Anyone else irritated by the use of "she" for the generic pronoun?

[Mrs Twain]

Equally bad is using "they" for a singular pronoun.

 

I would think as "classical" people, we would prefer the standard use of "he" for the generic.

 

If for no other reason, I might suggest avoidance of the generic she/her in order to limit distraction and the reader's thoughts wandering to such things as women's lib.

 

Does this bother anyone else, or am I the only one?

[Butter]

Neither he nor she bothers me.  Sometimes I wonder why they chose she as the generic pronoun (unless they are alternating).  I find "we're using he to mean he or she but so we don't have to write he or she every time" disclaimers silly.

[Barb_]

I agree with you on the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Silly and unnecessary. However, there is nothing wrong with alternating he and she, nor nothing particularly classical about sticking with "he" as the only pronoun. It's nothing but old-fashioned convention. Women aren't simply men who are missing a penis.

[mamaraby]

No. I disagree with you on all accounts. As for "they" as a gender neutral, singular pronoun- http://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/singular-they-and-the-many-reasons-why-its-correct/

 

I fail to see how using "he" as the default has anything to do with classical homeschooling.

[Mrs Twain]

I did not intend to start an argument with this thread, and I hope it doesn't turn out that way.  Any opinions are welcome and valid. 

 

I don't so much mind when authors alternate the use of he and she.  But it seems to me that the generic use of she (without using he) is a rather modern phenomenon. 

 

There is even a certain homeschool author who changes the generic "he" to "she" when she quotes works by others.  This sort of thing is why I start wondering about politics.

 

The main point was to find out if there is anyone out there who prefers "classical" English grammar, so to speak. If you don't share my opinion, that is fine.

[Rosie_0801]

Think how tricky it'll get when the trans/other people impose their pronouns on our language!

[Starr]

Think how tricky it'll get when the trans/other people impose their pronouns on our language!

 

 

This is already happening on college campuses, great debabtes on genderless pronouns. 

[regentrude]

Equally bad is using "they" for a singular pronoun.

 

I would think as "classical" people, we would prefer the standard use of "he" for the generic.

 

:confused: I do not see what classical would have to do with using the male pronoun.

 

It is regrettable that English does not have a gender neutral singular third person pronoun. I refuse to use "they" as a singular and will rewrite my sentences so that this is not necessary, and I avoid as much as possible the clumsy "he or she".

I do not, however, have a problem with using "she" as the generic pronoun and am trying actively to alternate.

 

Often, a certain context will lend itself to using one or the other; for example, if  I am responding to a post about a girl, or draw on my experience with a female, I would likely use "she" as generic pronoun, even if the statement itself pertains to both males and females.

 

ETA: there are already attempts to create gender free pronouns. They seem contrived - but who knows how people in 50 years will perceive them.

[Dana]

This is already happening on college campuses, great debabtes on genderless pronouns.

Yup.

 

I've recently learned about cis.

 

I'm fine with she and fine with they as a singular pronoun.

[mamaraby]

I did not intend to start an argument with this thread, and I hope it doesn't turn out that way. Any opinions are welcome and valid.

 

I don't so much mind when authors alternate the use of he and she. But it seems to me that the generic use of she (without using he) is a rather modern phenomenon.

 

There is even a certain homeschool author who changes the generic "he" to "she" when she quotes works by others. This sort of thing is why I start wondering about politics.

 

The main point was to find out if there is anyone out there who prefers "classical" English grammar, so to speak. If you don't share my opinion, that is fine.

I find it a bit odd, given the word choices in your OP that you didn't expect there to be an argument. The lack of singular, gender neutral pronoun in English has always been controversial. Would you rather folks use "zie" or "hir" instead of using she? They're arguably more modern.

 

"He" is classical only if you define "classical" as an arbitrary point in time that doesn't make the general "me" uncomfortable. About the only thing you can say for certain about English in a "classical" sense is that it, like every language currently being spoken, has always been changing. The only language that follows immutable laws of grammar that do not change is one that is dead.

