When posting a job vacancy, we use gender neutral term - "chairperson" not chairman, "their duties" not his/her. This is b/c we believe that both genders equally able to do the job.
Now imagine 5 people have been shot to death in their appartment, and there are no witnesses or other info on suspect. Should newspapers use words like "gunman" and "determine his identity", "catch him" or opt for gender-neutral terms?
Presuming that a female could've done that seems offensive to women. Suggesting that criminal is a man reeks of inequality and stereotypes.
What's your choice?
2007-03-16 10:01:32 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
this is bullshit. "their" is a plural pronoun, not a gender-inclusive singular pronoun. in the english language, masculine pronouns have always served as gender-inclusive pronouns when the gender of the subject is unknown. "mankind" means everyone, i dont care what you think. it is only recently that this crap about gender inclusiveness has started.
i am a man, and using a male pronoun to refer to an unknown criminal is fine with me. not all men are criminals, and since the english language allows this sort of use, it is not implying that all criminals are men, either.
get your undies out of your buttcrack and worry about important things, like gas prices or world hunger.
2007-03-16 10:17:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Do we not do that already? I guess I need to listen more closely to the news. I know the term "unknown gunman" is often used, but I presume it's because there were witnesses that saw the assailant was male...otherwise, they say assailant, etc. But I'm not sure...I'm going to turn on the news right now. (I'm sure someone shot someone, somewhere.) But yes, I think gender neutral terms should be used.
But "kissuck" does make a good point, the male pronoun has always (traditionally) been used when gender is unknown or not relevant to the content. It's the same argument that some feminists use to object to preference of the male pronoun in the English language.
2007-03-16 10:35:42 · answer #2 · answered by wendy g 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Terms ending in "man" were the norm until very recently. Words like "workman" and "mailman" are ingrained in the vernacular. "Chairperson" is a very recent addition to the language. Until we come up with a gender-neutral pronoun, eliminating the need for "he/she", I'm afraid this usage will continue.
My choice, until such a pronoun is coined, would be "gunman".
2007-03-16 11:13:28 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Kisssucks IS right on target. We should cut the crap completely and leave pronouns and nouns as they are; stewardess can remains stewardess and steward can remain steward; we don't need that "flight attendant" garbage or anything else. You can leave gunman if you're going to do that, but if not, sure, let's just make EVERYTHING gender-neutral.
The feminist problem with simple language is sickening, especially when they corrupt words like "chauvinist" to deviate from their original meaning. If they correct that first, they can go on complaining about "chairperson" instead of chairman, from my viewpoint.
2007-03-16 12:31:07 · answer #4 · answered by Robinson0120 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Kissuck is right on target! The male pronoun has always been gender inclusive. Not only this, but I don't find it offensive that we use gender-specific terms in any situation as along as it is logical (that gender predominates). For example, using "she" and "her", when referring to babysitters, or "he" or "his", when referring to marines, or a shooter. People needed to toughen up here and not waste their time and feelings over stupid political correctness.
Why not adopt a language like Spanish where male pronouns are the rule?
2007-03-16 10:29:37 · answer #5 · answered by Gymnast 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yes they should use gender-neutral terms always because who's really to say if the gun-person was male or female even if there was a witness who thought they saw a man fleeing the scene when indeed it was a woman.We don't really know any ones gender anyway now do we?
2007-03-16 10:11:38 · answer #6 · answered by FYIIM1KO 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Personally I would be happy to use gender-neutral terms. But statistics show that four in five criminals are men, and around 85-95% of violent criminals are men. (Young men are most likely to be the victims of violent crimes, too.)
That's probably the reason for the prejudice; but I don't think there's ever a good reason for prejudice.
2007-03-16 10:15:11 · answer #7 · answered by Saint Bee 4 · 2⤊ 3⤋
Yes, it's true that men are more likely to go to prison for a violent crime than women. But also, African Americans (male or female) are more likely to go to prison for a violent crime than white americans. Would it be acceptable to assume the perpetrator was black?
2007-03-17 17:31:15 · answer #8 · answered by koreaguy12 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you fairly would desire to spend lots of time discussing prisoners? in case you do, and you sense strongly approximately it, i'm specific you are able to alter your pronouns consequently. once you are the form of gentle blossom which you're feeling you are able to not organise your language devoid of being "corrected" first then in step with hazard you will desire to not artwork interior the penitentiary equipment.
2016-12-19 07:03:59 · answer #9 · answered by franchi 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they already do this on most TV shows except Nancy Grace because she appears to hate men.
2007-03-16 10:12:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