Gender Equality

[Guest Haidee Thomson]

I am currently studying Robert's Rules and the dominance of male pronouns seems discriminatory for a book on parliamentary rules in a world where women are just as likely to take part as members or chairs as men are. The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

[Tim Wynn]

I am currently studying Robert's Rules and the dominance of male pronouns seems discriminatory for a book on parliamentary rules in a world where women are just as likely to take part as members or chairs as men are. The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

It's a matter of grammar, that when the gender is unknown or unimportant the masculine pronoun is used. The alternative is a society where it has been deemed necessary to specify every possibility when making a general statement.

[Thomas Ralph]

I agree with Mr. Wynn. At most, a statement in the foreword that "for simplicity, gender-specific pronouns are used in this book to refer to both genders" would be sufficient.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I am currently studying Robert's Rules and the dominance of male pronouns seems discriminatory for a book on parliamentary rules in a world where women are just as likely to take part as members or chairs as men are.

The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

No English text book in any class of mine ever advocated alternating the gender of pronouns.

Read Garner's Modern American Usage under the topic "he or she".

Garner illustrates some attempts at non-sexist which - plainly put - don't scan.

[Gary c Tesser]

I am currently studying Robert's Rules and the dominance of male pronouns seems discriminatory for a book on parliamentary rules in a world where women are just as likely to take part as members or chairs as men are. The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

Nero Wolfe lamented the absence of ender-neutral pronouns in English, beginning in the 1940's. You have my sympathy, Guest_Haidee Thomson_, but I doubt we're going to get anywhere about it, on this forum or in the 11th edition of RONR.

Alas. Such is life.

[hmtcastle]

I am currently studying Robert's Rules and the dominance of male pronouns seems discriminatory for a book on parliamentary rules in a world where women are just as likely to take part as members or chairs as men are. The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

It is not impossible to re-phrase most sentences in order to make them gender neutral. New York State did this with its Constitution some years ago. Google "gender neutral constitution" for more information.

But don't expect any changes in the 11th (or 12th or 13th . . . ) editions of RONR, or much support on this forum, where "Madam Chairman" is uttered without any trace of irony.

[George Mervosh]

I hope that's not all your getting out of RONR, but it's wonderful you're reading it that closely. I hope you'll ask procedure questions here often.

[Chris Harrison]

It is not impossible to re-phrase most sentences in order to make them gender neutral. New York State did this with its Constitution some years ago. Google "gender neutral constitution" for more information.

But don't expect any changes in the 11th (or 12th or 13th . . . ) editions of RONR, or much support on this forum, where "Madam Chairman" is uttered without any trace of irony.

I would also imagine that through all the Editions even with the changes that the basic wordage hasn't changed much (I suppose trying to keep it in line with how the General would write). To make RONR gender neutral would require a MAJOR overhaul far beyond anything we have seen from the 4th Edition on (or maybe ever further back). The first time that we saw the PC RONR most of our heads would probably explode.

[Josh Martin]

The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

The next edition is nearing completion (expected in the summer of 2011), so I find that unlikely (and as Mr. Mountcastle notes, probably unlikely in the coming editions as well, due to the culture of the profession). The limitations of the English language do create problems, and this particular one has been quite controversial over the years, and I doubt it will ever be satisfactorily resolved.

[David A Foulkes]

The limitations of the English language do create problems...

Neither to deny this nor appear argumentative, but I don't think it's limited to the English language either. Seems I recall from high school French that (par exemple) the pronoun referring to two or more people of both genders as a single entity is the masculine. Even something as innocuous as "what time is it?" (quelle heure est-il?) favors the masculine pronoun. Not to justify it, merely to acknowledge its widespread nature.

Perhaps in the First Edition of Roberta's Rules of Order........

Editée par l'auteur pour supprimer l'apostrophe capricieux

[Rob Elsman]

I think your statement reflects more on your ignorance of standard English grammar than anything about the discriminatory intent of the authors.

[hmtcastle]

I think your statement reflects more on your ignorance of standard English grammar than anything about the discriminatory intent of the authors.

I agree that the discrimination is not intentional, nor did Ms. Thompson suggest it was.

I think it's based on ignorance. And perhaps a failure to recognize that it's 2010.

[Dan Honemann]

I agree that the discrimination is not intentional, nor did Ms. Thompson suggest it was.

I think it's based on ignorance. And perhaps a failure to recognize that it's 2010.

Yeah, not a brain in our heads! What year did you say it is?

[Trina]

I am currently studying Robert's Rules and the dominance of male pronouns seems discriminatory for a book on parliamentary rules in a world where women are just as likely to take part as members or chairs as men are. The next edition should be updated to reflect the participation of all genders in deliberative assemblies.

To the extent that some of the examples could be readily modified to have more female participants, I think that would be nice. Otherwise (speaking as a member of the supposedly discriminated-against minority, or, is that majority?) I honestly don't give a hoot. I think it's difficult to make the book totally gender-neutral, and I would find it very distracting to be constantly stumbling over 'he or she', 's/he', etc. while trying to read the book for content. Some updating to reflect the the 'participation of all genders' (are there more than two?) would be nice, but I would actually be much more interested in seeing updates to parliamentarily confusing situations.

