Melissa at Proffitt.com
Wed Dec 3 20:16:57 EST 2003
On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 17:44:26 -0700, Robyn Starkey wrote:
>>I've mostly seen it in contemporaries of Nesbit (and earlier) but only in a
>>general sense--I can't cite many examples. What I've seen most often is
>>referring to an infant as "it," not so much older children. I don't know
>>why that is.
>It goes back to medieval conceptions of gender (as a part of a person's
>identity, not the physiology) as something that only develops as children
>move into adulthood. Shakespeare refers to children as "it" most of the
>time, too. I think when the usage rolled back to infants it was following
>an idea that infants don't really have gender in terms of social identity.
This makes sense in terms of the instances I can remember. The mental
picture that comes up with it is how kids male and female were always
dressed in those long gowns--and, for that matter, babies don't generally
look male or female.
>>who calls all her kids "you there"
>>on the assumption that they know who they are
>And they do, too.
They do if they want dinner.
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/
More information about the Dwj