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

But if you ask them to do something on female scientists, the implication is that the norm for scientists is to be male. Think how strange it would be to have a homework sheet specifically on male scientists.

What on earth is wrong with s/he?

yanbu

Who's going to tell Mr Shakespeare not to use 'they' as the singular pronoun ("God send every one their heart's desire!") then?

Like many grammatical rules (starting a sentence with 'but' anyone?) the convention that 'they' can't be used as the singular pronoun is fading out.

I'm in charge of our house style at work and I'm forever changing 'he' and 'him' when I'm editing, which is how the old-fashioned sorts describe anyone involved in the financial world. I tend to rewrite to avoid clunky his/her constructions, but I'm not averse to 'they' and 'them'. Sends a subtle message I think.

OP - YANBU.

"They" from the OED

2. Often used in reference to a singular noun made universal by every, any, no, etc., or applicable to one of either sex (= ?he or she?).

See Jespersen Progress in Lang. §24.

1526 Pilgr. Perf. (W. de W. 1531) 163b, Yf..a psalme scape ony persone, or a lesson, or else yt they omyt one verse or twayne.

1535 FISHER Ways perf. Relig. ix. Wks. (1876) 383 He neuer forsaketh any creature vnlesse they before haue forsaken them selues.

1749 FIELDING Tom Jones VIII. xi, Every Body fell a laughing, as how could they help it.

1759 CHESTERFIELD Lett. IV. ccclv. 170 If a person is born of a..gloomy temper..they cannot help it.

1835 WHEWELL in Life (1881) 173 Nobody can deprive us of the Church, if they would.

1858 BAGEHOT Lit. Stud. (1879) II. 206 Nobody fancies for a moment that they are reading about anything beyond the pale of ordinary propriety.

1866 RUSKIN Crown Wild Olives §38 (1873) 44 Now, nobody does anything well that they cannot help doing.

1874 [see THEMSELVES 5].

Hey Someguy

"But there is a substantial school of thought that says that 'he' should be used to refer to an unspecified male/female person."

Try changing all the unspecified male/female "hes" into "shes" for a week and see if that changes your world view a bit.

I suspect you may reassess the need to resolve this issue after a week of being written out of the language.

Of course, YANBU at all. Sometimes it seems to me that things have got worse again since I was at 2ndary school in the 1980s, when there was more of a conscious effort to avoid this stuff.
I was in Lonsdale house at school - all our houses were famous women (also Amy Johnson, Barbara Hepworth, can't remember the fourth one, I think she may have been only dubiously celebrated but came from Kettering so got in on those grounds!).

The question is surely, is it clear from the context what is meant? Would any parent seriously infer from this that "Only male scientists are allowed to be mentioned" is a rule appended to this homework? Of course not - only if they wanted to make a slightly arsey "point". And I'm sure the OP won't be the only one to do Marie Curie.

Actually it would be quite fun to do Dr Susan Greenfield (steady...!) as someone who is still alive but whose discoveries are already making an impact.

Actually, I don't think it is being arsey, and I think it is interesting it is the men here who do not see this as a problem. I am tired of people assuming I am a man when they see my name written as Dr P. Surname. My DH, who is also Dr Surname, has never had anyone assume he is a woman. When I take phone calls in my house and someone asks for Dr Surname, why are they surprised when I say 'This is she'?

It is lazy, androcentric thinking and deserves to be challenged.

And, UQD, did I punctuate the last sentence of my first paragraph correctly?

Er, I think so, yes. Is that important...?

Whether you take it as a tradition which is being phased out or a grammatical rule which is in then process of being rewritten, the fact remains that there was no malicious intent. It wasn't as if the teacher thought "ooh, I know, I'll put HE just to piss the mums off."

It is a perfectly valid grammatical generic. People are also perfectly entitled to dislike it and use other things. But not, I feel, to claim it is somehow invalid.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you there - I was unsure about the placement of my speech marks (? inside or outside), and have seen you on the Pedants' Corner threads, so thought I might as well ask.

I'd write it the way you did, as the question is not part of the quoted dialogue.

But the fact that people think that it's not important is precisely why it is important. Generations of thinking that the norm is male and that female is deviation from the norm has entrenched that view so deeply that people genuinely can't see it as a problem.

Also, I don't think anyone thought the teacher did it deliberately to piss people off. However, given the issues around girls going into science and young peoples' perceptions of scientists, should she not have been more careful with her personal pronouns?

What I'm trying to point out is that it isn't really anything to do with thinking that the male is the norm. It's just a grammatical quirk of English that "he" is a generic. I'm sorry, I can't help it being true. In a similar way that "ils" in French and "ellos" in Spanish refer to a mixed group.

Yes, it's changing, but I don't think the usage of it is in any way sexist.

The question of whether the teacher could have been more careful is perhaps a separate one.

Oh, I love Mumsnet, and this thread.

Where I live - everyone would have said "YABU" lighten up etc.

Only here does sanity reign

He is NOT a generic any more UQD. As a writer SURELY you know that.

I accept that it is traditional usage. Those of us who think it's important to challenge stereotypes believe that changing usage like this helps to unpick gender biassed thinking.

Do any languages use the feminine form for a mixed group? Methinks the root of these grammatical 'quirks' is that societies - English, French, Spanish or whatever - were male dominated.

DH and I get the double Dr thing. They nearly always mean DH . I had a funny mutation of title on a prescription once. I'd given my title as Dr when I registered with the GP (I don't always, but with GPs it really does seem to reduce their arrogance). But the prescription came out as Mr. Which puzzled the pharmacist as it was for the Pill

I think I'm the one who feels like saying "lighten up", to be honest!

My view of this is perhaps somewhat coloured. On my postgrad diploma in my 20s there was a woman in her 30s who insisted on chalking up on a fussy little chart she had made the number of times the lecturers used "he" in a generic sense. She'd present them with the tally at the end of the lesson, which had everyone - male and female - rolling their eyes.

It was all a bit "yes, made your point, get over yourself."

(Now she actually turned out to be a very reasonable and interesting person - but it took a while to discover this, because the men were all wary of her and the women were a bit, well, I don't know what the women were but they didn't all like her.)

I suppose I just don't see this kind of thing as automatically "sexist". I am of the "pick your battles" school of thought here. The point will have been made, anyway, by choosing a female scientist - which, believe it or not, won't exactly cause the teachers to raise their eyebrows in astonishment.

I am being slightly devil's advocate on this, as I am careful myself to use he/she (even though it looks cumbersome). I just don't think there is always a place for jumping up and down and saying "sexism!" where a more amenable explanation is available.

What's the more 'amenable' explanation, Unquietdad?
Surely it's just a basic patriarchal assumption that the 'default' is male. IN this case, it's assumed, even at a basic, linguistic level, that scientists are male.

It's not assumed, though. Nobody could possibly think a primary school teacher would assume all scientists were male. It's insane to take that interpretation. It's simply a use of a generic "he".

And yes, you may not like the fact that there is one, but there is one - and yes, it may be being phased out (as I keep saying). But that doesn't automatically make it sexist.

I feel my argument is somewhat being missed.

I would always use s/he. SHort and simple. But you do still have his/her. It's worth doing, though.

in most science books I have read in the last five years the consensus seems to be in referring to unspecified/hypothetical persons as she. Its almost a rule now.

I see your point UQD

but what would you say about the list of important medieval people my dd was given- one woman and 15 men? don't you think that teacher was making assumptions?

UQD is a writer?

Please tell me you are not Parsons.