I confess to being surprised at Roger Backhouse's amazement at the use 
of "founding father."  I always tell my students to remember that 
language has changed from the past.  When I read to them "Economics is 
the study of man in his ordinary business of life" from Alfred Marshall, 
I add that "man" is supposed to stand for humankind.  Sometimes I 
rephrase the statement as "the study of people in their ordinary 
business of life."

I think I would encourage any student who takes offense at the "sexist" 
language of the past to pay more attention to the logic of economic 
analysis and lighten up!

James Ahiakpor

Roger Backhouse wrote:
> What amazes me about this discussion is that there has been no comment
> on whether it is appropriate to use such gendered language. Am I the
> only teacher who, when students use the phrase "founding father", asks
> them to reflect both on whether economics really had a founder and on
> the implication that such a founder must have been male. If a student
> proceeded to offer a feminist critique of Smith's economics,
> presumably such language would be entirely justified, but in my
> experience that never happens.
>
> I realise that for Americans the phrase "founding father" has
> particular resonance, but I am not convinced that this justifies using
> it without reflection on its implications.
>
> Roger Backhouse
>
> On 4 April 2011 02:22, Alexander Guerrero<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>    
>> One the most common mistakes in understanding A Smith’s role as “founding
>> father” of economics is failing to  (read) understand The Theory of Moral
>> Sentiments, before reading The W of N.
>>
>> AG
>>
>> Economist, PhD.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>