Barbara Temaner Brodley

While reading over the Typing and Other Requirements" on the inner back cover of the Person-Centered Journal I found item # 9 to read Avoid the use of generic masculine pronouns or other sexist terminology."

In my opinion the stylistic practice of using generic masculine pronouns is not a form of sexist terminology". The journal statement represents a political position to which I do not subscribe and which I think is wrong. The ADPCA should not be promoting this political view in its journal. It is not consistent with the values emphasizing individual choice of the person-centered approach. The journal should not require writers to avoid masculine generic pronouns. I also think proscribing sexist terminology" broaches on censorship and is inappropriate in a person-centered publication.

It has been my observation that the current practice (in United States’ counseling and psychological journals and other venues) of avoiding masculine pronouns (to refer to persons regardless of gender) is the result of bullying on the part of some academic people who designate themselves as feminists. These people do not represent women, nor feminist women or feminist men, as they intimidate others and impose their values on writing.

I have regarded myself as a feminist for many years, have spoken out, and given support to many feminist issues. My understanding of feminism, and the basis of my identification with feminism, is that it is a humanistic position giving special attention to injustices, inequalities, cultural practices and beliefs that limit the safety, rights, freedoms and opportunities of women. It is a political stance which aims for constructive social changes - through improving conditions for women - that will improve people’s lives, regardless of their gender. It is not meant to be a tyrannical coercive position that forces or intimidates others.

I do not believe the imposed change in writing style that involves employing he or she" or they" or repeating nouns, or similar techniques to avoid the generic masculine pronouns has helped feminist causes in any way. The avoidance of the generic masculine form has probably damaged the humanistic feminist cause. This is because it has been coerced, it is awkward to use, and it is less esthetic than the convenient, traditional masculine generics.

As a reader from an early age, it was always apparent to me that the use of generic masculine pronouns referred no less to female persons than to males. As a female I was included not excluded by use of the generic pronouns. In situations where there might be confusion by a naïve reader, the practice of using the masculine generic may be explained by a footnote or by referring to he and she" or his and her", etc. near the beginning of an article.