Gender Pronouns

[Solaris]

The discussion was basically running in circles, but it's always fun to watch people on the internet arguing. Thus far, the two sides are pretty much saying "'He' as a gender-neutral pronoun is sexist!" and "No it's not!"
I apologize to newcomers if the thread begins rather abruptly, as I'm picking it up from the GM's Girlfriend thread over in Roleplaying Games.


I did not say I cared. I argued a point, that does not make it my position by default.

Then why, in the name of all that is holy, argue the point?


I am not trying to "change someone else's behavior". I am stating a fact which I have given a logical reason for, and said if he wishes to dispute said facts, the burden of proof is on him to show how they are not correct.

And, like the man said, they're asking you to point us in the direction of some proof to back up your claim. These reputable etymologists you claim, a language that has female-dominated culture and a feminine gender-neutral pronoun, anything. If you can't cite a source, then stop claiming you have one.
Then realize that, under the scientific method, it is only a theory. Without being proven beyond a doubt, it is not fact. Everything is as yet open for discussion. An 'expert' can claim anything he wants, but unless he backs it up then I no more have to believe him than I have to believe you or anyone else.

Frankly, I think claiming 'He' leads to sexism is simultaneously putting the cart before the horse and kinda... well, illogical. The male-dominated society was around long before the use of 'He' as the gender-neutral pronoun, hence the cart and horse analogy. Claiming it's sexist is only slightly less demented than claiming the word 'woman' ought to be spelled 'womyn' and the word 'history' is misogynistic.
'He', being used only in situations where the gender of the individual discussed is unknown and 'It' is inappropriate, has become so diluted as to have just about the same meaning as 'It' when used in that situation. Did it start off sexist? Entirely possible. Is it now? Dubious at best.

[Zen Monkey]

Use of 'he' as gender-neutral is technically incorrect, but not sexist.

It's incorrect because there isn't really a correct term. 'He' doesn't cover enough, and 'they' is techincally plural. However, 'they' as singular is getting a lot more use. 'He/she' is not a word, but a modern combination, real words don't tend to have a '/' as a character in their spelling. The most techincally correct form would probably be to use 'him or her,' 'he or she,' and 'his or her' but when used repeatedly it makes for really awkward structure.

Sexism implies a set of beliefs, like most other -isms. Using a gender specific pronoun in a case where English comes up a little short does not mean that you believe women to be inferior to men.

[BisectedBrioche]

Strictly speaking, it isn't incorrect to use "he" in a gender neutral manner. Both the modern word and the old English word from which it derives can be used to describe something of unknown gender (they derive from words which meant "this" or "here" in a completly gender neutral manner.

[Mando Knight]

Use of 'he' as gender-neutral is technically incorrect, but not sexist.

It's incorrect because there isn't really a correct term.It was the correct term for hundreds of years in English, just like "man" could mean both "male human" or "the human race." I'm pretty sure it's only modern insistence that it's a sexist idea that knocked the neutral sense out of modern grammar books and dictionaries.
'He' doesn't cover enough, and 'they' is techincally plural. However, 'they' as singular is getting a lot more use. 'He/she' is not a word, but a modern combination, real words don't tend to have a '/' as a character in their spelling. The most techincally correct form would probably be to use 'him or her,' 'he or she,' and 'his or her' but when used repeatedly it makes for really awkward structure.
The singular "they" was also used by Chaucer and Shakespeare, before most modern grammar books were written.

In the end, I prefer people to use existing pronouns (not inventing ones like "zhe" or "hir" or whatever), and to make the words make sense through their context. If I use a universal he or a singular they, it should be clear to the audience as to what I mean. I shouldn't need to clarify it, or use some kind of awkward new wording, or whatever. It should be clear from the context.

[Capt Spanner]

I'm with he/she/they in the singular.

About three years ago, I lived with someone who was undergoing a sex change, and they spent several months with no gender identity, and asked for gender neutral pronouns to be used to describe them.

We all found that they/them was the simplest way - it never caused confusion, and had the bonus of not advertising gender neutrality (due to their parents' reaction they felt very ashamed of their situation at the time).

[deuxhero]

Personally I use
They - Hypothetical person
"V", "hir" - Known person of unknown gender.

[Castaras]

"They" is the common one I hear and use. While not technically correct, it's better than he/she or using the weird names people have made up to replace he/she.

[Beholder1995]

I agree with the sentiment that using "he" as a gender neutral pronoun is not sexist. While perhaps "he or she", etc. may be more appropriate, I understand that most (romance) languages accept otherwise masculine pronouns to be gender neutral. Although perhaps not a hard-and-fast rule in English, this person certainly wasn't unjustified in assuming that this is the case.

[Maerok]

I pretty much use "they" or "their" as first person as well as third. I get caught up in "he" vs. "she". Even when writing in the homebrew thread, I try to either reiterate the name of the class or use they instead of he or she (though a lot of classes are given a gender based on the picture).

[Flickerdart]

English is just a really bad language. In Russian, everything has one of three genders (and if the object can be gendered, each kind has a word of its own most of the time). Nobody complains about things like this. In English, you have to use silly pronouns like "one" or singular "they" to honour political correctness, which itself is ridiculous. It's like a many layered cake, except instead of a cake it's the Abyss, and every layer is the Far Realms.

[thubby]

I usually default to he, because it's what I'm comfortable with (probably because im a guy, making it easier to relate to them), but I just had a thought.

machines and other fabrications are usually female, where "he" is usually used for unknown people. i could see an argument for that social norm being sexist.

[Solaris]

machines and other fabrications are usually female, where "he" is usually used for unknown people. i could see an argument for that social norm being sexist.

Only if it's something you love. My howitzer's a female (despite being some seriously blatant 'fertility' imagery), my truck's a female, my TV's an it.

[Syka]

Academically, I will use "one", such as if I'm writing a class paper. Very, VERY rarely I'll use "he/she".

Colloquially, like on the boards, I use "they". I've been scolded way too many times by teachers for using "they" in an academic paper to EVER use it again.

I can't remember ever using exclusively "he" or "she" unless gender was specifically identified for the person in question.


In this respect, I miss Latin and Greek. Having a gender neutral pronoun is nice (plus it's called the neuter in Latin, which leads to endless juvenile amusement).

Heck, I even use "it" in certain situations that are not board appropriate (it skirts the rules).

[Deca]

It's like a many layered cake, except instead of a cake it's the Abyss, and every layer is the Far Realms.

Consider that sigged.

I don't particulary think it's sexist to use 'he'. As previous posters have said, to be sexist, one must actually say something derogatory or insulting to/about women. An incorrect pronoun hardly fits this description.

[Escef]

Then realize that, under the scientific method, it is only a theory. Without being proven beyond a doubt, it is not fact.

No, it isn't. Theories are tested and generally accepted. What you have here is called a hypothesis.

[Coidzor]

"hir" - Known person of unknown gender.

Then you're just making homophones and pronunciation confusion more muddled.

And "ze" sounds like you're using a caricature of a german accent.

[Winter_Wolf]

According to my understanding of this endless debate, I have the choice between using 'they' and offending grammar nazis or using 'he' and offending PC nazis. As far as I'm concerned, making up a word for the sake of gender neutrality is dumb; if we're doing that, then I propose that we propagate the gender neutral term 'slab'.

It's certainly a lot more work than, say, expanding the definition of 'they' to be both singular and plural. I'd like to point to another word in the English language which has gone this route: 'you'. At some point we dropped the use of words like 'thee' or 'thou' or whatever was the singular form of 'you' in ye Olde English. Academically, I've been told by all of my female professors to use 'he' instead of 'they' when they bother to ding me for it. That includes the English Comp professor.