 

Also, I think you mean "traditional" not "classical" - they're similar in meaning, but "traditional" would be more precise in this instance. One can be "classical" in the way they approach grammar without holding to "traditional" ideas about gender and pronouns. :0)

[Farrar]

The assumption that "he" used universally would be inoffensive bothers me a lot more.

 

I personally prefer that authors alternate.

[Crimson Wife]

I don't care except I *LOATHE* uber-p.c. neologisms like "zie", "hir", or "ou".

[linders]

I wish the English language had something better.

[Rosie_0801]

What "respectable" option is there for trans/ other people then?

 

 

Ze and hir annoy me too, but not for being "uber pc." They annoy me for sounding awkward, as though one is mispronouncing something else. Gender neutral pronouns need to be words in their own right.

[JennyD]

I generally alternate or just mix it up randomly.  However, if that becomes awkward I just go with "she," for no other reason than the fact that I, the writer, am a woman.  

 

[Kathryn]

Yup.

 

I've recently learned about cis.

 

I'm fine with she and fine with they as a singular pronoun.

I'm fine with those choices too. I don't get the they hate. It seems the most logical choice to me given the options.

[Farrar]

Yeah, while using "they" always feels a little awkward for me personally, I really accept that it has become the most used alternative to assuming we all have man parts.  Language changes.  Not a popular sentiment on this board, I know, but it does.

[Ethel Mertz]

I often use "s/he." (Note the backslash between the letters "s" and "h.") I wrote a whole grad thesis on gender inclusive pronouns (way back in the 80s). I'm bothered a lot more by the exclusive use of male pronouns, though understand it in historical contexts, of course.

[Crimson Wife]

What "respectable" option is there for trans/ other people then?

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

[serendipitous journey]

Equally bad is using "they" for a singular pronoun.

 

I would think as "classical" people, we would prefer the standard use of "he" for the generic.

 

If for no other reason, I might suggest avoidance of the generic she/her in order to limit distraction and the reader's thoughts wandering to such things as women's lib.

 

Does this bother anyone else, or am I the only one?

 

I am sure you are not the only one!  I can relate to your feelings that it is odd, and stilted, and weirdly Feminist and politically-correct: intrusive in things classical.  I realize you are not looking for disagreements generally, but since you suggest that as "classical" people you would expect us to prefer the use of "he", I want to mention that it is as a classical educator that I prefer alternation between masculine and feminine pronouns & assumptions. 

 

There are two reasons that I, as a classical educator, prefer to use both pronouns in some sort of sensible alternation.  First, I want my children to be in the habit of seeing feminine pronouns about half the time and therefore to notice (even if only subconsciously) when writing is skewed toward one gender, and develop a sense for what that implies about the assumed audience, the author, &c.  And, naturally, to check their ideas about what is implied against evidence. Frankly, the old writing that uses "he" as "neutral" is assuming a largely (if not entirely) masculine readership.  Thinking about authorship and assumed audience is an important part of classical training.

 

Second, and far more important: using the masculine pronoun exclusively as "gender-neutral" invites sloppy thinking.  My recent reading of Hicks' "Norms and Nobility" provides evidence of this: Hicks makes all sorts of assumptions about education, students, and educators that are very very male in their bias and make little sense for women.  Particularly it is clear that for Hicks, the active adult life of a virtuous and classically educated person will not be centered around the care of children and elders.  If he were alternating pronoun use he would have been forced to confront the ridiculousness of some of his assumptions, and think more precisely about what being virtuous, being classically inclined, and being human is. 

 

I see this in C.S. Lewis, too, an author for whom I have great respect & affection.  And others. 

