[Smt-talk] Last about Gender Terminology in Writings

[Rob Schultz]

Dear Dimitar,

I think we all understand and share your concern about maintaining an aesthetically pleasing rhythm and flow in one’s writing style. However, there are countless eloquent ways to construct a sentence without invoking the unavoidably gender-specific third-person pronoun. Agreed, your sentences A and B flow better than sentence C, and sentence D is indeed grammatically incorrect. But why not instead opt for "The poor student does not know what to expect,” "The poor student knows not what to expect,” “The pitiable student appears to be suspended in a heightened state of anxiety, incapable of comprehending precisely how to anticipate the ensuing sequence of events,” and so forth? It may require a bit more creativity and mental exertion, but it’s a very small price to pay to avoid alienating (intentionally or not) the majority of one's professional colleagues, male and female alike. The SMT guidelines for non-sexist language even list six specific strategies to help overcome this particular form of “writer’s block.”

Similarly, your point about aesthetic and literary freedom is well taken. On the other hand, no creative act is completely devoid of artistic limitations; I would even argue that the mark of a truly great artist is the ability to find novel solutions within a given set of limitations. If Bach was expected to abide by the socially accepted harmonic conventions of his day, shouldn’t we be held to the same standards in our modern-day use of the English language?

All Best,
Rob

----------------------------------------------------
Rob Schultz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Music Theory
University of Kentucky School of Music
105 Fine Arts Building
Lexington, KY 40506-0022

Il giorno 01/mag/2014, alle ore 01:58 PM, Ninov, Dimitar N <dn16 at txstate.edu> ha scritto:

> Dear Jennifer,
> 
> Thanks for the nice letter and clarifications. I personally apologize to you for having caused such an emotional turmoil in your mind.
> 
> The few last things I want to add in relation to gender language, are: 
> 
> 1) My main point has never been about discrimination versus non discrimination; it has been about aesthetics in the construction of the literary sentence, and the necessary freedom to accommodate fluent language.
> 
> 2) I find the word "sexist" ugly per se. When it is thrown at someone like condemnation, it already smells like the dark ages of the Spanish Inquisition and predetermines the destiny of the poor fellow - to burn at the stake. I would never use officially terms such as "sexist" or "non sexist", even if I were an editor who provides directions as of how to write correctly. For such purposes I would use "specific gender language" versus "general gender language".
> 
> 3) I maintain that an author has to have freedom in dealing with literary language. For example, I would accept any of the four versions of the following sentence: A. Poor student, he does not know what to expect. B. Poor student, she does not know what to expect C. Poor student, he or she does not know what to expect. and D. Poor student, they do not know what to expect. For me, D is most objectionable, because it contains conspicuous disagreement between the noun and the pronoun. After that, C has a little glitch because the direction of motion is twisted for an instant by the superfluous repetition of the pronoun. Having said that, I think these considerations shall be left to the discretion of the writer.
> 
> 4) I believe that, no matter what the official policy of a publisher is, quotations of original passages shall not be edited in terms of gender language, because this would be the end of professionalism and the beginning of self-embarrassment for those who cripple original works in this manner.
> 
> Thank you for your understanding.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Dimitar
> 
> 
> Dr. Dimitar Ninov, Lecturer
> School of Music
> Texas State University
> 601 University Drive
> San Marcos, Texas 78666
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140502/8ff3266a/attachment-0003.htm>