Completely unrelated, but I'd like to see a movement to get the letter thorn reinstated in English. It's still common use in Icelandic, but I'm not and don't speak it, so I miss out on that and a few other cool looking letters we lack. This is thorn, with and without caps: Þ,þ

[Recaiden]

@Coidzor: You could pronounce it like his, but with an 'r'. It sounds distinct.

Personally, I love making up pronouns, but I doubt it will be a workable solution.

Failing that, I like the singular 'they', even when referring to people of a known gender.

[Mando Knight]

I'd like to point to another word in the English language which has gone this route: 'you'. At some point we dropped the use of words like 'thee' or 'thou' or whatever was the singular form of 'you' in ye Olde English.
Fact: Thee, thou, and thy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou) were actually the more informal pronouns in ye olden days of yore. Ye, you, etc. were the rough equivalent of the German sie or the Spanish usted, as apposed to thou, du, and tu.

[Je dit Viola]

@Coidzor: You could pronounce it like his, but with an 'r'. It sounds distinct.

Personally, I love making up pronouns, but I doubt it will be a workable solution.

Failing that, I like the singular 'they', even when referring to people of a known gender.

Oh. You're completely different than me, Recaiden, then.

I love making up words, but I've never made up a pronoun. I always use "He" when I don't know who I'm talking about, and I use "She" when I forget how to speak English, even when I am talking about guys. And for random objects, I, for some strange reason, use either 'he' or 'she', depending on which mood I'm in.

[Capt Spanner]

Another gender neutral pronoun I've found useful is 'e. In my British accent it sounds reasonably natural way of pronouncing "he", but also "she".

[Mando Knight]

And for random objects, I, for some strange reason, use either 'he' or 'she', depending on which mood I'm in.

Everyone does that, methinks. Mostly for objects one is fond of.

[THAC0]

@Coidzor: You could pronounce it like his, but with an 'r'. It sounds distinct.


I've just sat her for the past five minutes trying to twist my tongue into this with little success, unless it's supposed to sound kinda like "hair." :smallannoyed:

[Fuzzie Fuzz]

I use 'they,' myself. It was actually socially acceptable up until around 100 years ago, and now it's becoming used again.

(Fun fact: 'man' actually originally meant 'human,' if you look at the etymology. 'Wer' was male, and 'wo' (or something similar) was female.)

EDIT: I will also use 'one' in an academic context, as Syka does.

[Serpentine]

I've gotten into trouble for using a singular "they" in an academic paper, but in the absense of a singular "they", it's the one I like best.
If I do decide to use a gendered term for a generic or unknown personage, I tend to switch between "he" and "she", depending on mood. "He" tends to be neutral (and is safest to use in an assignment), but I dislike using it so - hurrah for male being default!
I also dislike the idea of using "ze" and the like. It's my understanding that it's not so much "gender neutral" as a "third gender", and as such defeats the purpose of using it int the context being discussed.

[potatocubed]

1. It is both gramatically correct to use a singular 'they' or a gender-neutral 'he'. The question, like so many things that people get worked up over, is not one of grammar but of style - which is to say, the largely arbitrary rules that people invent to cover the places where grammar offers no guidance.

2. I can't remember where I read it, but I recently saw a summary of the issue which basically said that no matter whether you use 'singular they', 'gender-neutral he' or one of the appalling neologisms, you're going to alienate some quantity of your potential readers. You just have to ask yourself which particular market segment you care about least.

[Ravens_cry]

Spanish also uses the masculine default pronouns, using the masculine forms for mixed groups, if I remember correctly. English has also done so. Still, I can understand others aversion to this, and so I use 'they' and 'their' out of consideration and to avoid confusion.
Context, I hope, makes it clear I am not referring to groups when I do this.

[Superglucose]

It's incorrect because there isn't really a correct term.
Wrong.

'they' is techincally plural.
Incomplete.



The most techincally correct form would probably be to use 'him or her,' 'he or she,' and 'his or her' but when used repeatedly it makes for really awkward structure.
Wrong.



Sexism implies a set of beliefs, like most other -isms. Using a gender specific pronoun in a case where English comes up a little short does not mean that you believe women to be inferior to men.
You would be surprised at the remarkable number of people who claim this makes English a sexist language.

[Quincunx]

Wrong.
Wrong.

Incomplete.
Agreed.

Wrong.
Wrong twice.

You would be surprised at the remarkable number of people who claim this makes English a sexist language.
Again, wrong.

*****

Now for some substance to this post, there is an advantage to using "they" as a singular even and especially if it makes your listener's sense of grammar and/or style twitch: in American dialect, deliberately using less formal grammar (proving you can, and then dropping it) softens the tone of your writing and inserts unspoken deference. That can be useful for setting out an otherwise explosive topic--rephrase that to "This'll make this topic less explosive", for example.

[Fri]

This is why I kept saying that gender pronouns are stupid :smalltongue:. We don't have gender pronouns or gender anything and never thought that we're missing something.

[Dr. Bath]

I prefer 'it'.

[Cactuar_Tamer]

hrm. Well, I do think it is something which deserves at least a little attention and effort to change in society. Something can be sexist even if no one involved had any ill-will. Use of "he" as a 'gender neutral' pronoun, no matter how historically/grammatically correct, excludes women verbally from what is being discussed. There have been studies done about this, about the images people form when hearing things like 'Firemen' or 'Congressmen'. You might think it's ridiculous to say 'Firefighter' or 'Congressperson,' but the fact is it drastically effects the perception of gender with the listener, and it's the same with using 'he' for a gender neutral pronoun and 'men' to mean 'humanity.' Say whatever you want about tradition or grammatical correctness, the fact is the when subjects are described with these words, readers/listeners overwhelmingly percieve them as male.

I don't think it's a crazy level of pc-ness just to want to have more inclusiveness in general. Have you read any of the Exalted source books? You may have noticed how they alternate back and forth between using he and she, about every time there's a new paragraph. It really stood out to me. I think that's because you don't get that a lot. And it was nice. I really appreciated it. Other books, like the Earthdawn ones approach the issue by using the 'characters' 'the caster,' 'the wielder,' etc. In other words, actual gender-neutrality. I think I prefer Exalted's gender-inclusivity to actual neutrality.

That having been said, gender-inclusivity may not be a practical approach in a technical sense if you're writing something that isn't a source book. So in that case, I suppose I endorse 'they.' Grammarians will just have to get over it. Grammar evolves. The Singular They has been becoming more and more accepted since it's beginnings in the 15th century, and I'm nearly sure that I'll see it acknowledged as 'correct.' in my lifetime. It's already there as far as conversational English goes. I don't think I've ever actually heard anyone use 'he' in conversation to refer to more than one/an unspecified gender. That would just be weird.

/verbosity

[thubby]

hrm. Well, I do think it is something which deserves at least a little attention and effort to change in society. Something can be sexist even if no one involved had any ill-will. Use of "he" as a 'gender neutral' pronoun, no matter how historically/grammatically correct, excludes women verbally from what is being discussed. There have been studies done about this, about the images people form when hearing things like 'Firemen' or 'Congressmen'. You might think it's ridiculous to say 'Firefighter' or 'Congressperson,' but the fact is it drastically effects the perception of gender with the listener, and it's the same with using 'he' for a gender neutral pronoun and 'men' to mean 'humanity.' Say whatever you want about tradition or grammatical correctness, the fact is the when subjects are described with these words, readers/listeners overwhelmingly percieve them as male.

overwhelmingly, they are men, though. that probably has a lot more to do with people's perception.

take the gender neutral "soldier" or "doctor". people overwhelmingly perceive people in these professions as men. the vast majority of the people in those fields are men!

