There is, of course, the question whether the phrase "male discourse
community" is an example of thought at all.

I do not equate jargon of any kind with serious scholarship.  And you've
heard of the expression, the blind leading the blind?  No?  :-)

Ask away.  But the problem with "offensive jargon" is not that big words are
involved.  I can swap "epistemology," "ontology," "substance and accidents,"
"modal diversities of meaning," "intentional relations of identity,"
"transcendentals of meaningfulness," "categories of understanding," and such
like things with anybody, but what I want to see behind such terminology is
thought.  Too often, however, the use of such phraseology is a mask.  That's
especially true with gender terminology--as in "male discourse community,"
given by Wonham (if he has been accurately represented).  There is a note of
currently fashionable deconstructionism about it, as if Twain's writings and
thought can be dismissed because he represents a ________-centric bias (fill
in the blank), or because he was tacitly affirming gender superiority, etc.,
etc., ad nauseum.

If that's not what the phrase meant, then my mistake.

But if anyone's going to defend jargon, they'd better go back and read Twain
again. :-)

Speaking of which, I think Twain's "In Defense of Harriet Shelley" is one of
the best literary essays I've ever read.

See ya'll,

Vern