Roots of gender-sensitive language

I am writing in response to the letter written by Mr. Jeff Burhans. Mr. Burhans' letter is that of an angry white male confronted with a changing world. He begins with a rant against terms that are considered politically correct, such as "chair," "police officer," and others. Mr. Burhans sees these words as imposed by some kind of language Nazi in a direct attempt to exclude males from the discussion. He refers to these mysterious word-changers as the "cultural elite" or "the establishment."

In fact, the previous terms for these positions, such as "policeman," "chairman," and "fireman" were elitist, exclusive, and reserved solely for males. Now that many women occupy these positions, a non-gender-specific signifier is needed.I would not appreciate being called a "chairman" if I held such a position, because the very word gives the impression that it is a distinctly "male" office. Perhaps Mr. Burhans does not believe that women should perform such jobs, but he mentions no such objection in his letter. Seemingly insignificant labels and words have been used for centuries to exclude women from certain occupations, serving as useful linguistic ammunition against us to maintain the existing gender hierarchy.

Mr. Burhans goes on to mention what he perceives as situations in which white males are the victims of unfairness. This includes the fact that women are not drafted by the military in wartime and affirmative action. Although Burhans may not realize it, many women (myself included) support equality in all areas, including the military draft and combat situations. But since women do not have much influence over these areas, it can be assumed that the male "establishment" has its reasons for not including women in these activities. Since we, as marginalized members of a patriarchal government system, don't generally make the rules, I don't see how we can be blamed.

The issue of affirmative action is also an interesting one. Obviously the author has not educated himself with regard to the purpose and goal of affirmative action. His knee-jerk reaction has kept him from seeing the facts. The facts: Affirmative action is not designed to discriminate against white males, but to level the playing field, to allow those with the deck stacked against them to have an equal opportunity to succeed.

American males, especially white Protestant males of Anglo heritage, do not need to fight for their rights! It would likewise be literally impossible for them to increase their power in a society that they, for all intents and purposes, run and control.

Perhaps if these members of the true "cultural elite" would learn to share power instead of becoming defensive when its location and use are questioned, the politically correct terms to which Mr. Burhans so strenuously objects would become superfluous and unnecessary.

Erynn Masi de Casanova
Latin American studies graduate student