Re: gender bias and economy of language

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: What four fields can do to a brain"
• Previous message: Barbara Watson: "gender bias"
• Maybe in reply to: Matthew S. Tomaso: "gender bias and economy of language"

> Adding 'hu' to the word 'mankind' to form the word 'humankind' is an
> arbitrary act which does, however, change verbal connotations. The words
> themselves are, like all words, arbitrary and constructed, but nonetheless,
> loaded with (unfixed) meanings. And so, if it's going to piss somebody
> (anybody) off if we use the word 'mankind' gender-inclusively, and if the
> word 'humankind' allows for a more people-inclusive and productive discourse
> - why the fuss over the prefix 'hu'?
>

>
> best,
> Matt
> __________________________________________________________
> Matt Tomaso, Human.
>
> Anthropology.
> University of Texas at Austin.
> ___________________________________________________________
April 5, 1995

Once we add "hu" to mankind we perceive of it in a different hue - that's
what the fuss seems to be about. Barbara Watson
bwatson@sciences.sdsu.edu

• Next message: Ruby Rohrlich: "Re: What four fields can do to a brain"
• Previous message: Barbara Watson: "gender bias"
• Maybe in reply to: Matthew S. Tomaso: "gender bias and economy of language"