 

There are also more personal reasons I prefer to see "she/her" incorporated.  I will never forget the first time I read a book on philosophy that used "she" to refer to philosophers (in half the chapters :) ).   I realized that, as a woman who reads the classics & philosophy, I'd always felt like an outsider looking in.  And why not?  it was stunningly clear that Nietzsche and Plato did not expect a woman to be plowing through their ideas.  And Seneca wanders off into meditations on the beauty of female arms in the middle of his advice on being detached from things superficial.  So: what a profound sense of community I felt from a male academic author assuming that women were a natural part of the philosophical world.  I think this is something essentially true & good. 

 

If Plato was willing to have women in gymnasia, might it be classical to have them in pronouns?  :)  -- just a wry thought. 

[Corraleno]

The "singular they" has a long history in the English language, has been used by many of our greatest writers, and fills a necessary role. The preference for using the masculine singular 3rd person pronoun to represent both genders is something that was pushed on the public by 19th century prescriptivists. The idea that a plural pronoun can't possibly be extended to cover singular antecedents — but a definitively masculine pronoun can of course be extended to cover women as well — seems completely arbitrary, not to mention sexist.

 

"You," which was originally solely plural, is now equally correct for 2nd person singular, and I have no doubt that "they" will follow the same pattern.

[serendipitous journey]

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

 

I think the problem is one of allowing integrity.  There are persons who feel deeply unable to honestly use either "he" or "she" to refer to themselves.  I find the proposed solutions awkward, and would not argue that they ought to be adopted, but it is important to state that not everyone who finds gendered language problematic is militant.  Some are, and are content to be militant, do not perceive that as pejorative.  Some however are not. 

 

In such cases I'd like to find a way for those of us who are not struggling with these conflicts to create a space of grace for the others.  Not sure how to accomplish it. 

 

[Word Nerd]

I think it's time to start using "they "for singular and plural--just as "you" is (it wasn't always). John McIntyre's arguments convinced me, though it still feels wrong when I do it.

 

ETA: Here's one of his posts on the subject.

[WishboneDawn]

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

 

Aren't we talking about a couple of pronouns and not the entire English language? There's a time and place for hyperbole; I'm not sure that was it. :D

[WishboneDawn]

I am sure you are not the only one!  I can relate to your feelings that it is odd, and stilted, and weirdly Feminist and politically-correct: intrusive in things classical.  I realize you are not looking for disagreements generally, but since you suggest that as "classical" people you would expect us to prefer the use of "he", I want to mention that it is as a classical educator that I prefer alternation between masculine and feminine pronouns & assumptions. 

 

There are two reasons that I, as a classical educator, prefer to use both pronouns in some sort of sensible alternation.  First, I want my children to be in the habit of seeing feminine pronouns about half the time and therefore to notice (even if only subconsciously) when writing is skewed toward one gender, and develop a sense for what that implies about the assumed audience, the author, &c.  And, naturally, to check their ideas about what is implied against evidence. Frankly, the old writing that uses "he" as "neutral" is assuming a largely (if not entirely) masculine readership.  Thinking about authorship and assumed audience is an important part of classical training.

 

Second, and far more important: using the masculine pronoun exclusively as "gender-neutral" invites sloppy thinking.  My recent reading of Hicks' "Norms and Nobility" provides evidence of this: Hicks makes all sorts of assumptions about education, students, and educators that are very very male in their bias and make little sense for women.  Particularly it is clear that for Hicks, the active adult life of a virtuous and classically educated person will not be centered around the care of children and elders.  If he were alternating pronoun use he would have been forced to confront the ridiculousness of some of his assumptions, and think more precisely about what being virtuous, being classically inclined, and being human is. 

 

I see this in C.S. Lewis, too, an author for whom I have great respect & affection.  And others. 

 

There are also more personal reasons I prefer to see "she/her" incorporated.  I will never forget the first time I read a book on philosophy that used "she" to refer to philosophers (in half the chapters :) ).   I realized that, as a woman who reads the classics & philosophy, I'd always felt like an outsider looking in.  And why not?  it was stunningly clear that Nietzsche and Plato did not expect a woman to be plowing through their ideas.  And Seneca wanders off into meditations on the beauty of female arms in the middle of his advice on being detached from things superficial.  So: what a profound sense of community I felt from a male academic author assuming that women were a natural part of the philosophical world.  I think this is something essentially true & good. 

