Print

Print


The "movement" is, ironically, conservative, since the choice to use the
"generic" was itself a "movement"--the codification of grammar.  There
was nothing, however, grammatical in this case:  it was a political
choice to assert the (nonexistent) greater "inclusiveness" of the male. 
Using it is thus a political choice for gendered reasons, and they are
not reasons that aim at any principle of decency and morality.  

So the question is, "whose actual usage?"
Nancy

>>> [log in to unmask] 04/08/06 11:28 PM >>>
--On Saturday, April 08, 2006 2:36 PM -0500 Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]>

wrote:

> No you may not because it is no longer the generic term. In (morally
and
> politically decent) English of the present "man" refers only to the
male
> gender. Its use as a generic term is anachronistic and vulgar.

 Just observing actual usage, this seems not to be true, though there is

certainly a movement afoot to make it so, as your finger wagging 
exemplifies. However, I think such usages are more deeply rooted and 
resonant than political criticisms such as yours credit them for, which
is 
why they continue, even among decent and moral people.

Ken A.