I read in the Boston Globe yesterday 18 New Hampshire legislators are trying to change the language in the state’s constitution so it is gender neutral. Specifically, the group wants to strike the word men and references to the word and replace them with gender-neutral words. Currently, the constitution reads, “All men are born equally free and independent.’’ It was ratified in 1783. Today, the New Hampshire State has a female majority.
From the Globe article: “We have women in leadership roles, and to have the Constitution reflect that changing status of women makes sense,’’ said Sylvia Larsen, the state Senate president.
and
“When fourth-graders come to the State House, they are amazed to hear that the Senate has a majority of women,’’ said (state Senator Kathy) Sgambati. “Those young girls should see themselves in the constitution. They shouldn’t have to try to figure out that it applies to them.’’
Fixing the language bias seems a simple enough fix. But opponents of the legislation say, no way. They say the constitution is “sacred” and changing the language would destroy it. Here’s another argument form the Globe article,
“It’s a waste of time,’’ said Charles Arlinghaus, president of the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and former executive director of the state’s Republican Party. “It doesn’t help anyone. It doesn’t do anything.’’
I disagree. Language matters. We tell our daughters they can grow up and be anything they want to be. But then they read and hear about selectmen and aldermen and congressmen. What is the cumulative impact on girls as they grow up and notice their gender is invisible in news stories, job descriptions and charters of freedom? Certainly, they can’t rely on visual images to inspire their dreams. Our girls don’t see very many women running universities, or newsrooms, in board rooms or on Capitol Hill.
In the online comment to the Globe story, readers argued a change would make for “unlovely” prose and that gender-neutral language is “bland.” How sad that readability is more important than equal representation. Others argue the constitution is a historic document and should not be revised. And then there is my favorite objection –that intelligent people know the term “men” implies all humans, not just males. It’s in the dictionary, after all.
So I propose a compromise. Leave the document as is. But moving forward, all legislation and all new editions of Webster’s will use the word “women” instead of “men.” Mankind will be written as womenkind. This compromise will maintain the beautiful prose, preserve history and more accurately reflect the U.S. population, the majority of which is female.
Any objection, ladies? (And by ladies, I of course mean you guys too.)
Marcus, thought you’d enjoy this article on the search for a gender neutral pronoun. http://blog.oup.com/2010/08/gender-neutral-pronoun/
Actually, even though English is a Germanic language it is governed by Latin grammatical rules. Unlike the romance languages (much of which is undiluted Latin) English does not have a gender-specific vocabulary. In other words we don’t have masculine and feminine nouns, and we don’t conjugate words to reflect masculine and feminine. In other words, “ship”, in English, is not feminine (as it is in Latin) while “doctor” is masculine (as it is in Latin).
Hence, the English language is already heavily gender-neutral. But, to make the main point, since English follows basic Latin rules (with exception of conjugations, because we don’t really conjugate anymore), Latin grammar dictates that when referring to a group of people, if the group is entirely male or female, the masculine or feminine was used accordingly. If the group was mixed, however, the masculine is used. Thus, the -man suffix is grammatically correct, and not intended to be sexist. People who find it sexist are just trying to find something to fight about.
It derives from “homonus” which, though translates to English as “man” is better understood as “human” or even “person”. The latin Homonus (mankind) should not be confused with vir (man the gender, where words like “virile” come from). Instead of wasting legislature time, one could just reinstate Latin in the schools so that girls AND boys would actually understand the origins and theory behind their language and society could move to actual problems instead of superficial fights like this that only create needless and profitless division between the sexes, thereby creating more dissidence rather than harmony.
To answer the harm question, you’re right, there isn’t one. It’s just a lack of knowledge about English and Latin.
There are times we must answer for our point of view, you of course do not. Brillant!
Right. If it won’t do anything, than where is the harm?
I love this. To those who say it won’t change anything, then let those who want the change do it. It won’t affect you in any way, you just said so.