Given the Daily Mail's loose definition of 'facts', I think that this
debate has a pretty shaky starting point anyway.
Steven Cummins wrote:
> Can anyone tell me what the 'key facts to be lost' were according to the Daily
> Mail, as per the original comment. I think that got lost somewhat...
>
> Steve
> --
> Dr Steven Cummins
> MRC Fellow
> Department of Geography
> Queen Mary, University of London
> Mile End Road
> London E1 4NS
>
> Tel: 020 7882 5400
> Fax: 020 8981 6276
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Quoting Rachel Pain <[log in to unmask]>:
>
>
>>"Woperchild" may sound unusual as it isn't in wide common use in the
>>English language.
>>
>>"Human made" does not, and is.
>>
>>Simple! As I think most non-sexist, non-racist language is.
>>
>>________________________________
>>
>>From: A forum for critical and radical geographers
>>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Dr Hillary Shaw
>>Sent: 30 March 2006 10:22
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>Subject: Re: Geog - genderde language
>>
>>This point may highlight a boundary that is hard to detect between true,
>>and certainly correct, attempts, to eliminate discrimmination (by sex,
>>race, disabliity, etc etc) and the sometimes-bordering-on-the-absurd
>>''language'' of what has been termed political correctness. Yes,
>>language itself can be very powerful - the 'Power of Naming', - but
>>potential absurdity is ilustrated by the ultimate non-discrimminatory
>>term for a female of the homo sapiens species - woperchild. Can't say
>>wo-man, so wo-person, ooops 'son' is also sexist, so child instead.
>>
>>Here we may actually have a negative Power of Naming effect, such
>>absurdities taking away from the worthiness of all anti-discrimmination
>>efforts.
>>
>>So what should we use as shorthand for something that has been made by
>>homo sapiens. Anthropogenic is a bit long, 'of human origin' is even
>>longer still, person-made sounds silly, perchild-made even more so.
>>'Mankind' used to refer to all 6.6 bn people on the planet, tho
>>admittedly potential sex-bias here, but should we now use personkind,
>>homo sapiens, or what?
>>
>>Dr Hillary J. Shaw
>>School of Geography
>>University of Southampton
>>Highfield
>>Southampton
>>SO17 1BJ
>>www.fooddeserts.org <http://www.fooddeserts.org/>
>>
>>In a message dated 30/03/2006 03:06:35 GMT Daylight Time,
>>[log in to unmask] writes:
>> One would hope that by now, in 2006, at least we as geographers
>>could
>> refrain from gendered language - do people really still use the
>>term 'man
>> made'?? - point 4. Feminist geography has been around for a good
>>while now
>> - arguments about the power of language are not new.
>>
>> Tracey Skelton
>>
|