 

If Plato was willing to have women in gymnasia, might it be classical to have them in pronouns?  :)  -- just a wry thought. 

Gracious, that was a very fine post. :)

[Rosie_0801]

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

 

Adding a couple of extra pronouns does not constitute changing our entire language. And with your perspective, it's unlikely you would have cause to use them, so why the fuss? There are other languages out there with neutral (if that's the right word to use) pronouns, so it's hardly a radical new concept.

[JennyD]

 

 

"You," which was originally solely plural, 

 

I did not know that.  How interesting!

[momacacia]

I don't know that it would bother me either way, as long as the communication is clear. Usually, "they're" communicating about some unnamed person, so he or she is better than "person." However, I've told my kids and I recently explained to a guy on the phone that the male is the gender neutral in language. I didn't go on to tell the guy that the female is considered specialized (because females are more special ;)), I just let him go on with his day. :lol: But, I had filled out a form with only my first initial, which he called in response to and asked for "Mr. Smith." He was embarrassed that he got my gender messed up and explained his mistake. I told him it was fine to go with the gender neutral particularly when no gender was specified on the form. I guess my classical, feminist position would be "he" when referring to people in general, but "she" when referring to superwomen like me. :laugh:

[albeto.]

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

 

Conceivably, one could argue that we should allow our language to evolve in such a way that includes everyone, as that is compassionate and friendly.

 

I grew up using "one" as the gender neutral pronoun, but I do sometimes feel like my grandmother when I use it (not in the sentence above).

[Meriwether]

Using he for a gender neutral pronoun has never bothered me. Neither has using man or mankind in a gender neutral way. Making a big deal about using something else always seemed like a tempest in a teapot to me. It will be interesting to see how language changes over our lifetimes. We aren't the only ones having these kinds of discussions. There have been similar issues with the Spanish ellos/ellas when referring to a mixed group.

[Garga]

(Font got messed up.)  

 

When I was young, (born in '72), I remember that everything I read used the pronoun he.  I remember that we still had policemen and firemen. At first when they switched from 'he' to 'he or she' and from 'policemen' to 'police officer' I was surprised and not sure whether I liked the change or not.  I felt like the OP does about it.

 

And then, one day, I read in the bible:

 

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

 

And I thought, what if it used "she" instead of "he?"  I tried it out:

 

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any woman hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to her, and will sup with her, and she with me.

 

And I felt so included and so loved and acknowledged.  For the first time reading the bible, I felt like God was talking to me.  I was in my 30s at the time.  It was incredibly powerful to feel as if God was speaking directly to me after all those years of reading the bible.

 

And ever since then, I am resentful of the exclusive use of the he pronoun.  Am I not worthy of being directly addressed?  Why should I have to wait a beat to translate the "he" into a "she" in my mind?  Why do I have to stop for a moment and remember, "Oh, she wrote "he," but she meant "she" as well."  Why can't it just say she the first time around?

 

I adore the idea of a gender neutral pronoun.  I don't care how goofy it may sound at first until we all get used to it, I would immediately begin using it.

 

(And I use a gender neutral translation of the bible now.) 

[SKL]

I often use it to avoid unintentional stereotyping or to go along with what is most likely, but I also use "he" when it feels more comfortable.  I still feel "they" is wrong and "he or she" is awkward.

[rebbyribs]

My preference would be to use "one" as the generic pronoun and leave "he" and "she" for talking about specific people.  I'd like to be able to use "it" to refer to people who don't identify as male or female if it were possible to do so in a non-offensive way (like how people sometimes refer to a baby as "it").

