Last night, a few of us were discussing what we did in class, papers, etc. to minimize our use of sexist language. What I learned for the first time is that people have come up with gender-neutral pronouns so that one doesn’t always need to use the awkward “he or she,” “(s)he,” or (what I usually do, evidenced by this very sentence) “one.” Now, people are using the word “ze” to denote a gender-neutral subject and “hir” to denote a gender-neutral object or possessive pronoun.
Examples:
When ze went to the store, ze bought hirself a pineapple slicer.
If a student studies a lot, ze should take a break.
A doctor should care about hir patients.
Interesting stuff–I am not sure how comfortable I am using these new words. (As I said before, I usually go for “one,” or switch off between “she” and “he” randomly, trying to get an even split if possible.) But, being a rather stodgy person, that’s to be expected. I find the conscious language-shifting a fascinating topic, and I wonder if it will catch on–perhaps some day, these gender-neutral pronouns will feel natural, even though for now it requires a great deal of self-consciousness to use them.
If you want to check out techniques to write your papers in a gender-neutral way, check out these APA guidelines–these are a bit older and do not include “ze” or “hir,” but there are some good practical tips. (For example, say “Eve and Adam” instead of “Adam and Eve,” the “Founders of the nation” instead of “Founding Fathers,” etc.)
Happy gender-neutral paper-writing!
Filed under: language
Dashaway
femmemeister
Bento
Sweet! I totally did “Eve and Adam” for a paper last week.
When I present science labs to kids where I work, I always try to incorperate the opposite of a stereotype in my examples. “When an engineer works on a project, she…” etc.
I’m not quite sure if gender “neutral” language is the way to go. While gender neutrality is appealing, I’m not sure if that is the means to the end we want. I don’t think we’re ever *not* going to have “men” and “women” so referring to people neutrally seems like a rejection of the individual in a way, kind of a bandaid solution to the real problem. I think the end that we want is to achieve a value system that does not discriminate based on what sex organs you have, so for now, I prefer to just switch up the gender pronouns in papers to give readers’ heads a spin. I also like the idea from lauren to incorporate the opposite of a stereotype when talking. I’m gonna try to do that, but I know it will take an extremely conscious effort. Funny how you have to teach yourself what you believe, sometimes. Here’s a question though, would it be bad to have and use male and female pronouns *as well as* gender neutral pronouns? Or would that just not work? Kinda like the mixed race question–like should there be a space to fill in on papers marked “mixed race” or something to that extent. So I guess the question is, would *adding* another category on top of “male” and “female” and making it “gender neutral” be a bad thing or would it be helpful?
This reminds me of how those far feminists say womyn instead of women. It’s ridiculous things like this that skeptics and critics think of in regards to feminism. I mean, c’mon. Feminism is so much more, but this kind of bullshit is whats memorable for those who are looking for something to believe against. Play the public relations game. Start the politic. Don’t get caught up in irrelevancies.
And Adam and Eve? Isn’t Adam first because he, like, came first? As a philosophy major, it’s kind of how we say Socrates and Plato. It’s not a stab at Plato. It’s just about timing. And don’t the Founding Fathers refer to just the males? I don’t know of any female Founding Fathers. Plus, everyone loves alliteration.
For the record, I’m a feminist, but as a philosophy major, I believe more in the sound, valid argument and credibility. Conversations such as this cheapen everything I want feminism to stand for.
I disagree that this is an argument which cheapens what feminism is about, though I don’t think it should be the primary focus of the movement - more a personal effort to minimize the sexist things we might unconsciously say. And I don’t find it irrelevant. It’s interesting to me that many other European languages (I’m taking my linguistics prof’s word on this, though I know it’s the case in French) do have a gender-neutral pronoun for cases like this. When did that drop out of what became the English language, and why?
The words we use are the best approximation we have to communicate our experiences. By using primarily male pronouns to talk about history, etc etc, that’s making male the default, the standard. And I don’t think that’s entirely irrelevant. It shapes how we think about the world. As a person who gets overly twitchy about grammar I haven’t really been able to get into gender-neutral pronouns. And I think Dashaway’s point is good: it’s like people who say we have a colorblind society so racism is gone. I think there is a place in English for gender-neutral pronouns.
In Finnish they don’t have this problem, he/she is “han” (with an umlaut). There are no pronouns for he or she, just the gender neutral term.
America is so backwards.