> But the fact is, we live in a patriarchal society. This does not bother me. It does not bother me that "humanity" has the word "man" in it. I am not offended by this in anyway. Some people are, apparently. I don't get this at all. I don't get why people would think that this is *important.* I don't at all understand how someone can think changing "mailman" to "postal worker" solves anything.

It's just a "tool" used to change the public's perception of the job. "Mailman" used to mean, literally, a male delivering the mail, not the all-encompasing "person/human of either gender" delivering the mail. Same with milkman, policeman, fireman, and so on. When oportunities for women opened up, alternate labels were the "PR" used so people would stop automatically associating the jobs exclusively with males. It was to get little girls thinking "hey, I could do that job (and earn 40% more than I could by being a secretary)" rather than automatically disqualify themselves on basis of their gender. On that level, I don't think it's a terrible idea. But either way, it's not worth getting offended about.

>It only clutters up the language and makes everything more awkward. It's not going to change the fact that our society was and is patriarchal and, in most cases, male oriented.
>

Yes, I agree. I don't think basic human nature is going to change, but there is something to be said for trying to *include* people instead of *exclude* them. I agree your professor sounds kind of extreme, but remember the pendulum has swung both ways. As a kid during "pre-lib" days, I remember reading articles and coming across lines all the time like, " so after you get back from the bank, tell your wife..." ...when up to then nothing about the subject had been (or needed to be) gender specific...it was just an article about how to apply for a loan, for instance. Or maybe it was even a humorous article about the trips and traps of everyday life, that could apply to anybody, but suddenly there it was, the sentence that implied or assumed that you, the reader, were a male. Again, nothing to get *offended* about, but as a girl reading it, there was always a small fleeting *blink* of, oh, they mean a man would/could/should do that, not me. (Not that you'd take something like that to heart, exactly, but it's just subtly influencing). I hardly ever see this anymore, and I don't miss it.

> Am I making any sense? I know I can trust what people *here* say, unlike the responses I've gotten elsewhere. :-P
>
> ~Mina "getting fed up" moon

koala"hasn't burned any bras lately, honest"mom