[Totally Guy]

Does anyone know where I can find a set of Hres and Hirs matching bath robes?:smalltongue: Both in grey.

[Serpentine]

It doesn't help those gender disparities to actually describe them as masculine jobs, though.
And I dispute your assumption that doctors are overwhelmingly male. My mum's a doctor, and at the uni medical centre I think about 3/4 of them are female. There might still be more men that women doctors, but that is steadily changing and I don't think it's overwhelmingly so.

[Totally Guy]

It's been a long time since I've heard Actor and Actress to distinguish gender. I think it's more common to see Actor used to describe either now.

There were a couple of female actors I knew that were a couple. They called themselves "thespians".

[Quincunx]

overwhelmingly, they are men, though. that probably has a lot more to do with people's perception.

take the gender neutral "soldier" or "doctor". people overwhelmingly perceive people in these professions as men. the vast majority of the people in those fields are men!

That your perception is wrong (see above re: doctors) encapsulates the problems with that argument much better than I could myself. :smalltongue:

[thubby]

That your perception is wrong (see above re: doctors) encapsulates the problems with that argument much better than I could myself. :smalltongue:

my information could be dated, but last i checked women were in the minority.
there was even a big deal about female dentists finally becoming a majority.

[Serpentine]

As above, re: the fact that it was considered a big deal that women were a majority.
There were a couple of female actors I knew that were a couple. They called themselves "thespians".A friend of mine (who occasionally referred to herself as "a gay man in a woman's body") wanted a t-shirt that said "Sorry, I'm a thespian."

[Hazyshade]

Cactuar_Tamer has beautifully expressed my opinions on the matter. I thoroughly agree that even if language is used in a rational way, it's still sexist if it reflects sexist gender contructions in society, and that isn't "PC gone mad" to stop and think about whether our ways of saying things are reinforcing stereotypes. "Politically correct" is just another term for "polite", after all...

Why do we even have separate pronouns for males and females? There's no inherent logic behind it - why not separate pronouns for white and black people, or able-bodied and disabled people?

I also agree that attempting to hold back the evolution of language by restricting the use of "they" to plural only, when in fact it's been functioning perfectly well as a non-gender-specific pronoun for centuries, is something the good folks at Language Log (http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/) would call "Prescriptivist Poppycock".

As you may have guessed, I'm in the "anything but he" camp. My first instinct is to use "he or she", "his or her" etc. They/their is acceptable too, and if all else fails, I'll subvert normal usage and use the feminine pronouns.

I often write about, and discuss in print, the game of chess. Chess, a mental sport in which all genders have a theoretically level playing field, has an issue in most parts of the world with a lack of female participation. I will go out of my way to avoid suggest that the default chess player is male.

If I'm talking about players in general, I'll go gender-neutral ("This rule change could affect a player who was unable to write down his or her moves").
If I'm referring to the players in a hypothetical game, such as when I'm discussing opening moves, I'll use her ("White has weakened her kingside unnecessarily with this move") and you can identify most of my edits to the Chess Opening Theory Wikibook by this practice.
If I'm referring to the players in an actual game, I'll use the pronouns appropriate to their genders. To use "she" when talking about a specific, male, player would be silly. But even this can get problematic: consider the sentence "Black will have good chances in the endgame, if [he/she] can survive the attack". Because I know that my readers are used to "he" being the generic pronoun in such situations, that sentence with "he" sounds like an hypothetical comment applying to some sort of God Of The Black Pieces. Whereas the same sentence with "she" makes it crystal clear that I'm talking about one specific female player - and apparently, in this case, calling into question her chess-playing ability.

It's that last kind of issue that makes me think, yes, English is still a sexist language, and this will only be changed if readers are repeatedly tripped up by slightly awkward (he or she, they) or subversive (default = female) usage, to the point where they stop expecting male to be the default option. Your English professor may call it bad style, I call it getting people's attention :smallcool:

[Ravens_cry]

As you may have guessed, I'm in the "anything but he" camp. My first instinct is to use "he or she", "his or her" etc. They/their is acceptable too, and if all else fails, I'll subvert normal usage and use the feminine pronouns.

If 'he' is sexist, then 'she' is just as sexist. :smallsigh:

[Cactuar_Tamer]

overwhelmingly, they are men, though. that probably has a lot more to do with people's perception.

take the gender neutral "soldier" or "doctor". people overwhelmingly perceive people in these professions as men. the vast majority of the people in those fields are men!

Just to clarify a little, as you seem to have misunderstood the sort of research I was describing. The methodology took that into consideration. Even given that 'doctor' is a primarily male profession, it is a word unmarked by gender, and such words elicited markedly different perceptions (that is to say, markedly less exclusionary) than gender-marked words such as fireman or policeman.



In Study 1, children (6- to 11-year-olds, N = 64) were asked directly if various job titles could be used for both men and women doing the job. In Study 2, children (6- to 10-year-olds, N = 51) were shown pictures of men and women engaged in job activities and asked which one(s) showed someone who could be called a(n)_. Titles were linguistically unmarked for gender (e.g., doctor), strongly marked (e.g., policeman), or weakly marked (e.g., postmaster). Marked titles were given in masculine and feminine forms. Findings reinforced past work showing that marked titles are exclusionary, revealed that some children harbor confusions about even unmarked titles, and demonstrated the mediating role of individual differences in attitudes

Emphasis is mine.

You can find the article here (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3696252). This article is just an example. I remember this one from college. I'm afraid I don't have access to JSTOR at the moment or I could provide more relevant data from the study. The abstract will have to do now, in any case. These studies take into consideration that some professions are traditionally male. Even so, the gender-marked words are significantly more likely to trigger gender-specific perceptions. Saying that the perceptions are due primarily to the conditions of the occupation itself is kind of hand-waving the issue. Words mean things.

A search of google scholar reveals many other articles along the same lines, as well.

[Lamech]

That your perception is wrong (see above re: doctors) encapsulates the problems with that argument much better than I could myself. :smalltongue:

http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/enrollmentgraduate/table28-enrllbyraceeth0209.pdf (http://www.aamc.org/data/facts/enrollmentgraduate/table28-enrllbyraceeth0209.pdf)

Slightly annoying to dig up, and its the closet I could get to actual doctor gender ratio. This just has enrollment rates and med school takes... a while. Also one sight I dug up said its med school was 56% female acceptance for 2007.

So from that I'm guessing that as of right now and perhaps for a while in the future doctoring will remain a male majority profession. Of course, that may change and also it isn't actually statistics of the number of doctors, so if you have better stats that would be appreciated. Also U.S. only.

[Syka]

It also depends what sort of practice.

It's apparently mostly male for surgery and internal medicine, and female for primary physician, etc.



Also, I'd just like to throw in, using she in place of he is no less sexist than using he as a catch-all. Which is why I tend toward the use of "one" instead of "he" or "she" in academic writing. One is also a sneaky way of getting around the fact you aren't supposed to use first or second person in academic writing. :smallwink:

Edited for new data.

[potatocubed]

Oh God, some of the linguistic atrocities I've seen perpetrated in the name of avoiding first-person descriptions in academic writing...

My favourite* was the paper written entirely in Silence of the Lambs voice: "It increased the voltage from x to y." "It observed the results." And so on.

I don't see why admitting that somebody did some work is considered such a bad thing. :smallconfused:

*And by 'favourite' I mean 'at least it was entertaining and not just teeth-grindingly aggravating'.

