It’s good to know that modern-day feminists’ battles have not been waged without success. The feminists can claim victory on at least one front: the realm of the pronoun.

It seems that the generic “he” has fallen into disfavor. It used to be considered normal and proper to use the words “he” and “his” in reference to a person of unidentified gender (e.g., “a writer must consider his audience”), but the practice is now condemned as sexist and is to be avoided at all costs, at least in the sphere of academia.

For example, one of my economics textbooks uses the pronoun “she” exclusively, and the author even includes an explanation of no fewer than 300 words, expounding on the latent sexism present in the use of the generic “he.” Most scholarly journals employ “he or she” and “his or her.”

However, I have seen one journal article concerning the appearance of official impropriety in which the author employed the pronoun “he,” with the following caveat embedded in footnote six: “I shall, throughout, use the masculine pronoun, although not for stylistic but, rather, for substantive reasons: the vast majority of appearance-transgressors are men.”

Even my beloved grammar manual has kept up with the newest trends. Under the heading “Sexist language,” the manual cautions “[Sexist language] arises from stereotypical thinking, from traditional pronoun use, and from words used to refer indefinitely to both sexes.”

Following these words of wisdom are suggestions for avoiding the pronouns “he” and “him” and a list of inappropriate “Man words,” such as mankind, mailman, to man (a machine), and weatherman. (Strangely enough, the grammar manual does not condemn the use of the word “manual” in its own title.)

Who even cares? you ask. Some people do … a lot. Parks Library has at least a dozen books devoted to the topic, including “The Non-Sexist Communicator: Solving the Problems of Gender and Awkwardness in Modern English,” “Pronoun Envy: Literary Uses of Linguistic Gender,” and “All Men and Both Sexes: Gender, Politics and the False Universal in England, 1640-1832.” Not books that are at the top of my must-read list, but I guess that one man’s (or woman’s) trash is another man’s (or woman’s) treasure.

Unfortunately, all of the angst generated by the pronoun skirmishes is of little use in elevating the status of women in society. It seems to be a replay of the “boy (or girl) who cried ‘wolf'” tale. Could it be that those who are so obsessed with finding offense in commonplace monosyllables will not be taken seriously when they decry the most critical problems facing women — abuse, abandonment and rape?

Furthermore, the attempt to eradicate the generic “he” seems to reinforce more stereotypes than it dispels.

Specifically, it bolsters the false notions that women read too much into things, that they are nitpicky, and that their self-esteems are teetering on the brink of collapse. It seems to magnify the differences between the sexes instead of rendering them irrelevant, and it turns every pronoun into an opportunity to oppress or to be oppressed.

It wasn’t always like this. It used to be acceptable to write “he,” and people could understand from the context whether the writer meant “he” or “he or she.” Writers didn’t necessarily use “he” because of chauvinism or hostility toward women, or, in the case of female writers, self-hate.

It was less awkward than using “he or she” and less constrained than rewriting sentences in plural. “He” was understood to be the generic form as well as the masculine form, similar to the way “goose” is the generic and the feminine form and “gander” is only masculine.

In light of this, I urge you to resist jumping to conclusions about the author’s motives when you encounter a pronoun not to your liking. And in regard to your own pronoun use, I say “to each his (or her) own.”