""Words--Whose Weapons?" Introduction"
Title
""Words--Whose Weapons?" Introduction"
Description
""Words--Whose Weapons?" Introduction" is about the use of words, especially the use of masculine words and the way English has changed in regards to masculine and feminine words.
Source
Gloria Kaufman Papers, Indiana University South Bend Archives and Special Collections
Rights
Digital reproductions of archival materials from the Indiana University South Bend Archives are made available for noncommercial educational and research purposes only. The Indiana University South Bend Archives respects the intellectual property rights of others and does not claim any copyright interest for non-university records or materials for which we do not hold a Deed of Gift. It is the researcher’s responsibility to seek permission from the copyright owner and any other rights holders for any reuse of these images that extends beyond fair use or other statutory exemptions. Furthermore, responsibility for the determination of the copyright status and securing permission rests with those persons wishing to reuse the materials. If you are the copyright holder for any of the digitized materials and have questions about its inclusion on our site, please contact the Indiana University South Bend Archivist.
Identifier
Kaufman_Box5_Folder17_K057
Text
(WORDS--WHOSE WEAPONS? Introduction)
"It's a rare privilege for a man like me to address a NOW chapter. At the outset I want to say, I'm 100% behind equal pay for equal work--I 'm with you girls there. But in some places, you 're going t oo far .
"This business of changing the language , for exampl e . Yesterday Sally here made a fuss about Bill Wilcox being called ' chairman . '
"Fair is fair , so I have to warn you . ' Chairman • is a word we intend to protect. It's a good word--an all-American word. Not that we 're against changes . I read in your ovm newsletter that Mrs . used to be a title for every adult woman-married or not --until men changed it .
"Well , that was a good change . Now men can tell a woman's availability as soon as they~re introduced--at least we could until that awful word 'Ms . ~ came along. Which goes to show that when men change the l anguage, it ' s better , but women's changes uglify, Mizzzzzz--that 's for the bees1
"Sally here i s squirming. Well, Sally, this is just the start . Bill Wilcox and I have a scheme to protect ' chairman.' First we take words like bench (meani ng judge) . Instead of a lawyer's addressing the bench, he will address the 'benchman .' Pilots will be pilotmen; navigators , navigatormen; astronomers , astronomermen ; astronauts , astronautmen; doctors, medicine men ;
-2-2-2
presidents, presidentmen; secretaries of state, secretarymen of state , and so on. Once bench becomes benchman, you've got to admit that no one will ever think of changing chairman.
"Well, that ' s what I have to say on language , and now I 'll take questions ."
"What ' s wrong with ' chairperson ' ?"
" ' Person' is a real pain. It neuters as well as uglifies . How would it sound the say,'Golda Meir felt secure i n her personhood, ' when what you really meant was, ' Golda Meir felt
secure in her manhood? '"
"But chairman leaves women out. When Erich Fromm said man ' s basic needs were 'life, food, access to females ... ,' he showed the fallacy of generic 'man .'"
"Look, I 'm a college grad too--Purdue, '54. And what I say is, a man as great as Erich Fromm is allowed an occasional slip. "
"You said women ' s changes make the language ugl y . Well , how about using ' chair ' in place of ' chairman? ' Isn ' t ' chair ' aesthetically O. K. ?"
"Yeah--I 've got to admit 'chair' is prettier than 'chairman .' But that misses the point , which is--English is a masculine language , so virile words are better than pretty ones . Besi des, anyone would rather be a chairman than a chair . "
"any of us feel excluded by our own language . Now, we're not asking for words like 'womankind,' but 'mankind' simply won't
3-3-3
do . hat ' s wrong with humankind?"
."'Human' is just like 'person.' It doesn't have the zap than 'man' has. And you're asking us to change the whole language. One last example will prove my point for once and f or all . We all know the saying, 'It's a man 's world.' EveryeRe uece it, EU½& it hae a lot of ~Qs~i~g. How would it be if we let feminists change it to, 'It's a person 's world?' Wouldn't that be horrible? The punch , as well as the sound , would be lost. Worse yet, people might start thinking in those terms .. ,"
* * *
Such is the male persona with whom we have been grappling. In language as in social eustoms, he is a creature of double standards (men may change the language but not women), and he is too mindless even to be called illogical . I f feminisiEare trying t o change the way that people think (as we are) , then of course we must address words , the t ools of thought . If we are trying to free people's intellects, then of course we must address the vocabularies that enchain our minds . Feminist concern with words is neither whimsical nor frivolous . Words have enormous power--to liberate as well as to enslave . Furthermore, feminists truly do think about humankind, no matter how ridiculous that seems to the non-feminist and to the masculinity world. For our part, as the following pieces illustrate, we find traditional language a rich source for humor and satire. (GK) LIST OF GRAPHICS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
WORDS_--WHOSE WEAPONS?
Photo: "The rich get richer, the poor get BAKKED! " off our backs, vol. viii, #5, May 1978 Cartoon : "What makes you assume I'm a MAN from outer space?" New Woman, Oct. 1977, 4-panel Cartoon on cleaning oven by Rhea Banker Women's Studies Newsletter 1977 Photo: "I am not a chairman... " National NOW Times, Jan. 78 by Jane Wells-Schooley 3-panel cartoon: We serve only men •.. , by Sparkey (?). Field Enterprises, Dec. 1976. Cartoon: Pre-hostoric Woman by Klemmer & bulbul, c 1977 Cartoon; I 'm not a WOMAN doctor... by Cole New Woman? Drawing: male juggler by Sandy Merrill Monitor, Jan/Feb 77 Cartoon: GIRSL, GIRLS ••. by Klemmer & bubbul C 1977 Cartoon: My name was Helen by Klemmer & Bulbul c 1977
Notecard: ~Rak:kxR A woman aas to do twice as much •... , Beahive Enterprmses, P .O. Box 87, Williamsbridge Station, Bronx, N.Y. 10467
Cartoon: Sure I'll be your girl•.. by Campbell, NEW WOMAN Oct 77
"It's a rare privilege for a man like me to address a NOW chapter. At the outset I want to say, I'm 100% behind equal pay for equal work--I 'm with you girls there. But in some places, you 're going t oo far .
