Into the Wardrobe

Traditionally, "man/men" has meant both male humans specifically and male and female humans collectively. This seemingly sexist or patriarchal tendency is the impetus for attempting gender-free writing and expression by using such things as "he/she" or third person plural pronouns in order to avoid the ambiguity and presumed male-centered use of "man" for humans in general.

A comment on the Gay marriage thread prompted me to wonder about the following: Since they often feel the object of prejudice and bias, one might expect the homosexual community to also be particularly sensitive to this sort of "subconsciously male-oriented" expression of language (not sure, of course, but it seems like it would be likely to me). And yet we observe nearly the identical form of expression in the term "gay". For it apparently means specifically "male homosexual", as in phrases like "gay and lesbian studies" or GLAAD ("Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation"), etc.

But it is also used as an alternate generic term for homosexual whether male or female. And I think that the term and its usage in both ways is self-imposed and not imposed from an outside agency (though I am not at all sure about that -- anyone know?)

Curious. Perhaps there is something more to the patriarchal tendency than mere sexism or prejudice?

Not meant to incite, but just tossing the idea out for possible discussion,
--Stanley

Hmm - interesting point. I can't speak for them but I have always used the term gay to mean male or female homosexual.

Like actresses don't like bing called actresses these days - they prefer actors. Maybe lesbians prefer being called gay. Or refer to themselves as gay. Or maybe not. I don't know.

So the conclusion that seems to be indicated by the various comments here is that perhaps the sizeable effort of the last few decades to get people to write in a gender-neutral manner is misplaced and that it is not such a big deal after all to use "he" as a generic pronoun or to talk about mankind as a generic term for the human race, and that Star Trek (since it came up in the discussion:-) may as well have stuck with "...where no man has gone before..." instead of changing it to "...where no one has gone before...".

After all, if the gay (or gay and lebian?) community has no problem with the supposed gender biased nature of the "male" term becoming the generic for male and female, and one would think they of all groups would be more aware and sensitive to such things, then it must ok.

What do you think, guys. Is it every man for himself when writing for public consumption, or should he try to temper his writing with references to "he or she", or "one", or the often grammatically questionable "they", or alternating with "she"? Or is it Man's lot in life to forever ponder whether he should stick with the traditions of his culture or buck Father Time and break with established practices?

--Stanley

It doesn't bother me at all. But then, I'm one of those old-fashioned people who cringes at 'their', as in "Every librarian should have their own opinion." I don't feel oppressed by the patriarchy when I read "Every librarian should have his own opinion."