[_Zoot_]

I prefer 'it'.

I'm with you on this one...

[Hazyshade]

If 'he' is sexist, then 'she' is just as sexist. :smallsigh:

That's the easy way out of the debate, and I disagree. "He" is sexist in that it perpetuates the notion that male is the default. "She" is sexist only to the extent that the English language is sexist by making us choose one pronoun or the other in certain situations. Still sexist, if you insist, but not "just as sexist".

Without wishing to get into politics, one of the core tenets of feminism is that males have certain entrenched advantages, and that approaching situations in a gender-blind, "rational" way in fact leads to an unequal society because it does nothing to address those advantages. Language is a good example.

[snoopy13a]

take the gender neutral "soldier" or "doctor". people overwhelmingly perceive people in these professions as men. the vast majority of the people in those fields are men!

I believe physicians are still a male majority in the US but that would be due to sexism from 30 years ago. Today, US medical schools are roughly gender balanced so in the near future, there won't be a significant male majority.

[Ravens_cry]

That's the easy way out of the debate, and I disagree. "He" is sexist in that it perpetuates the notion that male is the default. "She" is sexist only to the extent that the English language is sexist by making us choose one pronoun or the other in certain situations. Still sexist, if you insist, but not "just as sexist".

Without wishing to get into politics, one of the core tenets of feminism is that males have certain entrenched advantages, and that approaching situations in a gender-blind, "rational" way in fact leads to an unequal society because it does nothing to address those advantages. Language is a good example.
Basically what I am reading from that is 'woman can be sexist, men can't'.
I am sorry, I disagree, A woman can consider the feminine gender to be superior and be just as sexist as any male chauvinist porcine resembler. Using the female as the default is just as wrong, even if it is nowhere near as common.
The way I see it, 'he' should be used for those who identify with the male gender and 'she' with those who identify with the female gender, either by biology or psychology. 'They' should be used in very specific situations. For someone who identifies themselves with neither gender or for the default pronoun. And, of course, for plural purposes.

[The Extinguisher]

According to my understanding of this endless debate, I have the choice between using 'they' and offending grammar nazis or using 'he' and offending PC nazis. As far as I'm concerned, making up a word for the sake of gender neutrality is dumb; if we're doing that, then I propose that we propagate the gender neutral term 'slab'.

It's certainly a lot more work than, say, expanding the definition of 'they' to be both singular and plural. I'd like to point to another word in the English language which has gone this route: 'you'. At some point we dropped the use of words like 'thee' or 'thou' or whatever was the singular form of 'you' in ye Olde English. Academically, I've been told by all of my female professors to use 'he' instead of 'they' when they bother to ding me for it. That includes the English Comp professor.

Completely unrelated, but I'd like to see a movement to get the letter thorn reinstated in English. It's still common use in Icelandic, but I'm not and don't speak it, so I miss out on that and a few other cool looking letters we lack. This is thorn, with and without caps: Þ,þ

I second all of your motions. However I would also like to add the use of the letter eth (Ð, ð) as well. Eth is roughly 26% more awesome then thorn is everyday use. Of course, there's the complicated bit in knowing when to use eth and when to use thorn, but I'm pretty sure we could get use to it.



As for gender neutral pronouns, I usually tend to just alternate between he and she when need be.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

I normally use 'he or she' and 'his or her' in speech, and rarely encounter these pronoun-based problems whilst writing. In any case, sexism is often a matter of perception rather than fact, as in these cases.

This is somewhat related to my usage of 'one' in order to avoid the ambiguity the word 'you' can sometimes present.

[Capt Spanner]

Using "he or she" or "his or her" when referring to an ambiguously gendered person will draw their ire. There is nothing wrong with "they" in the singular.

[Mando Knight]

Oh God, some of the linguistic atrocities I've seen perpetrated in the name of avoiding first-person descriptions in academic writing...

My favourite* was the paper written entirely in Silence of the Lambs voice: "It increased the voltage from x to y." "It observed the results." And so on.

I don't see why admitting that somebody did some work is considered such a bad thing. :smallconfused:

*And by 'favourite' I mean 'at least it was entertaining and not just teeth-grindingly aggravating'.

This is why academic writing is written in the passive voice.

"Voltage was increased from x to y." "The results were observed." It might make your old High School English teacher cringe, but that's the way most professional papers are written.

[Quincunx]

@/\: (CRINGE!) Not because you're wrong, mind you. . .

*****

The language is in balance. If there weren't latent sexism in using "he" as the default pronoun, there wouldn't be blatant sexism in using "she" as the default pronoun either. (The pronoun "he" lost its power to shock when used out of context/subtext/whatever-text much more quickly than "she" did. Does "he pinned up Robin's* glitter-and-macaroni portrait on the corkboard next to the class schedule" surprise you? It hasn't been too many years since that sentence would have been wrong, hippie, hairy, or yuppie.)

*My perception of "Robin" is that it's a unisex name which doesn't imply one gender more than the other, but I grew up in the middle of a bubble of male and unisex names being reclaimed for female use, so my perceptions are very skewed on this point.

*****


Oh God, some of the linguistic atrocities I've seen perpetrated in the name of avoiding first-person descriptions in academic writing...

My favourite was the paper written entirely in Silence of the Lambs voice: "It increased the voltage from x to y." "It observed the results." And so on.

At least that student didn't write in passive voice, eh? The English teachers drill it into ya for years not to use passive voice unless tortured, and then the science teachers spend years tightening the pipette screws until you cease to write in the active voice, repeating the mantra that chemical compounds have no will to alter themselves. . .


I don't see why admitting that somebody did some work is considered such a bad thing. :smallconfused:

Admitting that someone once did some work. . .in academia. Next thing you know, the readers of said papers might be expecting conclusions, and then. . .results! (shudder)

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

Robin is one of those names that, despite being unisex, I only think of as male, so I automatically assumed Robin was some kind of stage performer before you elaborated. :smalltongue:

[Quincunx]

Bah. There goes another name onto the list as Improperly Skewed towards Female Usage in my Mind.

[Mary Leathert]

I'm not a native English speaker, but I do study English as my major, and this issue has been discussed in some of our courses.

(Life's so much easier here in Finland, because our language is almost completely gender-neutral, expect for some specific words. But the pronouns are neutral.)

I personally do think that 'he' used when referring to an unknown or hypothetical subject is sexist. Not because of the word itself, as there are other cases where the same pronoun is used for two different things. (Second person singular and plural are identical.) My reasoning goes as follows: 'He' can also refer to an exclusively male person, and this is the default use of the pronoun. Thus, even if it is used in a way that is meant to be gender-neutral, there is a good chance that the person who reads or hears it will steer his/her thoughts towards a male when trying to form a picture of the discussed person in their mind.

I also think that this is related to the fact that 'male' is very often seen as the default, whether pronouns are used or not. Classic example would be newspaper titles which feel the need to mention if a person who did something is female, but if it is male, gender isn't mentioned. The pronouns help to reinforce the fact, if 'he' can mean both 'male' and 'neutral' (with the 'neutral' use being less common), but 'she' is automatically marked and can only refer to 'female'.

In connection to the non-gender-neutral words used for professions: It is true that these words originated when the people of that profession were only males. Then those gender-specific words were okay, as they described a fact. But these days, when there is the opportunity to take up about any profession regardless of gender, and many areas that were previously male-exclusive have become only male-dominant, these words do not describe an absolute fact anymore. Sure, there are more male firefighters than female, but the female firefighters exist. Using the word 'fireman' ignores this fact. And it actually encourages the stereotype. Children figuring out what they want to be when they grow up may rely on stereotypes encouraged by language.

