At 07:50 AM 4/15/98 -0400, you wrote:
>At 22:05 4/14/98 -0500, Michele Gale-Sinex/CIAS, UW-Madison wrote:
>>
>>This is in response to the Worstell/Wilson exchange, backstopping off
>>of Pam Murray's observation to Jim that using the word "he" for
>>farmers might cause some listening whiplash among the audiences Jim
>>may be trying to persuade to see his viewpoints about community. And
>>in response to Dan Worley's view of the world from Sunny Puerto Rico.
>
> Now, it is possible, that I did misunderstand Ms. Murray's motivations
>in her response to Jim (see I can adapt to at least some of the "New
>Speak"). If her message was simply to inform Jim of a possible loss of
>audience due to his choice of language, then I owe her an apology.
Then yes, Dan, you do owe me an apology.
>But after reading it carefully and reading her private response to me, I cannot
>accept that as fact. There was certainly an equal amount of other
>motivation involved.
>
My posting was:
In terms of motivation, I suggest you be careful about using the pronoun he
when speaking of deed holders.
Dan, your message to me was:
> A bit touchy about the traditional usage in the English language of the
>pronoun "he" aren't you? It is a known fact that women have been
>landowners and deed holders for at least three thousand years. And I have
>no quarrel with that fact, or the rigth of women to do so. But, I see no
>need to change the English language in support of "women's rights".
> And, NO! I am not, nor do I have any intention of becoming, "Politically
>Correct" in language or deed.
>
My response back to you was:
Yes I am touchy when it comes to stereotyping. While it may not bother you
to see the he pronoun in situations like this, it does bother others. Within
an hour of posting my message, I had two responses from people that thanked
me for my posting.
That still sounds like a communication suggestion to me. If you read more
into it than that, I can't help it.
> People who harbour feelings of inadequacy and inferiority often show this
>by demanding recognition (in some cases by attemtping to change the entire
>language) or by lashing out at, and attacking anyone who disagrees.
>
Dan, you have used words like "lashing out," "attacking," and previously
"screaming" -- which are pretty judgmental words for an intention of simply
raising people's consciences about how some react to certain words. This is
especially important when words are all we have with electronic
communications such as this -- they are how we form our knowledge of the
people who post the messages.
BTW, I have never been nor do I intend to ever be a member of NOW. And for
the record, I have never "harboured feelings of inadequacy and inferiority."
I just want to do my job and have a sense of contribution while I'm on this
earth.
Thanks to Michelele for the effort that obviously went into her posting. I
felt humbled by her zeal and intelligence (how many of you understood
everything in her posting?!). While long, it was worth wading through - at
least for me.
***********************
Pam Murray, Coordinator
Center for Grassland Studies and
Center for Sustainable Agricultural Systems
PO Box 830949
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE 68583-0949
phone: 402-472-9383
fax: 402-472-4104
e-mail: csas001@unlvm.unl.edu
To Unsubscribe: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email majordomo@ces.ncsu.edu with the command
"subscribe sanet-mg-digest".