Search

This monograph includes nine papers delivered at a National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) preconference workshop, and a previously unpublished paper on gender and attitudes. The papers, which are presented in four categories, are: (1) "Report on the Workshop: In Search of Gender Free Paradigms for Computer Science Education" (C. Dianne Martin); (2) "Understanding Gender Biases in Computer-Related Behavior: Are We Using the Wrong Metaphor?" (Robin Kay); (3) "Gender Differences in Human Computer Interaction" (Charles W. Huff, John H. Fleming, and Joel Cooper); (4) "Gender and Attitude Toward Computers" (James R. Aman); (5) "Female Students' Underachievement in Computer Science and Mathematics: Reasons and Recommendations" (Lesley S. Klein); (6) "Implications of the Computer Culture for Women of Color" (Carol Edwards); (7) "Strategies for Involving Girls in Computer Science" (Valerie Clark); (8) "A New Introduction to Computer Science" (Danielle R. Bernstein); (9) "Restructuring Departments for Equality" (Henry Etzkowitz, Carol Kemelgor, Michael Neuschatz, and Brian Uzzi); and (10) "Gender Equity--A Partial List of Resources" (Cindy Meyer Hanchey). An additional paper and report are appended: "Epistemological Pluralism: Styles and Voices within the Computer Culture" (Sherry Turkle and Seymour Papert); and "Becoming a Computer Scientist: A Report by the ACM Committee on the Status of Women in Computing Science" (Amy Pearl, Martha Pollack, Eve Riskin, Becky Thomas, Elizabeth Wolf, and Alice Wu). The gender equity resources listed include books, articles, and brochures; training modules; technical assistance modules; publications from the National Science Foundation; and organizations. (ALF)

To see what students think the title Ms. means, and also to see what implications and impressions they attach to Ms., a study questioned 68 college students (36 female, 32 male) on their best approximations of "dictionary definitions" for the titles Ms., Mr., Mrs., and Miss. Respondents also provided personal connotations for the titles and indicated which title, if any, they preferred to use for themselves. Results indicated that while all students could correctly define the traditional titles Mr., Miss, and Mrs., only about half correctly defined the non-traditional title Ms. Although it was not unusual for connotations of Mr. to include some positive aspect, Ms. and Miss were seen as having more negative connotations. (TD)

This paper elaborates on a series of quotations to illustrate major influences in children's language development. The first quotation, from Lilian G. Katz (1988), suggests that what children like is not necessarily developmentally appropriate for them. This idea can be applied to the development of language competence. In the second quotation, Toni G. Cross notes that a loss of language may occur in preschool settings in which the teacher tends towards a dominant conversational style. Discussion of this quotation addresses studies that suggest that mothers' conversational style is more positive than preschool teachers'. In the third quotation, Margaret Clyde (1990) proposes that learning environments need to be embedded in contexts that are meaningful to children. The fourth quotation, from Katz (1989), stresses the value of three functions of language: communication, expression, and reasoning. In the fifth quotation, also from Katz (1989), it is noted that spontaneous play and project work are closely intertwined and occur side by side. The project approach is discussed. It is maintained that appropriate intervention by teachers and caregivers involves encouragement; direction, when necessary; and modeling. The final quotation, from Amy Sheldon (1990), maintains that "our language reflects sexist, male-centred attitudes that perpetuate the...marginalization...of female experience." A bibliography of 14 items is provided. (BC)

A study is described concerning the ability to recgnize sex bias in language. Thirty-three statements were generated containing statements characterized as sex-biased and sex-fair. It was hypothesized that individuals would have a greater degree of difficulty recognizing sex bias in statements which contained common-use terms or terms with no acceptable alternatives. It was also expected that women would be more sensitive to sex-biased statements than men. The subjects, 87 female and 88 male students at two universities, were asked to rate 33 statements using a five-point scale. Results indicated that individuals appeared to have a greater degree of difficulty recognizing sex-biased statements with commonly used terms or terms having no acceptable alternatives. As anticipated, women demonstrated greater sensitivity to six-biased language than men. (Author/AMH)

This paper examines the proposition that languages may differ in their potential for non-sexist usage, and that the structure of a language, in particular the gender system, affects the nature of the linguistic response to changing social attitudes regarding sex roles. A brief historical survey of gender and sex-marking is followed by a review of the situation in several languages including contemporary English. It is concluded that the structure of a language is one factor influencing the rate of linguistic change in response to social change and that, while the sex-based system of English does not present a serious obstacle to language change, the grammatical gender of some languages may constitute an impediment to change. It is also hypothesized that, as pressures for social change make speakers aware of the sexist implications of the gender system, the purely grammatical and the sex-based criteria will come into conflict, introducing instability into the system. Data from several languages are presented indicating the presence of such instability, especially in words denoting professions and other social roles, and some tentative predictions are made regarding future developments. (Author/AMH)

The first section of this paper focuses on misunderstandings surrounding two of the proposals for changing sexist aspects of the English language, namely, avoiding the use of masculine pronouns (he, his, him, himself) with alleged sex-indefinite reference, and replacing the word and morpheme "man" with "person" in sex-indefinite usage. Several arguments against adopting these and other changes aimed at reducing sexism in language are discussed and examples of them are provided. It is noted that the content and tone of the arguments against change have remained essentially the same from 1972 to 1978. In a second section of the paper, a number of misapplications of the proposals for changing sexist language are discussed in detail: (1) overextensions that violate morpheme structure; (2) violations of parallelism in reference to the sexes; and (3) partial changes that retain sex-stereotyping and the coining of words to ridicule other coinages. Data are presented on the misuse of "Ms." and on male-first word order (e.g., he and she; men and women). It is concluded that despite the misunderstandings and misapplications there is a strong awareness of changes toward nonsexist language in American society as represented in newspapers, magazines, and scholarly newsletters. (Author/AMH)

Proposals for changing sexist language, while having an increasing impact on patterns of language usage in America, have also continuously been argued against in the media and in academia during the 1970's. The proposals for eliminatinq the usage of masculine terms as "generics" have received the most criticism. In this paper, the various arguments that have been presented for retaining masculine/generic usage are illustrated and analyzed. The arguments are classified as follows; (1) the "cross-cultural" arguments; (2) the "language is a trivial concern" arguments; (3) the "freedom of speech/unjustified coercion" arguments; (4) the "sexist language is not sexist" arguments; (5) the "word-etymology" arguments; (6) the "appeal to authority" arguments; (7) the "change is too difficult, inconvenient, impractical or whatever" arguments; and (8) the "it would destroy historical authenticity and literary works" arguments. It is claimed that the arguments have been overlaid with ridicule and hostility towards feminists, and that they can be viewed as political rather than substantive. (Author/AMH)