The idea that language shapes the way we perceive the world is not uncommon one. If our language only had one word that meant both 'blue' and 'green', it could be that someone trying to teach us the difference between the two may fail, simple because we have always seen one colour where that other sees two, even though the world does not actually change according to the person seeing it. The language shapes the way we see things. And think about things.

[JonestheSpy]

Another vote for "they".

Using "he" as the generic is obviously sexist - not necessarily indicative of sexism on the part of the individual using the term, but of the culture that trains people to think of males as the default gender.

[BisectedBrioche]

Another vote for "they".

Using "he" as the generic is obviously sexist - not necessarily indicative of sexism on the part of the individual using the term, but of the culture that trains people to think of males as the default gender.


I'm not a native English speaker, but I do study English as my major, and this issue has been discussed in some of our courses.

(Life's so much easier here in Finland, because our language is almost completely gender-neutral, expect for some specific words. But the pronouns are neutral.)

I personally do think that 'he' used when referring to an unknown or hypothetical subject is sexist. Not because of the word itself, as there are other cases where the same pronoun is used for two different things. (Second person singular and plural are identical.) My reasoning goes as follows: 'He' can also refer to an exclusively male person, and this is the default use of the pronoun. Thus, even if it is used in a way that is meant to be gender-neutral, there is a good chance that the person who reads or hears it will steer his/her thoughts towards a male when trying to form a picture of the discussed person in their mind.

I also think that this is related to the fact that 'male' is very often seen as the default, whether pronouns are used or not. Classic example would be newspaper titles which feel the need to mention if a person who did something is female, but if it is male, gender isn't mentioned. The pronouns help to reinforce the fact, if 'he' can mean both 'male' and 'neutral' (with the 'neutral' use being less common), but 'she' is automatically marked and can only refer to 'female'.

In connection to the non-gender-neutral words used for professions: It is true that these words originated when the people of that profession were only males. Then those gender-specific words were okay, as they described a fact. But these days, when there is the opportunity to take up about any profession regardless of gender, and many areas that were previously male-exclusive have become only male-dominant, these words do not describe an absolute fact anymore. Sure, there are more male firefighters than female, but the female firefighters exist. Using the word 'fireman' ignores this fact. And it actually encourages the stereotype. Children figuring out what they want to be when they grow up may rely on stereotypes encouraged by language.

The idea that language shapes the way we perceive the world is not uncommon one. If our language only had one word that meant both 'blue' and 'green', it could be that someone trying to teach us the difference between the two may fail, simple because we have always seen one colour where that other sees two, even though the world does not actually change according to the person seeing it. The language shapes the way we see things. And think about things.

One thing you should keep in mind; the use of "he" as a gender specific pronoun is quite recent. It used to be gender neutral (as did the terms "man" and "woman", which is the way they're used in most proffesional terms) and one of many pronouns with identical meanings.

In fact, every time someone makes the "it implies that "male" is the default" argument it irritates me to the point where I'd like to tie them up and endlessly lecture them about how poor their research skills are politely correct them.

[Mary Leathert]

According to my lecture notes from The History of English course, the development of 3rd person singular pronouns in the nominative case (as listing all cases would be complicated) is the following:

Old English (c. 600-1100):(pronounced as is written)
Masculine: hee
Feminine: heeo (or hiie, hii, hiio)
Neuter: hit

Middle English (c. 1100-1500): (not sure about pronunciation, actually)
Masculine:hee
Feminine: shee, hoo, hyoo, hyee, hii, schoo, choo, hee
Neuter:hit/it

Early Modern English (c.1500-1800):
Masculine: he
Feminine:she
Neuter:(h)it

Modern English (1800->):
Masculine: he
Feminine: she
Neuter: it

Okay, I admit that there was some ambiguity earlier on, as there apparently wasn't any standard way to refer to females. But if my notes are correct, the distinction between 'he' and 'she' has applied for some time. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to apply exact dates to these things. The situation probably was quite different at the beginning and the end of the EMoDE period, and the table I used as a source doesn't give any more specific period then EModE.

The problem is that I cannot quite grasp how the fact that gender-specific 'he' is a recent phenomenon should affect the idea that using 'he' as a gender neutral implies "males as a default". If 'he' has been used as a gender-specific pronoun as long as any living person can remember (which I think is the case), it has had plenty of time to affect our perception of the word.
And continuing from this, as 'he' gained its exclusively-male meaning (for it certainly cannot be used for known females anymore), why should it retain its neutral meaning as well? The development might be recent, but it is quite well-established, so why shouldn't the change go further as the male-exclusive meaning of 'he' has gained ground. Even my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that the gender-neutral use of 'he' is "old-fashioned".

Looking at this from another direction (might or might not be directly related to the previous): If 'he' as a gender-specific is a (relatively) recent phenomenon, why did it develop at all? Why it is that the word that could previously be used for both males and females started to be used exclusively for males?

(But now I'm tired as it's 2 AM here. I'm going to blame this for everything incoherent I might have written in this post when I re-read it tomorrow.)

[Hazyshade]

Basically what I am reading from that is 'woman can be sexist, men can't.

I don't know how you're reading that, because I said nothing of the sort. Yes, anyone can be sexist, absolutely.


Using the female as the default is just as wrong, even if it is nowhere near as common.

Language evolves. There is no right and wrong in language, only personal preference. There are people who will try and tell you otherwise, and among several reasons to be skeptical of these people is the fact that, when "right" usage is defined by the consensus of a male-dominated society, it will end up serving the purposes of that male-dominated society.

If using female pronouns as the default is sexist, I'm happy to be sexist. If using female pronouns as the default is wrong, I'm happy to be wrong. All I care about is whether I'm working for or against the patriarchy.

[Recaiden]

That's the easy way out of the debate, and I disagree. "He" is sexist in that it perpetuates the notion that male is the default. "She" is sexist only to the extent that the English language is sexist by making us choose one pronoun or the other in certain situations. Still sexist, if you insist, but not "just as sexist".

Without wishing to get into politics, one of the core tenets of feminism is that males have certain entrenched advantages, and that approaching situations in a gender-blind, "rational" way in fact leads to an unequal society because it does nothing to address those advantages. Language is a good example.

She as a default is just as sexist, because it establishes or supports a new notion, that female is default. Though this is not the general assumption, it is still sexist. They both support the notion that you must choose one pronoun, and both are otherwise sexist in choosing one gender.

Here, you could remove the advantage by using neutral pronouns, rather than attempting to grant the advantage to female gender instead, which would be equally unfair. A new injustice is not the best solution to the previous one, if it is there.

[BisectedBrioche]

According to my lecture notes from The History of English course, the development of 3rd person singular pronouns in the nominative case (as listing all cases would be complicated) is the following:

Old English (c. 600-1100):(pronounced as is written)
Masculine: hee
Feminine: heeo (or hiie, hii, hiio)
Neuter: hit

Middle English (c. 1100-1500): (not sure about pronunciation, actually)
Masculine:hee
Feminine: shee, hoo, hyoo, hyee, hii, schoo, choo, hee
Neuter:hit/it

Early Modern English (c.1500-1800):
Masculine: he
Feminine:she
Neuter:(h)it

Modern English (1800->):
Masculine: he
Feminine: she
Neuter: it

Okay, I admit that there was some ambiguity earlier on, as there apparently wasn't any standard way to refer to females. But if my notes are correct, the distinction between 'he' and 'she' has applied for some time. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to apply exact dates to these things. The situation probably was quite different at the beginning and the end of the EMoDE period, and the table I used as a source doesn't give any more specific period then EModE.

