No, reality is the point. Should we ban the use of the word history because it contains his and not hers? Of course not, that would be ignorant. Giving in to ignorance is not a recipe for success.
> This cuts both ways too: I once dated a woman who objected to the use
> of the word "hysterical" because of its sexist etymology. Her
> position was basically that sordid etymology -- I suppose via some
> mystical process -- irrevocably pollutes certain words. That struck
> me as beyond-flakey -- I'd never associated hysteria with women until
> she brought the etymology to my attention. The vast majority of
> people today don't have any idea what the history of the word is, so
> people in the know should feel free to use it, IMO.
>
> -WD
She was correct. Hysterical has a sexist etymology. That some people are unaware of its historical reality is of no importance. Words with a historical reality of sexism or racism should be frowned upon irrespective of how many people are unaware of that history. Your ignorance of the etymology of hysteria hardly supports the idea that we should keep the word. What about the tens of thousands of women who know its etymology and object to its continued use? They apparently count less than what a white male thinks. What percentage strikes you as the cutoff point? 25% of the population with the correct knowledge? 75%? Should gender and/or race be consideration? Should it be that if white males find it objectionable then we will label it as so and thus keep hysteria? What matters is the actual etymology of the word except in perhaps the most highly unusual of circumstances. I don't care if niggardly goes away it is of no great loss when compared to the anguish the word causes but that is a highly unusual word since it actually contains the word n-word and so accidentally carries with it the poison white people have created. There aren't a large number of words like this that actually contain another word that has such venom. I can think of none and I bet you can't either. One exception to the idea that historical reality should be paramount over ignorant misconceptions is no excuse to discard a very good idea. Educating people is a better idea than giving in to ignorant misconceptions except in the most extreme case. Case is singular because I don't think you or anyone else can come up with something else as odd as niggardly. Shall we discard the word history because some ignorantly believe the "his" is related to male domination? Is this the type of ignorance you want us to give in to?
John Thornton