A friend of mine recently stated that there were much more important things to do in the world than change the spelling of "women" to "womyn"--arguing that feminists who were bent on doing this were wasting their time and energy.

While I happen to agree that there are much more important issues to be addressed in this world, I can see the rationale for putting effort into making such a change.  That is not to say that this is my personal position; I am merely saying that I understand the point some feminists are trying to make by doing so.

The logic of the argument, as I understand it, goes something like this:

1) Historically women have been seen as "lesser than" men.
2) Language is a powerful tool that shapes the way people perceive their surroundings, including how they understand gender and gender roles.
3) The oldest usage of the word "man" was to designate all human beings regardless of gender.  "werman" and "wyfman" (or wæpman and wifman) were used to designate male or female "men".
4) Over the course of centuries, in a culture that zealously worked to subordinate the female half of humankind, "werman" and "man" became conflated with each other, while "wyfman" developed into a separate term "woman".
5) These new terms, developed as they were in a culture that devalued women, reflected this culture's biases.  In other words, it is not merely that we refer to males as "men" or females as "women"--we also bring this culture's definitions of what it is to be a man or woman into play when we use these words.
6) Returning to the older model of "man" referring to all humankind regardless of gender, and adopting separate terms to refer to the differences of gender would be more egalitarian.

The feminists who ascribe to this line of reasoning (and to similar arguments) have essentially done the work of picking a new term to describe them that pays tribute to the older term "wyfman":  Womyn

One would presume that it would fall to the current crop of "men" to step up to the plate and pick a new term to refer to themselves.  However, this seems unlikely.

Now, again, I would like to reiterate that this is not my argument.  I happen to think that it is better (and easier) to change the cultural definitions of what it is to be a woman, than it is to change the word that refers to the female members of the human race.

But I understand the argument--and I can even sympathize with the motivations of those who make this argument.  I find it an interesting, and well-considered point-of-view.  The English language is a fluid construct--ever changing.  A beautiful language, yes--but part of it's beauty comes from it's ability to change.  We are talking about a Germanic-based language that uses Latin-based grammar rules--and borrows heavily from other languages (especially French, it seems) for new words.  And new words are invented on the spot, as well--by poets, authors, scientists, and everyday men and women.  

Perhaps such a change will happen.  I'm not opposed to it--and if enough people aren't opposed to it, it just might happen.  But I also don't think it's practical to push the issue.  If a woman wishes to use the term "womyn", more power to her for taking ownership of the English language and using it in a self-affirming and powerful way.  Still, she's probably not ever going to get a blatant misogynist to use the term.  But then, at this time, in this culture, that misogynist also lacks the power to make her NOT use the term.  And that, my friend, is the real sign of progress--the one I'm fighting for.

Anyhow, since it has been years since I'd read or discussed any of the aforementioned arguments for changing "women" to "womyn", I took the time to do a bit of brushing up.  Below are a few excerpts that I found useful in understanding the argument--and I have pulled heavily from them in my discussion of this above.

----------------------

Woman as "lesser than" man
The lives of women throughout history have been less well recorded than those of men.  The reasons for this are myriad and have been well argued by historians of women.  Sexism must be attributed with the lion's share of responsibility for this silence, but a long tradition of a lack of regard for the social history of everyday life must also be held accountable. (Gerda Lerner, "Reconceptualizing Differences among Women," in "Feminist Frameworks: Alternative Theoretical Accounts of the Relations between Women and Men", New York: McGraw Hill, 1993)

Theoretical distinctions notwithstanding, practical social distinctions were made between women and men in the ancient world.  Each had clearly defined appropriate social roles in the world of everyday life.  Flesh-and-blood women (as opposed to goddesses) in classical Greece and Rome were considered to be profoundly inferior to men.  Aristotle, for instance, wrote in the fourth century B.C.E. that it is a permanent and unchangeable state of affairs that "the male is by nature superior, and the female inferior; and the one rules and the other is ruled."  Women were protected and cared for within the family, but they had no formal power in the larger society.  Women were ruled first by their fathers, later by their husbands or older brothers, and eventually by their sons.  Their socially prescribed reason for existence was the production of children and the keeping of the household for the paterfamilias.  Few women were ever allowed to run their own lives.  (Holly Devor, "FTM: Female-to-Male Transsexuals in Society", Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1997).

These gendered values and belief systems of the Greeks and Romans stood as the basis for Western European cultural values throughout the dark ages and for several hundred years beyond. 