I'm quite sure I heard something about "he" and "she" coming from a pool of gender neutral terms, at least in the sense of the words they were derived from. It's entirely possible that we're both right what you studied as that part of your course is a stripped down version (I find it strange that there would only be one word for "he" when there was so many for she, sexism or not).


The problem is that I cannot quite grasp how the fact that gender-specific 'he' is a recent phenomenon should affect the idea that using 'he' as a gender neutral implies "males as a default". If 'he' has been used as a gender-specific pronoun as long as any living person can remember (which I think is the case), it has had plenty of time to affect our perception of the word.
And continuing from this, as 'he' gained its exclusively-male meaning (for it certainly cannot be used for known females anymore), why should it retain its neutral meaning as well? The development might be recent, but it is quite well-established, so why shouldn't the change go further as the male-exclusive meaning of 'he' has gained ground. Even my Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary states that the gender-neutral use of 'he' is "old-fashioned".

If the gender specific meaning of the word is a recent innovation, then any use of it in its older context is simply using it as it was already used. The idea that using "he" as a gender neutral term is archaic (I'm surprised an Oxford dictionary didn't use that term :smalltongue:) is an extremely recent innovation which itself stems from the perception that it's sexist. This is basically begging the question (it's basically saying that it's old meaning isn't PC because of it's new meaning). I doubt Neil Armstrong meant to exclude women from the space age with his famous quote after all.


Looking at this from another direction (might or might not be directly related to the previous): If 'he' as a gender-specific is a (relatively) recent phenomenon, why did it develop at all? Why it is that the word that could previously be used for both males and females started to be used exclusively for males?

(But now I'm tired as it's 2 AM here. I'm going to blame this for everything incoherent I might have written in this post when I re-read it tomorrow.)

That's much more simple to answer; there were many different gender neutral terms. Eventually most of them fell out of use and the rest became gendered (e.g. were, man and woman were all gender neutral once. Now the former only exists as part of a few other words and the later two are gendered). Therefore it's no more sexist that he became exclusively male than she becoming exclusively female.

One more thing to ponder: so males get nothing in particular? Countries and ships are always given feminine pronouns?

There's nothing speacial or sexist about he's use as a gender neutral pronoun, it's just another meaning.

*It's 1 AM here as of posting, so I've probably made a rather incoherent argument myself...*

[Thufir]

She as a default is just as sexist, because it establishes or supports a new notion, that female is default. Though this is not the general assumption, it is still sexist. They both support the notion that you must choose one pronoun, and both are otherwise sexist in choosing one gender.

Here, you could remove the advantage by using neutral pronouns, rather than attempting to grant the advantage to female gender instead, which would be equally unfair. A new injustice is not the best solution to the previous one, if it is there.

I agree with this, basically. The best way is to simply stick to the gender neutral. Grant the advantage to neither.

[Serpentine]

One thing you should keep in mind; the use of "he" as a gender specific pronoun is quite recent. It used to be gender neutral (as did the terms "man" and "woman", which is the way they're used in most proffesional terms) and one of many pronouns with identical meanings.

In fact, every time someone makes the "it implies that "male" is the default" argument it irritates me to the point where I'd like to tie them up and endlessly lecture them about how poor their research skills are politely correct them.That it used to be neutral is absolutely irellevant. In current usage, it is not neutral. Therefore, its usage has non-neutral implications. It doesn't matter how people used to understand something when talking about current meaning. In fact, the fact (apparently) that "he" used to be neutral fundamentally undermines your argument, I believe: back then, male WAS, absolutely and undeniably, the default. "Mankind" and the like did, effectively, refer solely to men - not in opposition to women, but because women just tended not to matter.
Currently, "he" is considered essentially male. Therefore, the use of "he" as the supposedly "gender neutral" form is implying - conciously or not - that masculine is default. This adheres to various other situations in the wider social context that have been slowly but steadily, but not yet completely, erroded in the last few decades. This is something that should be changed, though it may not be high on the list of priorities.
Moreover, I would suggest that so long as "he" is generally considered the default, defaulting to "she" in opposition to this is perfectly legitimate and, if it is sexist - which I suppose, in a narrow sense, it is - is justifiably so (and NOT in a "women are superior!" way), if it evens out the obvious gender disparity to make the frequency of "he" and "she" more even.

By the by, it's my understanding that the prevailing thought is that 1984 was totally correct in its assertion that language determines thought, not the other way round.

[Sholos]

If using female pronouns as the default is sexist, I'm happy to be sexist. If using female pronouns as the default is wrong, I'm happy to be wrong. All I care about is whether I'm working for or against the patriarchy.

Why do you consider the patriarchy a bad thing? Why do you think a matriarchy would be any better? Why do you oppose without reason?

[Serpentine]

Opposing a patriarchy does not necessarily mean proposing a matriarchy. So, why do you think it does? Why do you apparently think a patriarchy is a good thing? Why do you support without justification?
Personally - and I suspect she, too - wants a... whatever neither patriarchy or matriarchy is. A civilisations founded on individual merit and respect in which sex is largely irelevant. But, when society has been pulling so hard in one direction for so long, is it really surprising - or unjust - that it should spring too far the other way?

By the way, the main difference between chimpanzees and bonobos is that the former is a patriarchy and the latter a matriarchy. The former is dominated by violence, rape and infanticide, while the latter uses sex to solve all its problems.
:smallamused:

[Pyrian]

Well, then, count me in for the matriarchy! :smallcool: ...At least as long as I'm bribed with sex, anyway.

[Recaiden]

Personally - and I suspect she, too - wants a... whatever neither patriarchy or matriarchy is. A civilisations founded on individual merit and respect in which sex is largely irelevant. But, when society has been pulling so hard in one direction for so long, is it really surprising - or unjust - that it should spring too far the other way?

By the way, the main difference between chimpanzees and bonobos is that the former is a patriarchy and the latter a matriarchy. The former is dominated by violence, rape and infanticide, while the latter uses sex to solve all its problems.
:smallamused:

It's not surprising, but it is still unjust. A lack of either, now, would be just.

And is that really what you consider the main difference? :smallconfused:

[thubby]

i wonder.
if we were a matriarchy, would the paradigm shift to women chasing after desirable men?

[JonestheSpy]

As has been pointed out, Shakespeare and others used "they" as the gender-neutral pronoun - and also used "he" referring to men.

The idea that the shift to "he" meaning people in general wasn't based in sexism seems willfully disingenuous, imo.

[Serpentine]

And is that really what you consider the main difference? :smallconfused:It's my understanding that that's the driving force of their speciation, yes. The driving force of that is believed to be (not sure whether that's "we know this is it" or "it's hypothesised that this is it) a difference in climate conditions. Something along the lines of, chimpanzees had to go up into the trees in search of food. This separated the females, stunting their ability to socialise and unite against the stronger males, and making them vulnerable to abuse by males. As a result, the males are in charge, and can basically do with the females as they like - which is often pretty nasty. Female chimps will often sleep around, just to make it less likely that the males will kill their offspring - it could be anyone's, and they're less likely to kill their own. Chimp sex is often basically rape, they're known to have full-on wars with other groups, and so on.
Bonobos, on the other hand, could forage on the ground, in a more social context. The females formed closer bonds, and were a united front against any male that attempted something untoward. Females backed each other up, and came to dominate the society. I haven't heard of any bonobo "war" or infanticide; they use sex ubiquitously as a social interaction, to solve disputes, to celebrate, to calm emotions, and so on; and, to give a more specific example, one experiment found that bonobos are much better at cooperation than chimpanzees.
All because of a change in the weather... And all, nowadays, because the women are in charge.

