “man” into a verb. I doubt many people agree to woman an office.
Princeton University, one of the nation’s finest Ivy League institutions, has recently come up with a list strongly encouraging students and staff to use guidelines issued by the Office of Human Resources. The guidelines urge gender-inclusive language in official HR communications.
Gender-inclusive language “is writing and speaking about people in a manner that does not use gender-based words when the gender is unknown or applies to a mixed gender group of individuals.”
So, according to new Princeton protocol, we are not to say or write, “Each participant presents his ID badge at the door.”
Now Princetonians had better change the sexing of the sentence to “Participants present their ID badges at the door.” Or if it becomes necessary to speak or write something like “The incumbent edits a variety of documents and s/he prepares weekly updates,” we ought to change that to “The incumbent edits a variety of documents and also prepares a weekly update.”
Princeton is not the only institution attempting to de-sex the language. Many forms of correspondence virtually require him or her to treat gender as if it were something to be avoided.
When I was still in the classroom, I served on a Highlands University Discipline Committee, which acted on concerns involving students. We’d recommend solutions such as apologies, disciplinary actions, suspensions and even expulsion for the alleged offenders. But the chairman (er — chairperson) of the committee never seemed to be forthcoming with the offenders’ name or sex. Rather, the man or woman who served as chairperson of the committee would use “individual.” Hmm. Using five syllables when just one would do….
My concern is that the English language has been around for centuries, subject to some modifications. And apparently those seeking to be offended get their wish.
In my church, the simple Doxology, sung after the offertory, once used “God” only in the opening stanza, followed by two stanzas using the subject as “him.” But that wasn’t politically correct, as we needed to make the chant gender-neutral, so we used “God” three times, as if we were referring to three different deities.
As for “man” used as a verb, above, the Princeton guidelines would urge changing “man” to “staff,” so we now avoid that wretched reference to males.
Suppose we make a list of words that incorporate the male of the species. We find words like “cameraman,” “foreman,” “chairman” and “fireman.” Some of the terms can be “fixed” by trading the “man” part to “person.” But “fireperson”? Unlikely. That’s where we throw in “firefighter.”
Webster’s has a host of “man”-containing words that may imply only the male of the species. Can we use “mandate” “manufacture” and “manhandle” without slighting people?
Trying to be fair, I searched for references to gender in both spoken and written forms. The web sites, while surprisingly similar to one another, justifiably encourage men and women to use gender neutrality and thus avoid “masculinizing” the language or suggesting society is male-dominated.
Meanwhile, consider usages in other languages, Spanish, for example. Unlike English, the Latinate Spanish language provides a gender to every noun in that language. The genders in Spanish are simple and easy to follow, with a few exceptions in which people say “la mapa,” la dia” and “el noche.”
But what about German, which contains three genders: feminine, masculine and neuter?
I contend that human behavior exists as it does irrespective of the kind of gender we place on words in any language. To me, using “chairman” as opposed to “chairperson” comes more as a matter of habit than of social status, preference or dominance.
The inspiration for this subject came from a very recent meeting with a student I had at Highlands almost 35 years ago. The meeting became Part 2. On both occasions, the individual became irate as s/he was reminded of the heated gender-based discussion the individual and I had in the ‘70s. In that human’s case, I realized he/she was determined to avoid any reference to gender.
In a torrid 20-minute discussion, I realized he/she never once used any terms that would identify people as male or female.
I for one like the grammar of the English language, but if you hear me slip, by saying, for example, “The proper study of mankind is man” instead of “The proper study of personkind is persons,” don’t hesitate to bring it to my attention.
• • •
“Se cree mucho” is an expression I used in last week’s column to suggest haughtiness. Sara Harris, a former Highlands colleague, wrote to say she’d both heard and used something similar, while in Mexico.
Sara cited variations: “Se cree la gran cosa” and that triggered still another expression, “Se cree la mamá de Tarzán.” Sara added, “Why that? I sure don’t know!”
I read the first expression as akin to calling oneself “the big cheese.” And the other? “Tarzan’s mom”? I don’t know either.