"This business of changing the language , for exampl e . Yesterday Sally here made a fuss about Bill Wilcox being called ' chairman . '
"Fair is fair , so I have to warn you . ' Chairman • is a word we intend to protect. It's a good word--an all-American word. Not that we 're against changes . I read in your ovm newsletter that Mrs . used to be a title for every adult woman-married or not --until men changed it .
"Well , that was a good change . Now men can tell a woman's availability as soon as they~re introduced--at least we could until that awful word 'Ms . ~ came along. Which goes to show that when men change the l anguage, it ' s better , but women's changes uglify, Mizzzzzz--that 's for the bees1
"Sally here i s squirming. Well, Sally, this is just the start . Bill Wilcox and I have a scheme to protect ' chairman.' First we take words like bench (meani ng judge) . Instead of a lawyer's addressing the bench, he will address the 'benchman .' Pilots will be pilotmen; navigators , navigatormen; astronomers , astronomermen ; astronauts , astronautmen; doctors, medicine men ;
-2-2-2
presidents, presidentmen; secretaries of state, secretarymen of state , and so on. Once bench becomes benchman, you've got to admit that no one will ever think of changing chairman.
"Well, that ' s what I have to say on language , and now I 'll take questions ."
"What ' s wrong with ' chairperson ' ?"
" ' Person' is a real pain. It neuters as well as uglifies . How would it sound the say,'Golda Meir felt secure i n her personhood, ' when what you really meant was, ' Golda Meir felt
secure in her manhood? '"
"But chairman leaves women out. When Erich Fromm said man ' s basic needs were 'life, food, access to females ... ,' he showed the fallacy of generic 'man .'"
"Look, I 'm a college grad too--Purdue, '54. And what I say is, a man as great as Erich Fromm is allowed an occasional slip. "
"You said women ' s changes make the language ugl y . Well , how about using ' chair ' in place of ' chairman? ' Isn ' t ' chair ' aesthetically O. K. ?"
"Yeah--I 've got to admit 'chair' is prettier than 'chairman .' But that misses the point , which is--English is a masculine language , so virile words are better than pretty ones . Besi des, anyone would rather be a chairman than a chair . "
"any of us feel excluded by our own language . Now, we're not asking for words like 'womankind,' but 'mankind' simply won't
3-3-3
do . hat ' s wrong with humankind?"
."'Human' is just like 'person.' It doesn't have the zap than 'man' has. And you're asking us to change the whole language. One last example will prove my point for once and f or all . We all know the saying, 'It's a man 's world.' EveryeRe uece it, EU½& it hae a lot of ~Qs~i~g. How would it be if we let feminists change it to, 'It's a person 's world?' Wouldn't that be horrible? The punch , as well as the sound , would be lost. Worse yet, people might start thinking in those terms .. ,"
* * *
Such is the male persona with whom we have been grappling. In language as in social eustoms, he is a creature of double standards (men may change the language but not women), and he is too mindless even to be called illogical . I f feminisiEare trying t o change the way that people think (as we are) , then of course we must address words , the t ools of thought . If we are trying to free people's intellects, then of course we must address the vocabularies that enchain our minds . Feminist concern with words is neither whimsical nor frivolous . Words have enormous power--to liberate as well as to enslave . Furthermore, feminists truly do think about humankind, no matter how ridiculous that seems to the non-feminist and to the masculinity world. For our part, as the following pieces illustrate, we find traditional language a rich source for humor and satire. (GK) LIST OF GRAPHICS AND ILLUSTRATIONS
WORDS_--WHOSE WEAPONS?
Photo: "The rich get richer, the poor get BAKKED! " off our backs, vol. viii, #5, May 1978 Cartoon : "What makes you assume I'm a MAN from outer space?" New Woman, Oct. 1977, 4-panel Cartoon on cleaning oven by Rhea Banker Women's Studies Newsletter 1977 Photo: "I am not a chairman... " National NOW Times, Jan. 78 by Jane Wells-Schooley 3-panel cartoon: We serve only men •.. , by Sparkey (?). Field Enterprises, Dec. 1976. Cartoon: Pre-hostoric Woman by Klemmer & bulbul, c 1977 Cartoon; I 'm not a WOMAN doctor... by Cole New Woman? Drawing: male juggler by Sandy Merrill Monitor, Jan/Feb 77 Cartoon: GIRSL, GIRLS ••. by Klemmer & bubbul C 1977 Cartoon: My name was Helen by Klemmer & Bulbul c 1977
Notecard: ~Rak:kxR A woman aas to do twice as much •... , Beahive Enterprmses, P .O. Box 87, Williamsbridge Station, Bronx, N.Y. 10467
Cartoon: Sure I'll be your girl•.. by Campbell, NEW WOMAN Oct 77
Collection
Citation
“""Words--Whose Weapons?" Introduction",” IU South Bend Archives Digital Collections, accessed May 2, 2024, https://iusbarchives.omeka.net/items/show/233.