And speaking in big terms, not on an individual basis (and not as something I think should be in everyday practice), I don't think it's unjust if women get a couple of decades of being "on top", after millenia of being (sometimes literally) second-class citizens. I've seen no evidence to suggest that this is the case in any meaningful way, but I wouldn't begrudge womanity her chance to be in charge for a while.

[Recaiden]

I had not known this.
And it's incredibly depressing to know.
But I still feel it unjust for either gender to be in power over the other.
It has some fairness about it, to favor women, but it's not any more correct than having sexism against women.

[Serpentine]

I'd call it just, in an overarching sort of sense, but not fair - and also not desirable.

[Recaiden]

That I agree with. Because it's other things besides just.

[Mystic Muse]

English is just a really bad language. It's like a many layered cake, except instead of a cake it's the Abyss, and every layer is the Far Realms.

Mind if I quote this?

[Totally Guy]

If only there was a way to do something without telling Joe Public "you're doing it wrong".

People hate that. There's no faster way to get people to oppose it.

[potatocubed]

By the by, it's my understanding that the prevailing thought is that 1984 was totally correct in its assertion that language determines thought, not the other way round.

That's the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. While I believe it is generally accepted as true (any linguists want to correct me?) it is also understood to not be as absolute as all that: language and thought shape each other.

[Hazyshade]

She as a default is just as sexist, because it establishes or supports a new notion, that female is default. Though this is not the general assumption, it is still sexist. They both support the notion that you must choose one pronoun, and both are otherwise sexist in choosing one gender.

Here, you could remove the advantage by using neutral pronouns, rather than attempting to grant the advantage to female gender instead, which would be equally unfair.

If only it were that simple. The notion that male is default is ingrained in the collective consciousness of 7 billion people. (Note, collective consciousness, i.e. I don't care whether there are individual counterexamples because I'm talking in general terms.) It is not going to be turned on its head by one person using feminine pronouns. So when you look at it in context, I'm not attempting to grant the advantage to the female gender instead. I'm attempting to take as many tiny little chips out of the male gender's enormous advantage as I can.

I think of it as a bit like a shower that uses hot and cold taps. Right now, the shower is freezing cold (male-dominated). If you find yourself in a freezing cold shower, you don't just put up with it on the grounds that there is no "warm" or "just the right temperature" tap. Nor do you very gradually turn the hot tap on - because even though you've been standing in a freezing cold shower, you're scared of getting a shower that's even slightly too hot.

You jam that hot tap on as hard as you can, before you lose all feeling in your extremities, and worry about the fine adjustments later.

Thufir, and others: Yes, if my goal is to be as unambiguous as possible, I will gladly rephrase or use gender-neutral pronouns. But sometimes, I want to write in a way that doesn't sound like a legal document. English isn't designed for gender-neutral pronouns; they ruin the cadence of my sentences. I suspect the writer of Cactuar_Tamer's Exalted source books felt the same way. Basically, in the specific set of circumstances in which people use "he" to avoid using "he or she", I would rather use "she".

Also, you'd be amazed at how some people fail to see the wood for the trees when it comes to gender-neutral language. At work, I encounter various documents containing the words "[y] men, [x] hours". This is supposed to indicate to me that a job will take [y] technicians [x] hours to complete, but since almost all of these particular technicians are male, "[y] men" has become the standard abbreviation. This annoys the crap out of me, and from time to time I invite people to stop using that and instead write "[y] techs, [x] hours". Typical response? "Actually, in our area, they are all men, so it's technically correct." This annoys the crap out of me even more, because that was SO not my point. The implication is that those jobs MUST be done by male technicians, and that is WRONG.

The patriarchy operates in a collective way, through the cumulative effect of millions of small interactions, like our choice of language. If you look at one interaction in isolation, you can usually say "Actually, in that specific situation, there was a more important factor at work" - followed by dismissing the patriarchy as a myth. This suits the patriarchy fine.

Serpentine: "It doesn't matter how people used to understand something when talking about current meaning."

Epic agree.

"A civilisations founded on individual merit and respect in which sex is largely irelevant"

Definitely.

Glug: Joe Public. Joe Public. Think about it for a second. You have just beautifully encapsulated the patriarchy's shoulder-shrugging attitude to feminism. "If only we could be forced to change our ways... oh well, we can't, let's talk about something else."

[Totally Guy]

Glug: Joe Public. Joe Public. Think about it for a second. You have just beautifully encapsulated the patriarchy's shoulder-shrugging attitude to feminism. "If only we could be forced to change our ways... oh well, we can't, let's talk about something else."

So you're telling me, "You're doing it wrong."? :smallwink:

:smallamused:

:smalltongue:

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

I have the solution.
http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq207/RufusChamberlain/67725426.jpg
:P

[fknm]

Nor do you very gradually turn the hot tap on - because even though you've been standing in a freezing cold shower, you're scared of getting a shower that's even slightly too hot.

Actually, this is exactly what I do.

[Thufir]

I think of it as a bit like a shower that uses hot and cold taps. Right now, the shower is freezing cold (male-dominated). If you find yourself in a freezing cold shower, you don't just put up with it on the grounds that there is no "warm" or "just the right temperature" tap. Nor do you very gradually turn the hot tap on - because even though you've been standing in a freezing cold shower, you're scared of getting a shower that's even slightly too hot.

This is a poor analogy, because we have gender neutral pronouns, which are essentially the 'warm/just right' tap which does not exist in the shower.


Thufir, and others: Yes, if my goal is to be as unambiguous as possible, I will gladly rephrase or use gender-neutral pronouns. But sometimes, I want to write in a way that doesn't sound like a legal document. English isn't designed for gender-neutral pronouns; they ruin the cadence of my sentences. I suspect the writer of Cactuar_Tamer's Exalted source books felt the same way. Basically, in the specific set of circumstances in which people use "he" to avoid using "he or she", I would rather use "she".

And I would use 'they'. Simple, one word, doesn't make you sound like a legal document.

[Hazyshade]

So you're telling me, "You're doing it wrong."?

Doing what wrong?

Assuming you're talking about your use of gender pronouns, since that's what this thread is about:

Like I already said, when it comes to language use there's no right or wrong, there is no Federal Bureau of Correct Language, there is only personal belief, although some personal beliefs serve the interests of the patriarchy and should therefore, in my opinion, be challenged.

EDIT - It's an analogy folks, take it or leave it, I'm not gonna bother defending it. It probably applies better to society in general than to gender pronouns.

[Mando Knight]

there is only personal belief, although some personal beliefs serve the interests of the patriarchy and should therefore, in my opinion, be challenged.

And in my experience, the patriarchy that I have been under works quite fairly and well, thankyouverymuch. I see no reason to challenge it, and as challenging it would be challenging my own father, I would rise to defend the patriarchy with nary a second thought.

[Serpentine]

You mean the patriarchy that has disregarded the importance, even significance or equality, of women for thousands of years? Is that the patriarchy you're defending? Cuz it's already crumbling in most parts of the world, and it's gonna keep on crumbling, as well it bloody ought to.
How about for the sake of your mother? Your sister? Your daughter? You don't think that's a reason to challenge it? Perhaps not, as you're one of those is serves...

edit: I'm willing to assume you're talking about something other than the male-dominated societal heirarchy we're thinking of. So, please describe this patriarchy you are so fond of.

[Totally Guy]

Doing what wrong?

