quote:

---

Our use of language should reflect not only changes in society but the newspaper's values. Phrases such as career girl or career woman, for example, are outdated (more women have careers than men) and patronising (there is no male equivalent): never use them

---

They provide some examples:

quote:

---

actor, comedian: covers men and women; not actress, comedienne (but waiter and waitress are acceptable - at least for the moment)

firefighter, not fireman; PC, not WPC (most police forces have abandoned the distinction)

businessmen, housewives, "male nurse", "woman pilot", "woman (lady!) doctor": do not use terms such as these, which reinforce outdated stereotypes. If you need to use an adjective, it is female and not "woman" in such phrases as female president, female MPs

Use humankind or humanity rather than mankind, a word that, as one of our readers points out, "alienates half the population from their own history"

---

quote:

---

(but waiter and waitress are acceptable - at least for the moment)

---

"Waitress" was one word that was thrown around in this office debate. The one party was saying how something like that seems to be more "lyrical" to be used in text, and it's a shame that it should be replaced with a more mundane "waiter" or "server."

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: jrose ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
yep! That was the case.

It started with the term prima ballerina, and a group of us chimed in that it wasn't an acceptable term to use, in the context we were writing about, which apparently didn't go over well.

---

God forbid that writing suffer, as opposed to women who are unfairly targeted and labelled, and further oppressed by such things.

quote:

---

Every language reflects the prejudices of the society in which it evolved. Since English, through most of its history, evolved in a white, Anglo-Saxon, patriarchal society, no one should be surprised that its vocabulary and grammar frequently reflect attitudes that exclude or demean minorities and women.

But we are surprised. ... Now that we have begun to look, some startling things have become obvious. What standard English usage says about males, for example, is that they are the species. What is says about females is that they are a subspecies. From these two assertions flow a thousand other enhancing and degrading messages, all encoded in the language we in the English-speaking countries begin to learn almost as soon as we are born. ....

At a deep level, changes in a language are threatening because they signal widespread changes in social mores. At a level closer to the surface they are exasperating. We learn certain rules of grammar and usage in school. When they are challenged it is as though we are also being challenged. ...

One of the obstacles to accepting and kind of linguistic change - whether it concerns something as superficial as pronunciation of tomato or as fundamental as sexual bias - is this desire to keep language "pure". In order to see change as natural and inevitable rather than as an affront, we need perspective, and to gain perspective it helps to take a look at some of the changes that have already taken place in English.

---

"Introduction: Change and Resistance to Change", from The Handbook of Nonsexist Writing: For Writers, Editors and Speakers, by Casey Miller & Kate Swift, 1980, pp. 3-4.

Another babble thread of possible interest:

The Greatest Cliche, etc.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

What a putz, hopefully he went ahead and used it so everyone can write in and yell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
Whoops, I should have mentioned that this party was a woman!

---

unreal! So then it is a classist issue, as opposed to being a purely sexist issue.

[ 14 August 2007: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M.Gregus:
Maybe by "lyrical" she means "traditional" or "conventional" and because she's used to seeing it in conventional writing, it comes across as correct and pleasing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
It's very strange, and it's a constant battle around here — in meetings, especially. Remind, how would it be classist? I think I understand where you're coming from, but I'd really like to hear more.

---

I think remind is right - it's classist as well as unnecessarily identifying sex - and reflects a stark example of employment discrimination in real life.

Here is my observation; tell me if I'm wrong:

1. Cheap restaurants - mostly female servers, almost exclusively male cooks.

2. Expensive restaurants - mostly male servers, almost exclusively male cooks.

NOTE: Cooks generally are dominant economically as well as hierarchically in this industry.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
It's very strange, and it's a constant battle around here — in meetings, especially. Remind, how would it be classist? I think I understand where you're coming from, but I'd really like to hear more.

---

For someone's, whose craft is words and their usage, to utlize, or wanting to utilize, a term that evokes stereotypical imagery, it must be classist based, either done consciously or unconsciously.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrose:
I think you're dead on. I hadn't thought of it that way, but given the classist undertones here, I don't think you could be more correct! Thanks.

---