Letters to the Editor
continuedfrom page 1
people are running smoothly. And if this
means that we have to take something
away from ourselves to achieve this, we
usually think i^s okay—no big deal, we
didn’t really need it, anyway. The woman
of Meredith face a future that has the
potential for unlimited possibilities for
them. Let’s not start taking away those
possibilities by telling them that being
explicitly identified in our language is
not impoitant I’m all for calling a spade
a spade, but let’s not call a heart a spade.
Sincerely,
Penny W. Augustine
Enrichment Program Director
Continuing Education
Editor,
As Meredith College approaches its
centennial charter anniversary, the
school is preparing to celebrate ite past
and move on to an even better future. As
we begin our fourth year at Meredith,
we realize that we have had oppoi^nities
and experienced many things diat we
might not have found at a larger co-ed
university. One of the most important
lessons that we have learned at Meredith
is that we can do what we have been
trained to do. This has nothing to do
with our abilities in our majors. It has
everything to do with the self-assurance
that is fostered in Meredith students by
the faculty and staff.
From the very first day that we came
to Meredith we have been told that as
women we are no more limited in our
options than men with the same
credentials. Much of this confidence has
been gained indirectly from the positive
attitudes toward women that are found
on this campus. This is subtly improved
daily by the exclusively female presence
on the Meredith campus. Because all of
the members of our classes as well as
the student body are female, we have
had the unique experience of
encountering solely female pronouns in
the majority of our coUe^ate career.
This remarkable feature of Meredith
College was elucidated upon enrollment
in a CRC at I^U. These classes were
domiruted not only by the use of male
pronouns, but also by males themselves.
It is hard for us to believe that the
dominant presence of males in the
language contributed to the dominance
of males in the class and therefore the
exclusion of females.
It was very disheartening for us to
read the most recent editorial in the
Meredith Herald. The editor’s lack of
understanding of the subtle yet
devastating impact of exclusively male
language waf disappointingly apparent
The fact that the editor is female saddens
us even more. We are hopeful that the
editor will take the time to discuss the
issue of inclusive language with women
who may have had experiences similar
to ours. Maybe after t^ exposure she
will be more sensitive to what language
can say beyond the words themselves.
Carmen Elliott
Ruth McDaniel
Dear Editor,
Despite a shoulder and arm riear
paralyzed from non stop note taking,
overall fatigue andstudying left undone,
I am compelled to write this letter in
response to your editorial, “Let’s call a
spade a spade.”
I am a re-entry student, enjoying
immensely the support I experience as
a woman in this women’s enviroiunent.
I was dismayed and surprised at the
tone and content in your recent editorial
regarding inclusive language. I would
hope and expect the student newspaper
of a woman’s college to be at the
forefront of supporting women’s efforts
at revising language that clearly does
not include them.
Women’s struggle for equality has
encompassed the efforts of countless
women over many years. These efforts
have been directed at issues of equal
pay and the ERA. They have also been
directed at the much broader and more
consequential issues of violence against
women and the feminization of poverty.
For you to refer to these efforts as, “all
this fuss about equality," is niave Isic) at
best and demeaning at worst.
In herbook, “Gyn/Ecology", author
Mary Daly lets us know that the continued
victimization and oppression of women,
requires the silencing of women. This
sUencing begins with the very language,
especially allegedly generic pronouns,
that we are trained to use to name
ourselves.
It is awkward and time consuming
to do the work needed to devise
alternatives to exclusive language. It is
but one avenue of addressing the very
real oppression of women in our society.
If women do not do this work, who will?
Sincerely,
Regis McDonald
Dear Editor,
When my attention-was brought to
the editorial in Monday’s [August 27,
19901 paper, I was astonished. I
understand that to take the sexism out
of words takes effort and is frustrating at
times, but this language shapes our
lives, whether helping or hindering.
Sexism is defined as the ‘'discrimination
on the basis of sex” and “can reveal itself
in the representation of women and
men by the media”. Without efforts
stereotypes are enabled to stay intact,
because instead of using “firefighters”,
“firemen” is used and gives the
impression that women do not
participate in this line of work. As a
future teacher of young children, it will
be my job to see that self concepts of
children are healthy and not knocked
down by the use of out of date language.
