
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: MONDAY, June 11, 1990                   TAG: 9006110193
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-6   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Short

ABANDON MINDLESS USE OF SEXIST TERMS

I ENTIRELY agree with Paxton Davis' view in "Demagogues and careless language" (May 25) that the ubiquitous use of "kid" for "child" debases both the English language and the concept of childhood. As a teacher of Children's Literature, I cringe at the term "Kiddy Lit." and its implied attitude toward my subject.

However, I find ironic Davis' complaint that "we are robbing language of much of its specificity," its "capacity . . . to make and maintain . . . distinctions." For Davis blurs important distinctions when he writes, "Turn on the television anywhere you like these days and you will hear no one speak of his parents as anything but `moms' and `dads'."

Our language is perfectly capable of conveying the idea that both males and females have parents without our resorting to the solecism "no one . . . their" or to what Davis doubtless finds even more objectionable, the now commonplace "his/her." All he need write is that "Everywhere on television you will hear people referring to their parents as `moms' and `dads'."

At the end of his piece, Davis invokes George Orwell, a great believer in the political implications of language. If we are truly to honor Orwell's spirit, we must abandon our mindless use of sexist language, especially when, as here, it is so easy to do so.

ELIZABETH KEYSER\ ROANOKE

by CNB