[Hunter]

Some of my friends were born neither female or male. Not everyone fits into nice neat boxes, whether race or gender. My friends did not choose not to be an easily defined gender; they were just born that way.

 

I also am a stalking victim, and this is a public forum that I know is being read by people from my old life. I refuse to totally hide in fear, but I know that saying a certain sentence with a certain pronoun could trigger emotions in my stalker, so as I'm typing I just do weird things, because I am afraid, and also, I just don't want to even make him feel bad. I just don't want drama for any of us. I'm SO tired of all the drama.

 

I really hate our language that doesn't take into account the realities of science, and also that doesn't allow us a bit more vagueness and inclusiveness when it's called for, whatever the reason.

[Ravin]

What "respectable" option is there for trans/ other people then?

 

 

Ze and hir annoy me too, but not for being "uber pc." They annoy me for sounding awkward, as though one is mispronouncing something else. Gender neutral pronouns need to be words in their own right.

Singular "they" is perfectly serviceable. Why, I have my pronouns set to it on Facebook right now.

[Ravin]

So we should be forced to change our entire language because some miniscule percentage of people militantly refuse to identify themselves as either male or female?

No. Just a couple of pronouns.

[Ravin]

I often use "s/he." (Note the backslash between the letters "s" and "h.") I wrote a whole grad thesis on gender inclusive pronouns (way back in the 80s). I'm bothered a lot more by the exclusive use of male pronouns, though understand it in historical contexts, of course.

The problem with s/he is you can't SAY it.

[redsquirrel]

Equally bad is using "they" for a singular pronoun.

 

I would think as "classical" people, we would prefer the standard use of "he" for the generic.

 

If for no other reason, I might suggest avoidance of the generic she/her in order to limit distraction and the reader's thoughts wandering to such things as women's lib.

 

Does this bother anyone else, or am I the only one?

 

What is a 'classical person"? And who is this 'we ' you speak of? If you mean people on this board then I think you might find there is some difference of opinion on this topic.

 

"Women's lib"?  I think 1972 called and it wants its slang back,  :lol: . Or is that a "classical person" term?

 

I use the universal 'she' frequently, and have since high school. No one has ever told me they have a problem with it or even mentioned it. But clearly it bothers you quite a lot. Why? It is just that you have difficulty with wandering thoughts?  Or is it the "women's lib' part?

 

I personally find it annoying to only see the male pronoun. I think it promotes limited imagination and can make some people feel excluded from topics or discussions. Just because something has 'always' been done a certain way doesn't mean it is the only way or that it will not change. Anyone who is a lover of language and has a strong attachment to tradition is going to have to learn to live with disappointment. Language will break your heart with its fickle ways.

[Paige]

I don't mind it in normal writing at all. I would not like to see classical works rewritten with a feminine pronoun without a disclaimer, but anything other than that and I'm good. I dislike "they" as a singular pronoun. I'll occasionally use it but it makes me feel dirty and wrong. I'm too much of a rule follower. I really dislike "one" although it doesn't annoy me. I know it's what some people were taught. I think the tone of a writing changes when someone replaces he/she/they/it with "one." I don't like s/he or it either. I guess I don't like them all equally, so nothing is extra annoying. My preference is to use "he or she" or "she or he" as it's my least hated choice. It seems the most correct, but I'll pick one and alternate or rewrite the sentence entirely to avoid overuse of he or she and especially having to say his or hers over and over.

[IsabelC]

I think they is fine for informal communication (go on, sue me and chuck me of the Classical Forum). It's widely understood, and works well to fill the lack of an appropriate word in English. For formal communication, I generally prefer to either avoid the construction altogether, or write the full she or he (or he or she) if it really seems necessary. To me, the use of the masculine-as-generic is anachronistic for modern day writers, and to go on using it, oblivious to the gender issues, is similar to using out of date racial language on the excuse that 'great writers' used it. (But yeah, I guess I'm one of those women's libbers, and also one of those militants who thinks society will not collapse if we let go of our rigid gender binaries ;) )

[kiwik]

I think in TWTM Jessie Wise says she uses he because she was taught that was the correct form.

