[6332] in APO-L
Re: Ed Mason
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mirabile Dictu (John Given))
Mon Jun 7 16:03:55 1993
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 1993 13:25:27 EDT
Reply-To: "Mirabile Dictu (John Given)" <GIVEN%DICKINSN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
From: "Mirabile Dictu (John Given)" <GIVEN%DICKINSN.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
I'm glad to see that there is still some stuff going on on APO-L, although
most of us are so busy with aposoc.
In response to Ed Mason's posting about brothers, I must say that I would
find it hardly unlikely that anyone in an all-male chapter would find it
offensive to be called "brother." And, although I personally have a problem
with a little sister program in APO, at least they are called "sisters," a
female term for a female group. Do you think they would mind being called
"little brothers"? But, Ed, let me assure you that there are enough of us
who feel that calling females "brother" is offensive, that it is an issue
worth discussing and not simply laying it aside as a pawdry argument about
semantics. I can only speak about my chapter (who voted 75% in favor of
using sister-- a percentage higher than our female portion, by the way), but
I think there is more than an argument of semantics here. We have lost
pledges because of the language. (We even almost lost an adviser.) There is
also a problem with image, i.e. how we are perceived by outsiders, especially
college administrators. And then of course, there is always the argument
behind the whole "PC" movement-- language reflects thought, so patriarchal
language reflects patriarchal thought. If the thought is changing, so should
the language.
John Given
Preisdent, AGA
Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA
given@dickinson.edu