One of my professors recieved Isicl a
phone call one evening after a day at
preschool, in which a parent turned her
attention to the fact that asking the
children to sit Indian style perpetuated
the stereotype that all Indians sat like
that. The same thing could be
axomplished by asking children to sit
with their legs crossed, without feeding
that stereotype. As a fellow student of a
wonun’s college I ask you U)o to stop
fueling sexist language that lead to
stereotypes.
Thank you.
Susan E. Liles
To the Editor:
I was very concerned to read the
editorial “Let’s call a spade a spade" in
the August 27,1990, issueof the Meredith
Herald. The editorial asked, “haven’t
we all come to realize that equality
doesn’t depend on the words we use,
but the actions we take toward our
fellow man.^" Indeed, the actions we
take toward one another are important,
but the words are important as well in
that they influence our actions by giving
shape to our thoughts.
Several psychological studies such
as the one by Linda Harrison have
shown that words iike “mankind" are
not genderless and inclusive of the
entire human race. Children and adults
who hearthe word “mankind” in normal
usage picture a male in their minds even
though they may say that “mankind”
includes both men and women when
asked specifically. These words arg
sexist in their usage today. And their
usage continues the misconception that
men are the only ones in the human race
worthy of notice.
As a writer and lover of the English
language, I welcome the use of inclusive
language for the opportunity it gives
writers and editors to use the English
/ languagemoreaccuratelyandcreatively.
If women are indeed represented in
Congress, it is much more accurate to
use Congresswoman than Congressman,
and if bqth men and women are in
congress, it is accurate to use
congressperson to describe their role.
Our use of the En^ish language should
attempt to reflect the present realities of
life, not deny them.
Neither do we have to make up
words to be inclusive. The English
language is not limited to gender-specific
words to refer to people. Our language
is filled with inclusive words— people,
humankind, humaruty, individual, to
name only a few. On occasion, some
new words (such as chairpersorO may
have to be used to reflect changing
realities as women enter new areas of
business, politics, etc. But these words
have been and will continue to be
accepted into our language. Check the
dictiorury for “chairperson.”
On other occasions it may be
necessary to rethink our phrasing of
sentences to be inclusive. This is
apparent with the use of pronouns.
However, there are creative ways around
the awkward construction of “he or she"
or “s/he.” For example, use the plural
form or simply alternate the use of he
and she when appropriate.
Let us not let the effort of thinking,
speaking, and writing in new ways,
however, deter us from the importance
ofbeing inclusive in our words. Maybe
as our use of the English language
begins to change to reflect the changing
realities of women and men in our
society, our actions will continue to
show more and more equality and justice.
Kay R. Jemigan
Editor Responds
As editor-in-chief, it is my
responsibility (and privilege) to stick
my neck out on a weekly basis and
present one opinion of any topic that
may touch the hearts and minds of our
campus. Sometimes you may fmd the
editorial playing devil’s advocate,
specifically designed to encourage
readers to examine their own feelings
and beliefs.
While the editor does not regularly
respond in print to Letters to the Editor
(after all, I've already had my say), a
response is offered to one item that was
discussed in a letter published in today's
Letters to the Editor.
The term “atta-boys" came from an
informal award given to me when I
worked at Hewlett-Packard Company
several years ago. An atta-boy was an
after-hours champagne toast given to a
sales rep (97% of whom were male)
who closed a bigsale or had a particularly
successful sales month. As a sales
coordinator (100% of whom were
female), I was the subject of such a toast
for helping a sates rep write a complex
proposal which lead to a big sale. My
toast, however, also included a dozen
Steriing roses. I was pleased and flattered
to be the only coordinator included as
“one of the guys” and felt absolutely no
negative feelings about receiving the
“male-dominated, exclusive language"
award.
In my attempt to include a pat-on-
the-back award for your hard working
newspaper staff, I simply picked a term
that had once applied to me for a job
continued on page 8
Pages