disc : sex / lang , re : 1079 h . stephen straight writes : < < < in our focus on the epicene pronoun that doubles as the masculine pronoun , and the generic noun ( e . g . man ) that doubles as the masculine form , we sometimes let logic , and the theory of markedness , overwhelm psychology . the evidence , i believe , strongly supports the claim that even in clearly non-specific contexts these items trigger masculine prototypes in receivers . > > > i agree with this generally for the present state of standard english . but the " triggering " , to some very important degree , is in the mind of the historical beholder . right ? the ' psychology " part i disagree with because of its unspecified universal implications , perhaps better : " overwhelm semantics " . most people , except gender separatists , would be particularly untriggered to a masculine reference to words such as " sportsmanship " and " penmanship " . i liked the construction of one of the first lady 's publicist who said of her , " she is her own best salesman " . " man " and " he / his / him " have differing semantic domains over time . in middle english " he was a fair wife " , " two men were made for the garden " , etc . if in the modern mind these constructions trigger male associations , it might make all the more necessary the study of historical change . in my middle english work with pronouns , some contexts can be found where " he that . . . " in proverbial use , with sometimes-plural verbs , has the weight of proverbial " they who " , and is related morpholgically to the feminine , not the masculine . a radical idea i wish someone would challenge me on . also , " him " and " his " were not only masculine , they were also neuter - - " neither one or the other " . to understand the modern paradigm , we have to study the history it grew out of , including the protogermanic and ie paradigms . i wonder if h . stephen straight has read my comments and quotations on " the mark " in recent discussion . all of us , men and women alike , can be described in some capacities as " generic people " . is n't this what we mean by " society " ? one veiw of the half-glass sees that we , as generic people , desire to give females preferential treatment , and have distinct words for those of us who are female ( she , women ) , but parallel words for males are , lacking , are tautonyms . we , those of us who are male , are relegated to use a word also used for everybody else . " masculine " is only sex-distinct in contrastive position with the " feminine " . the reason for generic pronouns doubling with the masculine is because men are , in our " psychology " thought of more frequently as generic people . females have long been accorded special priviledges in western society - - we do n't execute murderesses , we create conditions for those of us who are women to live 10 % longer than men , we exclude them from the military draft , old women commit suicide at a rate less than 1 / 12th that of old men , etc . that is not to say that everybody does n't have it rough once in a while . men do not externalize their victimization to a metaphorical " daddy " . i personally think that women should go on being afforded special status and privileges in language and society . the turning wine to venom these passed decades has shown the dark side of our society . the writer says < < < " every one of the members of the boys and girls club loves his parents . " " the cultures of the world provide ample testimony on the extent of man 's capacity to adapt to different environments . " no matter that the situations logically embrace both sexes ( and all genders : - ) , the damage is done . > > > it is the " logic " of an intuitive sort , and is not based in boolean and identity operations of the human mind . the " logic " is no more than a rule-base in the configuration of gender / case / number of the modern pronoun paradigm . use of the word " logic " by many of us who discuss language is off the mark . i use " everyone . . . their " , and wonder about the linguistic timidity that holds others of us back . damage ? does this mean exclusion from semantic space : - ) the writer continues , < < < yucatec maya , by the way , has no grammatical gender and , to the best of my knowledge , exhibits no morphological or semantic tendency toward treating either sex as the unmarked member of the pair . h stephen straight , anthro / ling / lgs across the curric , binghamton u ( suny ) box 6000 , binghamton ny 13902-6000 tel : 607-777 - 2824 fax : 607-777 - 2889 > > > this seems counter to the idea that says universal male cultural dominance is seen in male dominance in language constructions - - that alexis manaster ramer postules in slightly more qualified form . it sure would be nice to have other examples , pro and con , from around the world . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - lydie meunier writes < < < question raised in answer to alexis manaster ramer who writes : > so what it all boils down to , again , is that i maintain that > it makes no sense whatever to discuss the origin of the > epicene he phenomenon in the context of the story of > english prescriptive grammar , but only in the context of > the way in which perceptions of sex roles have informed > the structure of language ( as of any other institution ) . have perceptions of sex roles informed us on the structure of language , or does the structure of language enlighten us on socially acquired yet still subconscious sexist behavior of today 's homo sapiens ? lydie e . meunier / department of languages university of tulsa / tel : 918 631 2813 ( o ) lang _ lem @ centum . utulsa . edu / fax : 918 744 1902 > > > the " contructivist " view of sexuality is widely held in academia , but the view has the hauteur of an " in " religious tenet , and has no well-reasoned position , and only endures because its opposite can't " really " be " proved " . the only proof-evidence i have ever seen consists of some embarrasingly poor analogies with animal behavior . where 's the good evidence ? i ' ll post sometime soon the interesting things - - in support of my side - - that jane goodall has to say about sex roles and chimps . the " constructivist " view of sexuality goes back to the 1960s - - ( to kate millet in chapter 2 of her famous book ? ) when those of us who were differentially sexed - - like millet later affirmed to herself be - - became preoccupied , and still are , with passive and active sex-related roles . the constructivist view is a spoiler-view assault on traditional morality .