There is a certain historic/archaic atmosphere to RONR (for example, the specifications against Mr. N on p. 634 seem to have come to us via time tunnel) which adds literary flavor to the work, and reminds us of its long history (and of the much longer history of parliamentary procedure that came before Henry Roberts). I think it would be sort of a shame to erase this aspect of the book, simply in order to be more modern and politically correct.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

300 years ago, we had:

you (objective plural) = "ye" ("O ye of little faith!" - Luke 12:28)

you (subjective singular) = "thou" ("Thou hast said it!" - Matt. 26:64)

you (objective singular) = "thee" ("Get thee to a nunnery!" - Shakespeare)

Lo and Behold! - All the subforms have disappeared!

("Where did they go, Joe Dimaggio?")

We are left with "you" being:

• BOTH subjective and objective;

• BOTH singular and plural.

(I am shocked - SHOCKED! - by the collapse of the English language!)

By the year 2020, society will have replaced the masculine and feminine he/she / him/her dichotomy with the generic plural "they/their".

It is already a done deal, except for print media.

Expect The Chicago Manual of Style and The Associated Press Stylebook to change within one generation of TODAY.

It is what We The People want.

The Revolution is here.

"The King is dead. Long live the Queen/King."

"Your 'people', sir, is nothing but a Great Beast."

- Alexander Hamilton, responding to Thomas Jefferson (1792).

[David A Foulkes]

By the year 2020, society will have replaced the masculine and feminine he/she / him/her dichotomy with the generic plural "they/their".

Mayhaps heesH and hERm? (and hiRS?)

"When our secretary announced heesh was going to be absent from the next meeting, the VP asked herm if heesh could leave hirs minutes notebook with herm. Was that legal?"

[Dbaylor55]

Thirty five years ago, a college buddy of mine related a tale along these lines.

It seems he was attending a meeting at which a female student objected to the term "Chairman," both in the general use of the term, and especially when addressing a female in the role.

She proposed the word "Chairperson."

My friend Bill, ever the quick one, rose to object to the sexist overtones in the word "Chairperson." For, don't you see, that the word "ChairperSON" contains within it a male noun for "offspring." Therefore, he suggested that in order to remain gender neutral, they should henceforth use "Chairperchild."

After the chuckles died down, they stuck with the tried and true.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Thirty five years ago, a college buddy of mine related a tale along these lines.

It seems he was attending a meeting at which a female student objected to the term "Chairman," both in the general use of the term, and especially when addressing a female in the role.

She proposed the word "Chairperson."

My friend Bill, ever the quick one, rose to object to the sexist overtones in the word "Chairperson." For, don't you see, that the word "ChairperSON" contains within it a male noun for "offspring." Therefore, he suggested that in order to remain gender neutral, they should henceforth use "Chairperchild."

After the chuckles died down, they stuck with the tried and true.

[Guest Nancy N.]

"After the chuckles died down, they stuck with the tried and true."

Yup yup, they sure had it all nailed down in 1975.

Has your friend, friend Bill, ever the quick one, had a date since then?

[Josh Martin]

Thirty five years ago, a college buddy of mine related a tale along these lines.

It seems he was attending a meeting at which a female student objected to the term "Chairman," both in the general use of the term, and especially when addressing a female in the role.

She proposed the word "Chairperson."

My friend Bill, ever the quick one, rose to object to the sexist overtones in the word "Chairperson." For, don't you see, that the word "ChairperSON" contains within it a male noun for "offspring." Therefore, he suggested that in order to remain gender neutral, they should henceforth use "Chairperchild."

After the chuckles died down, they stuck with the tried and true.

Several assemblies I have been a member of simply use the term "Chair." That's as gender-neutral as you can get, and it's quicker to say. I'm aware that the NAP (and several members of this forum) disapprove of such a practice, but it worked fine for us, and RONR notes this as an acceptable alternative. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 22, lines 17-20) I think things like this are best left to the customs and preferences of the individual assembly.

[Guest Jim Restucci]

The "MAN" in Chairman is from the Latin, manus which means hand.

It has nothing to do with the sex of the individual holding the title.

[Trina]

The "MAN" in Chairman is from the Latin, manus which means hand....

Any evidence for this theory? Sounds pretty darn unlikely to me, and I didn't find any concurring opinions in a brief search on the origins of 'chairman', or on the origins of 'man' (which doesn't come from Latin at all, but, as expected, has older roots in the English language). I did find a few mentions of the supposed 'manus' entymology -- these were politely labeled as 'false entymology'; more bluntly labeled as 'pure bunk'.

This is only very remotely related to RONR, I know, except for the common thread that accuracy in speech, and accurate interpretation of meaning, are important

[Dan Honemann]

This is only very remotely related to RONR, I know, except for the common thread that accuracy in speech, and accurate interpretation of meaning, are important

Yeah, this is a bit of a stretch as far as any relationship to RONR is concerned.

However, I do wonder if an effort at political correctness is the reason why what is said about "status" in your profile can't seem to figure out how many people you are.

[Trina]

Yeah, this is a bit of a stretch as far as any relationship to RONR is concerned.

However, I do wonder if an effort at political correctness is the reason why what is said about "status" in your profile can't seem to figure out how many people you are.

Indeed, I just visited the 'Members' area, and several users have apparently figured out how to set 'their' status, whatever that is. I shall endeavor to do so also, if only to remove the annoying would-be-PC phrase 'so-and-so has not set their status' .