If you look at any contemporary grammars, you will see how widespread is
the objection to the generic. The McGraw-Hill Guidelines for Equal
Treatment of theSexes are decades old. And, for example, this is from
the very widely used _A Writer's Reference_ 5th ed (2003) [the 6th ed,
to come out this year, will also have this point.]
"Today, however, such usage [the generic] is widely viewed as sexist
because it excludes women and encourages sex-role stereotyping--the view
that men are somehow more suited than women to be doctors, jounalists,
and so on."
Sections on how to use non-gendered language are in all the texts I have
looked at. So, in fact, Carroll is quite correct.
>>> [log in to unmask] 04/09/06 7:37 AM >>>
--On Saturday, April 08, 2006 11:42 PM -0500 Carrol Cox
<[log in to unmask]>
> Movement afoot. Have you been sleeping for 40 years. "Man" as generic
> simply vulgar and illiterate.
I heard you the first time. I am asking you why you think it is in
use. Apparently you are saying it is only among the vulgar and
who do, of course, outnumber the population of whatever category you are
placing yourself in. I am saying you are, to put it plainly,
underestimating its use and its users.