|
|
Re: grammar/feminism
Ruby Rohrlich (rohrlich@GWIS2.CIRC.GWU.EDU)
Tue, 7 Nov 1995 21:00:57 -0500
Talk about an alienating and antagonistic statement, your use of the term
"grammar police." Is this all because I used "us," by which I meant
people who are interested in making the language less androcentric? Does
the use of the word "us" really imply a group in conspiracy against the
masses? What is this, some neo-Marxist claptrap? I don't wish to
continue this non-productive dialogue any longer, and will ignore future
messages along these lines. Ruby Rohrlich
On Tue, 7 Nov 1995, Elaine Hills (UND) wrote:
> Ruby,
>
> I am new to this list but find this "Korean Shamanism" quite interesting
> (although I have no clue where it started). The only problem I have here
> and why I am replying is that it seems to me Alan was pointing out that
> using the term "us," however realistic it may be, singles out a group and
> alienates that group from the masses. Who is it that the effects of
> the grammer police are aimed towards? The groups within society, or the
> masses who will dominate for quite some time until the masses catch on to
> what the groups are doing, or in this case, saying? I don't feel that
> Alan was directing his comment and singling out the term "us" as singling
> out femenists, but merely pointing out that alienation that was implied.
>
> --Elaine | |
> \____/
>
> On Sun, 5 Nov 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
>
> > The aim in this case happens to be descriptive, but even if the intent
> > were directive, why should this cause alienation? Noone can force
> > language change, especially on the internet, which only expresses
> > *virtual* reality, and even in real reality, since users of language
> > don't generally have coercive powers, what's to be so scared of, if
> > you'll pardon the linguistic lapse. Why are some men panicked (sp.?) by
> > what they construe as feminist direction, especially again on the
> > internet. This doesn't, unfortunately, threaten male domination in this
> > country,economically or politically, if you look at Congress or the heads
> > of large corporations. So why take it so seriously, as ifmale power or
> > something were really at stake. Ruby Rohrlich
> >
> > On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Allan Dunn wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 4 Nov 1995, Ruby Rohrlich wrote:
> > >
> > > > While it is undoubtedly true that changing attitudes precedes changing
> > > > language, still perhaps it helps change attitudes when those of us whose
> > > > attitudes have changed indicate the changes in language that have
> > > > ensued. Ruby Rohrlich
> > >
> > > What worries me, however, is who is "us", and that the language may have
> > > changed for a portion of intelligencia (which could be a start), but not for
> > > speakers in general, which only alienates and seperates them.
> > > If the aim is descriptive, not directive then I happen to agree with you.
> > > The best vehicle for change in language
> > > is awareness and usage by speakers in that language
> > >
> > > AD
> > >
> >
>
|