Additionally, Thomas Laqueur argues that from antiquity until the eighteenth century there was really only one sex but that the number of genders varied through the centuries.  That one sex, of course, was male.  Females were seen as essentially males who lacked sufficient "vital heat" to cause their reproductive organs to become external to their bodies... Sex changes could be wrought by miracles performed by saints.  Note, however, that all such transformations always proceeded from female to male, or, in the parlance of the time, from less to more perfectly developed.  (Thomas Laqueur, "Making Sex: Body and Gender from the Greeks to Freud", Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990)

Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis
In linguistics, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis (SWH) (also known as the "linguistic relativity hypothesis") postulates a systematic relationship between the grammatical categories of the language a person speaks and how that person both understands the world and behaves in it... The hypothesis postulates that a particular language's nature influences the habitual thought of its speakers: that different language patterns yield different patterns of thought. This idea challenges the possibility of perfectly representing the world with language, because it implies that the mechanisms of any language condition the thoughts of its speaker community. ("Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis", Wikipedia, 2008)

Womyn
Feminists who prefer to use [the terms "womon/womyn/womin"] feel that the terms "woman/women" relate to the historical and ongoing social subordination of women, since the word "man" is seen as an exclusively male term, implying that women are a subset of men, or a deviation from the norm. Those who argue in favour of the terms "womon/womyn/womin" contend that they have the right to choose how a term referring to them is spelled, rather than be compelled to use words that evolved in what they see as a patriarchal society. Some feminists further argue that "womyn" is based on a medieval spelling of the word, and that returning to the old model of waeman and wyfman meaning man and woman, respectively, would be more egalitarian. Feminists in favor of the modification argue that language is a powerful tool that shapes the way people perceive their surroundings, and even how they understand gender and gender roles (see Sapir-Whorf hypothesis above). They also feel that the current form of the words does not value women. Therefore, some feminists see these changes as part of a movement to correct what they consider inherent biases in language.  ("Womyn", Wikipedia, 2008)

Well... I don't want to spend too much time on right now... it is our anniversary... so I'll write more later... but had to share this now:

Uh oh... I've been tagged.  Okay, TEN weird things or habits or little known facts about myself:

1. I went to college 3 times (2 times too many) and have a degree in Dramatic Literature with a Math minor, a degree in Communications with a Computer Science minor, and an MFA in Dramaturgy.  My dream job?  Housewife.  Second choice, college professor.  Yeah, I know it doesn't make sense. 

2. Ginger ale smells and tastes like soapy dishwater to me.  Always has, probably always will.  I have learned to tolerate the taste on the rare occasions that it was the only thing available to slake my thirst--but generally speaking I can't stand the stuff.

3. Despite the fact that I smoked cigarettes on and off for 15 years (I quit for good in 2004), I am afraid of fire.  Matches and lighters require an effort of will for me to light; and, in fact, I did not even learn how to light a match until I was in my teens.  This was particularly embarrassing for me during the brief stint I had in the Girl Scouts, as I was unable to light a campfire, or even a candle.

4.  My spouse and I share the same birthday though not the same birth year (I am 15 years older).  I'm definitely the Cancer of the pair of us--though we have established "second birthdays" that we don't share for each of us.  And it was definitely a sign we were meant to be together.

5. I was born a month prematurely... I was supposed to arrive on my father's birthday (August 24) but arrived July 21st instead.  My family has long joked that this was because I didn't want to share his birthday... but I think perhaps it was because I wished to share someone else's. ;->

6. From 1991 until 2002, I played a character called Elspeth Cora Cameron d'Verai in a live-action fantasy RPG called "The Realms".  A priestess of the Goddess of Balance and of the Dark God Asmodeus, she performed many rites and rituals in their name (some to great effect)--causing many to consider her one of the most truly "evil" characters in the game.  For all her supposed darkness, she spent most of her time healing people and advocating tolerance for those of all religions and races (including demons, devils, drow, and the occasional part-dragon), her lands becoming a haven to many of those then present in the Realms.  In 1993 she became a Princess in that game after having 120 different player-characters swear fealty to her.  (She, in turn, swore fealty to her brother, Taithan, who with about twice that number was considered a King). 

7. I'm so afraid of snakes, that the first few times we visited Zoo Creatures, I had to run out of the store and go sit in the car.  Despite this, I still ended up getting a snake as a present for my spouse's "second birthday."

8. I can tat lace and generally love hand-sewing and cross-stitch (though I wish I was better at these).  It's the domestic in me, I think. 

9. My birth year is the same as my zip code.

10. I have a son who is now 13 years old.  I gave him up for adoption to one of my relatives, but I still get to see him occasionally.  The last time was this past Halloween when he flew out here for a brief visit.  I sometimes think he scares my spouse, because he once dressed up as Harry Potter and looked very convincing in that role.