Regarding the Male Noun and Pronoun.

OFTEN it is necessary in writing upon any particular matter to make reference to the individualised perception. In music, in painting, in novels, or in any thing which produces an effect upon a subject, it is appropriate to dilate on the human experience. Whenever I do so I invariably say ‘a man is’ such and such, ‘man is the measure of all things’, ‘mankind are of a certain nature’, and so forth. In doing so I mean the animal. The original meaning of man in old English was of the species, as in the case of a dog; a human being. A male dog is a dog and a female dog is also a dog, so it is with man. Though it sounds odd to modern ears, man may mean a male or a female human being. The words in old English which we now commonly designate as man and woman were were and wyf. The latter word of course is now the term for a married woman, but in olden times was prefixed to man and made wyfman, from which came the word woman.

    In the attempt to write anything pleasing there is always the critical ear passing judgement on the melody of words. If too many mechanical syllables are piled upon each other the meaning will be given an unfavourable hearing. So it is the duty of anyone with the courage of his conviction to make a piece of writing as audibly pleasing as possible. It is for this reason that I prevent myself, whenever I wish to make reference to the individual, from saying a person or a human being has his or her opinions, he or she is persuaded of their thoughts perhaps due to wisdom or perhaps due to bias, because I regard those words as mechanical and not half so rich as man. I choose not to lose its original meaning. As for the pronouns, I elect to use only one, and that the masculine, as a grammatical error is incurred in using both. Thus in the sentence above, ‘he or she is persuaded of their thoughts’, a singular collides with a plural. If I were to forever write, he or she is persuaded of his or her thoughts, such a rigmarole would become almost unbearable before long.

    Furthermore, if I am to choose one pronoun it must be the male pronoun because the female pronoun is to my mind specific, whereas the male pronoun is universal. There are no politics at play in such a standard, it is simply the most correct and precedented practice. The same standard is followed in Hansard as well. It is a matter of grammar, although not often carried into English. The romantic languages have genders for their nouns, and it so happens that the female words always seem to have some delicacy to categorise them, as in the instances of flower, beauty, and grace. Also in English, a nation, a boat, or any particularly prized possession, is referred to by the feminine gender. It is natural that such words are more closely in line with the notion of the feminine, but then it must be admitted that the feminine cannot be universal, as gold, silver, diamonds, and rubies, are not universal. It is also for this reason that I prefer the male pronoun for God, not because He is a man but because He is all encompassing. Some might object and say, well if that is your case, remove gender altogether from the question and call God it or that. I think many, however, would agree with me that such words in their impersonality detract rather than enhance this greatest and most venerable of words.