AIBU - sexist science homework

[Litchick]

Lst night's science homework was to write a short passage about a famous scientist, what they discovered and its applications today.

Fine except that each question said 'he'.

Eg what was his name? What did he discover?

DD and I chose Marie Curie and changed everything to she.

AIBU to make the point on the prep sheet or just touchy?
Does it matter? It felt to me like it does. Grrrr

I think all those egs of 'he' (esp that of Hillarious Hillary!) could easily be replaced with 'they' or 'their', with absolutely no grammatical problem or change of meaning.

Has anyone said whether it was once considered grammatically incorrect to use 'they' in this form?

As an aside on Hilary, I read the other day that scientists have discovered certain facial qualities determine who will win an election. Specifically, if you look as though you have a 'competent' face, you will win.

Hills

Obs

Not that I'm being partisan in my choices of photo, you understand.

But there is no debate in the CMS as to whether generic he is an acceptable form nowadays - it seems quite clear that it is not. The CMS debate is not at all the same as the one that you have been stirring up.

Oh I see that is mentioned in the Wiki and that they revised that. But their neutral position only seems to relate to discomfort about editorially imposing the singular "they" on writers -- not to the correctness or otherwise of the usage.

And it is unquestionably true that the unvaried use of 'he' as a generic is frowned on and outdated.

Over the last thirty years there has been an absolutely huge change of practice among writers and editors of academic books. Not imposed from above by the PC-police, but a natural shift -- fostered rather than created by self-conscious attempts to be inclusive.

'He' was a completely standard generic pronoun still in the early 80s. Now it is standard practice to adopt one or more of several strategies to avoid it. A few authors use 'she' throughout, some use 'she or he' (or the unliterary 's/he'), most will work female characters into their examples, most will sometimes use the singluar 'they', etc. It is really unusual to come across a diehard user of 'he' as a universal generic pronoun (in the areas I work in).

And I've been saying throughout that while you have to be careful, one should not automatically assume the worst from someone who uses the generic "he".

Do you think the same of someone who uses "mankind"?

I would assume that anyone who uses the generic 'he' was an uneducated, lobotomised moron and a sad disappointment to their parents. Don't you think that's reasonable?

'Mankind' is not a word I tend to use; I think I'm more likely to say 'humans', so I haven't given that much thought to whether I prefer 'mankind' or 'humankind'. The latter sounds a bit clumsy, but then at one time 'they' sounded clumsier than 'he', but now that it's generally accepted as the correct form, it sounds perfectly fine. The evolution of language and all that.

That's a bit harsh, Mrs MH!

Humans, hmm. So why not hupersons?

I wouldn't think the worst of someone who used a generic he - probably just think they were a bit old fashioned. If it happened in a context that mattered (as with the OP) I would correct it.

I would find it very hard not to think the worst of someone who repeatedly defended the use of generic he though, that's for sure.

I wouldn't think the worst of someone who used a generic he - probably just think they were a bit old fashioned. If it happened in a context that mattered (as with the OP) I would correct it.

I would find it very hard not to think the worst of someone who repeatedly defended the use of generic he though, that's for sure.

Not sure what you mean by 'the same'. Diehard? Generally they are just older, and a little out of touch. I wouldn't assume anything more than that.

'Mankind'? doesn't really bother me much. I guess it is borderline. I would probably use 'humanity' or 'humankind' since they are good enough words that avoid a small amount of dissonance.

It isn't a good strategy to ally defence of the generic 'he' with objection to the more ridiculous anti-sexist language -- girlcott, etc. On a par with ridiculing anti-racism by pointing to daftisms like banning the Three Little Pigs from multi-ethnic schools.

As an undergrad I did feel marginalised by the absence of the female pronoun in books. Without doubt. Our society is less sexist now -- that's why language has evolved to be more egalitarian: just like the original generic 'he' reflected inequality in the past.

Zephirine, you are beginning to sound very snobby and chippy towards me.

It appears there are some "debates" where one isn't actually allowed to have the "debate" at all, then?... We all have to agree that there is a PC consensus and move on? Hmmm....

'Humans, hmm. So why not hupersons'

--that's the kind of remark that makes it hard not to be 'chippy'. It is silly and it makes light of a reasonable concern.

And btw, your point requires it to be 'huperoffspring' not 'hupersons.

Twas a joke, obviously....sigh. Hence the smile.

Although, like a lot of jokes, it does raise a serious point - i.e. that when eliminating supposed male bias from the language, one is often making a subjective value judgement about what is genuine bias and what would just be silly.

Obviously nobody is going to walk around talking about Personchester United, because that's just daft and misunderstands the etymology. And at the other end of the scale, obviously nobody is going to refer to their workforce as "the men" any more (as some business books did in the 70s, e.g. Robert Townsend's "Up The Organisation").

But in between those two extremes lies a whole grey area. One which it is productive to debate.

But the grey area begins way beyond the generic 'he'. And it isn't the joke that's offensive but the fact that you have allied objection to the male pronoun (a genuinely upsetting obsolescent usage) with several stock 'PC-gone-mad' cliches.

"the grey area begins way beyond the generic 'he'..."

Well, I disagree. And so do others. If it were that simple, this thread would consist of a list of twenty YANBUs and would have closed within a page.

I think I've probably reached the point of repeating myself, so unless anyone addresses a question or point directly at me, I shall Retire Not Out.

Actually I've been using 'hupersons' and 'Personchester City' (United? Pah! mere dilettantes) for years.

So there.

Oh, and by the way, UQD, I am harsh. Grr.

Unquietdad, what exactly is the shocked face for? I haven't been snobby or chippy (is it possible to do both at once?) towards you. I have argued with all the posts on here that express the sentiment that this issue doesn't matter, or that using he as a generic is "correct". Only a handful of people out of all of those that have posted on this thread have actually expressed either of these views, and of those that have, your posts have been by far the most numerous. This is why so many of mine have been addressed to you.

And, once again, I have no desire to shut down debate, my desire is only to counter assertions that I believe to be wrong. Although, yes, I do think that ending on a consensus is generally a sign of a worthwhile discussion, especially if I have been made to see things differently in the process. Don't you?

UQD, you keep saying you aren't trying to marginalise women with your 'generic he is fine' stance, but then you keep dropping little clues, like accusing posters who disagree of being chippy, (God forbid a woman would ever dare to disagree with a man...) or saying you prefer an alternative that puts the masculine first. Adding up all these up, it does give a picture of someone who is not necessarily as unbiased as they think they are.

My parents were both taught that 'the masculine embraces the feminine' was an unbreakable rule of English grammar in the 1950s and 60s. I thought most people realised things had rather moved on in the past forty or fifty years.

Oh, we haven't had the 'joke' about the one-legged blind lesbian person of restricted growth yet...

I say I say I say, there was once a one-legged blind lesbian, barely 3 feet tall...