 

I am annoyed when the use of either he or she is overly pointed. If you are talking about some occupations that are 90% plus one sex it seems silly to use the opposite pronoun.

 

There are some occasions when using one works but it does make me feel a bit like the Queen. I think the best solution is to officially declare they to be both singular and plural. Similar things have been done before and the world didn't come to an end. Ps. I will write s/he but it is a problem if read aloud. Most of the things I write aren't read out loud though.

[stripe]

I use "they" often, but I most frequently rephrase so I can have a plural subject. There are plenty of moldy oldies who used the singular they. (I've posted this before -- examples from Jane Austen.)

 

I grew up around people who used "she" deliberately as a "gender neutral" pronoun and put a high priority on detecting and avoiding sexist language so it just makes me amused to see others do this. I definitely find using "he" as gender neutral to be stupid.

 

My husband's first language includes a gender neutral pronoun, and as a result, my kids find English sorely lacking. They use "they" deliberately to mean someone they don't know. It is, I think, an improvement over their previous choice of "it." My son finds it outrageous and offensive to use "he" as a gender neutral pronoun. My daughter seems to think it is so obvious that boys are not the default that it need not be discussed.

 

I am not a "classical person." I am a classy person. And a woman, at that.

 

Could the patient who is here for his abortion, please return to the registration desk?

[Laura Corin]

I use "they" often, but I most frequently rephrase so I can have a plural subject. There are plenty of moldy oldies who used the singular they. (I've posted this before -- examples from Jane Austen.)

 

 

That was fun.  

 

I had a good time in response to a previous thread (which I can't now find) digging out 'incorrect' uses of 'himself', 'herself', etc. in Jane Austen and (because I happened to be reading her at the time) Dorothy Sayers.  

 

Some grammar and usage rules seem to be an over-prescriptive attempt to impose a structure on the fluidity of customary educated English.

 

L

[Mrs Twain]

"s/he" is not bad IMO.

 

If I were reading it silently or aloud, I would say, "he/she," because that flows best.

[Mrs Twain]

It is interesting to note who hasn't posted on this thread.

[Mrs Twain]

One would think "s/he" could work for transgenders.

[WishboneDawn]

It is interesting to note who hasn't posted on this thread.

Possibly. But it could mean it's just not a big deal for must folk. I think you assumed it would be but it hasn't panned out that way. Ether people are fine with not using "he" and "him" or they use "he" and "him" and don't give it too much thought.

 

I would like to see a case for why "he" is particularly classical. To me it's a very Classical thing to give extra thought to the words we use and who we wish to address when writing. And a gender neutral pronoun was good enough for the Greeks, the origin of all this Classicaliness (now there's a good word), why shouldn't it be good enough for us?

 

ETA: I think think you really should examine why you think it's an issue Classical homeschoolers should feel on way or the other on. I suspect it's really a pet peeve for you that you're unnecessarily attaching bigger values to. It may be irritating butthat doesn't mean it's wrong or not Classical.

[JessieC]

I find the exclusive use of "he" much more distracting than alternating or working around it by making the subject plural. When speaking generically about people, we should not exclude half of the human race.

[Haiku]

The kids and I recently read a piece in their history program about how the educated thinkers of the Renaissance, who wanted desperately to return to the "correct" (classical) form of Latin, were the ones who ultimately killed the language with their refusal to allow the language to change and grow.

[Mrs Twain]

Perhaps my issue is this.

 

Some women complain that the generic "he" pronoun makes them feel excluded. Their response is to use "she" for the generic in every case. So in protesting the language's exclusion of half of the population, they exclude half of the population. Does this rub anyone else the wrong way?

 

Alternating "he" and "she" seems fair-minded. Using "s/he" seems fair minded. However, exclusively using "she" as the generic pronoun seems like something else altogether.