tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18315925.post113752537443231994..comments2023-11-05T04:34:41.648-05:00Comments on broad recognition: Oh, man!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18315925.post-1138150205735670492006-01-24T19:50:00.000-05:002006-01-24T19:50:00.000-05:00PS. As for the charge that we are seeking to attac...PS. As for the charge that we are seeking to attack the YDN unnecessarily, neither of us want to "discredit" the newspaper. We are a blog that seeks to point out the sexism at Yale; the YDN is the main news-source about Yale. Thus it will be cited often. We have said before that the charge of nit-picking is one to which we will gladly plead guilty...Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11785356243973975259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18315925.post-1138149976949024282006-01-24T19:46:00.000-05:002006-01-24T19:46:00.000-05:00Anonymous (overlooking the fact that you chose not...Anonymous (overlooking the fact that you chose not to sign your name): I don't think sexism is always overt, and it is not being implied here that the YDN was trying to hide something. The point was more subtle: that gendered language is still around, and manifests itself in often laughable ways. Precisely! There WAS a picture. The clash of reality and language was visible and obvious!<BR/>Maggiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11785356243973975259noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18315925.post-1137958535653384842006-01-22T14:35:00.000-05:002006-01-22T14:35:00.000-05:00Your point that the YDN was sexist is also ridicul...Your point that the YDN was sexist is also ridiculous because, if I recall correctly, that subhead ran under three large pictures of the new Corporation members. It's not like the YDN was trying to hide who was put onto the Corporation....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18315925.post-1137918327706797662006-01-22T03:25:00.000-05:002006-01-22T03:25:00.000-05:00'-man' is not and never was a pronoun. It's a suff...'-man' is not and never was a pronoun. It's a suffix. And 'man' is a noun.<BR/>So now, for real, what <I>is</I> the acceptable gender-neutral term? If your purpose in making this post was to educate people in the proper use of gender-neutral language, doesn't it make no sense not to have given them an alternative? If, on the other hand, your aim was just to label the YDN article as sexist insteadMatthew Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09887386097322563819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18315925.post-1137607278998678472006-01-18T13:01:00.000-05:002006-01-18T13:01:00.000-05:00Ok, true, but why didn't you post the preferred ge...Ok, true, but why didn't you post the preferred gender-neutral term? Now no one's been educated, just told off.Matthew Vhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09887386097322563819noreply@blogger.com