Use of ‘man’ overlooks half of population

Wednesday, January 20, 1999

Use of ‘man’ overlooks half of population

LANGUAGE: Elimination of discriminatory words needed to obtain
equality

By Megan Hall

I am writing in response to Jeff Burhans’ letter, "Language
police erasing ‘man’ from vocabulary, society" (Jan. 11,
Viewpoint). It appears that Burhans has missed the point of one of
the most important struggles in history – the struggle for equal
rights for all races, sexes, religions and sexual orientations.

Burhans is refreshed by the use of the word "chairman" to
describe the head of a particular company. Perhaps this word was
chosen because, in fact, the head of the company is a man. This is
not surprising, given that women are still underrepresented in high
positions, but Burhans seems to miss this point.

The elimination of "chairman," "postman," "fireman," "policeman"
and other similar descriptions serves a purpose. It serves to
eliminate the underlying discriminatory thinking, which is,
unfortunately, so common in society. It serves to eliminate the
idea that only men can hold these positions, while women are
relegated to more stereotypical occupations, including teachers,
homemakers and secretaries.

But Burhans seems to have missed this point as well. In his
struggle to maintain what I assume is his male superiority, he has
espoused discriminatory attitudes. Does he feel threatened by the
advancements made by women, gays and lesbians, African Americans,
Hispanics and Asians? My guess would be yes. And rightly so. Heaven
forbid that all should be judged equally, on merit alone, for that
would mean that Burhans has more competition than just his white
male counterparts. And heaven forbid that there actually is a
"chairwoman."

I can’t imagine the horror.

He says, "The establishment feels that if they can change the
language we use, they can change the way we think." He is right. By
changing discriminatory language, discriminatory attitudes can
begin to be dispelled. But it is not this all-powerful
"establishment" to which he refers and against which he has some
irrational fear. It is logical, educated, intelligent people who
are attempting to change attitudes such as his. And change begins
with small things, like the language we use. Hence the elimination
of the male-centered wording to describe historically "masculine"
professions occurs.

The article to which he refers in the journal Scientific
American refers to "medicine’s benefit to ‘humankind.’" The
elimination of the word "mankind" seems self-explanatory to me. It
isn’t "mankind," as Burhans so wants to believe. We are a species
made of humans – not men, but men and women together.

Using one gender to describe the entire species invalidates and
ignores the existence of the other. Isn’t this an obvious point,
Burhans? You seem to have missed that one, too.

And did you realize that most medical studies, until recently,
were conducted on white men? Heart disease was not recognized as a
major risk for women until recently, when in reality, heart disease
is just as, if not more, prevalent in women. But how could we have
known that, given that the majority of medical studies were
performed on white men? I would suggest a few moments of
consideration before you blurt out ignorant statements like that
one, Burhans.

The reference to Neil Armstrong and history’s inability to
rewrite his historic words " … one giant leap for mankind" is
indicative of the ignorance which Burhans is mired in.
Historically, women were second to men – their servants – whose job
it was to keep the home livable and to put food on the table. Women
were not welcome in the workplace. Neil Armstrong’s words are, in a
way, a record of this historically sexist attitude, but Burhans
seems to ignore this fact in light of the recent advances that so
severely threaten his masculine superiority.

Perhaps Burhans’ best argument began with his thought that
"people are like cattle and they will stampede in whatever
direction they think the herd is running." He is right yet once
again; people do succumb to peer pressure and to societal pressure.
Discrimination is so deeply ingrained that it pervades our everyday
language. The language enables the attitudes, which in turn enables
the discriminatory actions. Eliminating the subtle discriminatory
attitudes which appear in words such as "chairman" or "mankind"
will assist in the elimination of discriminatory actions. This is
another missed point for Burhans.

The Selective Service department, he kindly points out, "is the
only place you will find the word ‘man’ in the vocabulary … where
only ‘men’ are slated to be drafted and killed." Burhans, have you
been living in a cave? This is a prime example of discriminatory
attitudes running rampant in our government. Why is it that only
"men" are slated for this job? Why aren’t women drafted and
subjected to the same set of tests that men are?

Discrimination exists, Burhans, that’s why.

Why is it that women are treated poorly in the military,
sexually harassed, sexually assaulted and raped by their colleagues
and their superior officers? Why is it that their complaints are
oftentimes ignored? Why is that OK? It absolutely is not OK,
Burhans, and you seem to forget that women deserve equal rights and
equal treatment in all aspects of life.

I won’t even justify your comment about affirmative action with
a response. Suffice it to say that you are the reason affirmative
action existed, and you are the reason that it is still
necessary.

Burhans, I suggest that you wake up and look around you. People
are people, not "mankind," not "firemen" or "policemen" or
"postmen." People are not just men. You said that "until we wake up
and stop being such suckers, the establishment will continue to
succeed in these efforts" to oppress American men. Your life is
easier because you are a male, Burhans!

In our society, white males are the oppressors, not the
oppressed. There is no history of white men being oppressed by
African Americans, or by Hispanics, or by gays or lesbians, or by
women. The opposite scenario exists, and how you can be so blind to
such a blatant fact is beyond me. It makes me sick to listen to
your drivel. I strongly suggest that you change your attitudes or
keep your mouth shut, Burhans. I feel sorry that you are stuck with
such primitive thinking.

Changing discriminatory attitudes is possible, and equality for
people without regard to gender, sexual orientation, race or
religion is closer than ever before. Changing the everyday, subtle
discriminatory ways of thinking and speaking is a key step in the
struggle to end the ignorance and discrimination once and for
all.

Comments, feedback, problems?

© 1998 ASUCLA Communications Board[Home]