On the other hand, I think that there is something positive gained through the use of the feminine universal. It’s sufficiently unusual that it may jolt my students just a little, and make them think about the assumptions inherent in the universal pronoun. And so, despite the consistency gains from “their,” I doubt I’m going to switch. (Though I may try it and see.)

Also, I think that the universal pronoun (like a lot of gendered structure in society) is an appropriate forum for a corrective approach. Language has used a (male-favoring) gendered structure for years, and certain assumptions have been built into the status quo. Simply switching to neutral now may stop the bleeding, but isn’t going to do much to correct that existing imbalance. A neutral usage implies an acceptance of the existing status quo, and I _don’t_ accept the status quo, which is why I use the feminine universal in the first place. Given that corrective desire, I suspect I’m sticking with the universal feminine — though, as I noted, I may experiment with other options to see if the practical benefits of consistency outweigh the corrective goals.

http://lawandletters.blogspot.com/2006/07/debating-feminine-universal.html

I also would like to know why name (pseudonym) and email address (email address?????) are required to post – on this blog as in thousands of other btw.

I don’t see how Heidi’s and AP’s comments can be reconciled. They seem at odds.

500 years ago, people were getting worked up about how many angels were dancing on a pin.

David Bernstein‘s experience with students feeling patronized is sadly common. Again: there’s simply nothing a male speaker can do, since there will always be someone to see him as reinforcing the patriarchy. Besides, spending time being so precise with form at some point must come at the expense of content. As long as the form isn’t bad enough to obscure the content, the latter is what I’m more interested in, and what I hope my listeners are more interested in from me.

Kaimi, I think it’s fine to use the feminine pronoun in either positive or negative situations. I definitely notice when a speaker interchanges the genders in examples, and I certainly wouldn’t assume a bias or offense if a female character demonstrates some kind of flaw. I’d probably only notice if women were always good/men always bad, or vice versa; as long as you’re mixing it up, I think it flows well. I guess the point, for me, is that women are automatically referenced without having to think about it.

This is a little off? The problem that Kaimi has is the neutral form always connotes a specific gender. Thus, in Context XYZ if he chooses the feminine, negative stereotypes may be associated with women. If in that same context, he chooses the masculine, negative stereotypes may be associated with men. Why is it okay to associate bad essentialist traits with men — like your post seems to do Ms. Kitrosser — but not okay to do so with women? It would seem there is an assumption of female frailty and male stoicism. There was a post here earlier, perhaps that was deleted, which suggested not all men are indifferent to being negatively stereotyped. If it is okay for women to be upset by negative stereotyping, why not men? I just don’t get the double-standard. Why should anyone, male or female, be rational and calm in the face of dignity-stripping insult?

The fact that this view so upsets some folks to the point that they paint the view’s proponents as radical, irrational, unappeasable lunatics reflects the very mindset to which folks like Kaimi and Bruce are trying to respond with remarkably small and simple measures.

People are being snarky? Not that I can see. No commenter has suggested that the good professor was not motivated by the best of intentions.

The problem is that he is making an error of judgment. For all his good intentions, he is trying to appease those who cannot be appeased and should not be appeased. They have their own agenda, and they have no right to browbeat others with that agenda..

And even if they don’t fly black helicopters, they might have the power to affect his employment.

And what exactly is the sex stereotype that he’s trying to avoid? As Kate Litvak ably pointed out, any choice you make can reflect a stereotype. And besides, one man’s stereotype is another man’s empirical reality.

And your days of the week analogy is inapt. The pronouns we’re talking about refer to actual people. Days of the week don’t, and the only thing “masculine” or “feminine” about them is that what people call the articles that precede them (they could also have been called A and B, or left and right). I don’t see a connection.

I am learning spanish and noted that the multi-cultural society will have way to go (or maybe not, praise A***h or G*d or Supr*me B*ing or nobody) : padre means father, padres mean parents.

Next item on the discussion list: are the words “breacher” and “tortfeasor” sound too Jewish?

It’s odd, despite being concerned about this issue myself, I haven’t paid much attention to how I actually handle it in class. I know that in writing I typically use “he or she”/”his or her” — which can get clumsy fast if you have to use 2 or more such phrases in a single sentence, but usually I can rephrase to avoid that. I believe, but I’m not sure, what I do in class is avoid pronouns — the “client” comes to you and asks you a question; what do you say to the “client”?

But I think if your policy was to always use female pronouns as universals, I think the effect of the occasional instance where that overlaps with prevalent negative stereotypes would be muted; and the stereotypes actually might be called to the forefront if you suddenly switch.

You might want to listen to Kate Litvak and Maryland Conservatarian. They seem to have a good handle on the situation.

You don’t tell us why you are using a feninine universal, . What is it supposed to accomplish? Are you just trying to identify yourself as a feminist sympathizer or do you think there’s a patriarchy that needs to be smashed, and that this does it somehow? I would have thought that if anything it is males who are being shortchanged in the educational system.

I would suspect that all except the most ardent feminists are rollng their eyes when they hear the feminine universal, and that the ardent feminists would be laughing at it (assuming they had a sense of humor.)

Every stereotype has a foundation of truth to it.