Let me see if I've got this straight.

You want change. But you want it to come from the individual and not because you have to tell people to change.

All you need to do it provide the challenge to make people think.

Awww, that's downright decent.

[Hazyshade]

Yes Glug, it's called a debate. Thank you for the compliment.

What were you saying about gender pronouns again?

[potatocubed]

edit: I'm willing to assume you're talking about something other than the male-dominated societal heirarchy we're thinking of. So, please describe this patriarchy you are so fond of.

I think that whoever named the societal tendency to remain in its old male-dominated patterns even when a different way has been shown to them 'the patriarchy' did feminism unthinkable harm by implying that there is some shadowy cabal of men ruling the world.

As I understand it a patriarchy - that is, a male-dominated social structure - is like a jelly (jello) mould. It confines the jelly and forces it into a particular shape. The patriarchy - the set of cultural norms and assumptions that pervade society as referred to in feminist theory - is like the gelatin in the jelly: even when the mould is removed, the jelly retains its shape because of this internal binding agent.

Or perhaps I'm completely wrong. I hope not, because I'm quite pleased with this analogy.

[Sholos]

See, my problem with a statement like, "Attack the patriarchy at all costs! The patriarchy is evil and does nothing of any worth! The patriarchy is bad!" is that there's no real substance behind it. It also reeks of wanting to form a hardcore matriarchy, something that would be just as bad. Being sexist is never the answer to sexism.

I'll also point out that the women most likely to rise to power in such a system would probably, at this point, be just as power hungry and abusive as most men. I hate it when people assume "women make better leaders because they're more touchy-feely than men" or the like. First off, controlling your emotions is one of the first things any leader needs to be able to do well, so being "touchy-feely" isn't an advantage, and secondly, women can be just as cold and vindictive as any man. Even more so, in some cases. So what are the major advantages that women bring to the table that make them out and out better?

I also hate it when people look to animals and say that people operate exactly the same. Why do you people assume that all men are violent and that all women love peace and just want to get along? Also, I think that using sex to solve (read: avoid) every problem would be a horrible idea with humans. Running around having sex willy-nilly isn't a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. A quick look at the vast majority of relationships should give a big clue that humans are meant to be monogamous by nature, and using sex as a quick-fix just ends up with people being hurt. Bonobos are obviously built differently, and so comparing human society to them is just silly.

In short, I see no advantage to either a patriarchy or a matriarchy. A system where men and women are equal is best, and that is what should be supported, rather than simply opposing the current system.

As to the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, there is some evidence that language affects cognition in some slight ways (and vice versa), but there is not really any evidence pointing to a strong connection.

Random aside that doesn't mean much:
Do the Mongolians under Genghis Khan count as a matriarchy (as the society back home was completely controlled by the women) or a patriarchy (as the men were running around fighting wars)?

[Hazyshade]

See, my problem with a statement like, "Attack the patriarchy at all costs! The patriarchy is evil and does nothing of any worth! The patriarchy is bad!" is that there's no real substance behind it.

That's because you've just made those statements up.


It also reeks of wanting to form a hardcore matriarchy, something that would be just as bad.

Nah, me and Serp already worked this one out, we want "a civilisation founded on individual merit and respect in which sex is largely irrelevant". Whether some sort of matriarchy would be better than the current patriarchy is open to debate, but to say that a hardcore matriarchy would be just as bad is a No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).


Being sexist is never the answer to sexism.
Why not? Why is responding in kind an acceptable approach to an act of military aggression, but not to an act of sexism? Sometimes it's the only way of making you notice that you are, as you just implied, being sexist yourself.


I'll also point out that the women most likely to rise to power in such a system would probably, at this point, be just as power hungry and abusive as most men. I hate it when people assume "women make better leaders because they're more touchy-feely than men" or the like. First off, controlling your emotions is one of the first things any leader needs to be able to do well, so being "touchy-feely" isn't an advantage, and secondly, women can be just as cold and vindictive as any man. Even more so, in some cases. So what are the major advantages that women bring to the table that make them out and out better?
Again, putting things in quotation marks doesn't make us more likely to have said them. You're arguing with yourself.


Why do you people assume that all men are violent and that all women love peace and just want to get along?
Because us people are made of straw (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man), obviously.


In short, I see no advantage to either a patriarchy or a matriarchy. A system where men and women are equal is best, and that is what should be supported, rather than simply opposing the current system.
Thank you, you agree with us people after all. However, we were talking about the specific question of whether it's possible for language to serve the interests of the current male-dominated society. I think it's reasonable that we should be allowed to answer "yes" without being subsequently made to defend every dot and comma written by every feminist ever - some of whom really are that cross with the patriarchy that they actually want to oppose it - on penalty of our entire argument being declared invalid.

So, gender pronouns! Is the thread finished now? Are we all agreed that:


Using "he", "him", "his" to refer to everyone is sexist?
Using the feminine equivalents is also sexist, but for different reasons?
Using gender-neutral pronouns is a good solution in theory, but sometimes it's clumsy or impossible?
If a writer wants to use feminine pronouns as the default to avoid being clumsy or impossible, this is not wrong, because there is no right and wrong when it comes to usage, only personal preference?

[Pyrian]

The only reason we can talk about the pro's and con's of establishing a matriarchy here is that it bears absolutely no resemblance to any real-world politics. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:
Why is responding in kind an acceptable approach to an act of military aggression, but not to an act of sexism?Violence in response to violence is an exception to the general rule; this is because in practice, there is often no choice. The use of force in self-defense should not be considered a precedent for much of anything else.

More specifically, though, being sexist in retaliation for sexism essentially makes the argument that sexism is ok, and prevents you from making any convincing argument about sexism being inherently bad. In short, you cannot convince sexist people that sexism is bad by being sexist yourself.

Notably, the violence example suffers from all the disadvantages of other examples. It, too, tends to beget further violence rather than preventing it.

[BisectedBrioche]

So, gender pronouns! Is the thread finished now? Are we all agreed that:


Using "he", "him", "his" to refer to everyone is sexist?
Using the feminine equivalents is also sexist, but for different reasons?
Using gender-neutral pronouns is a good solution in theory, but sometimes it's clumsy or impossible?
If a writer wants to use feminine pronouns as the default to avoid being clumsy or impossible, this is not wrong, because there is no right and wrong when it comes to usage, only personal preference?


Your first two points contradict the last...

[Totally Guy]

Yes Glug, it's called a debate. Thank you for the compliment.

That's not very nice.

You've started to do debater talk with those fancy logical fallacy links so I don't want to continue.

[Je dit Viola]

Random aside that doesn't mean much:
Do the Mongolians under Genghis Khan count as a matriarchy (as the society back home was completely controlled by the women) or a patriarchy (as the men were running around fighting wars)?

Well, I think that any society that has the woman ruling completely at home would be a matriarchy, (because the woman are ruling and have control of what's going on).

However, I might be incorrect, since I'm not majoring in Sociology.

Anway, I'm off-topic...I'm sorry.

[Hazyshade]

Pyrian: There is no choice. Without affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women. That's the problem. Sexism is just the means to the end.

Bisected8: OK, which point(s) would you change then?

[Coidzor]

Well, the idea that we can all be in agreement.

And the suggested idea that any form of gender-imbalanced society or government can be truly good.

And saying that thinking a gender-imbalanced form of government/society that is committed to maintaining, perpetuating, and exacerbating the gender-imbalance is one of the worse possible incarnations of such a thing is a no true scotsman argument. When in order to form such a thing, bloodshed on a massive scale or at least some other means of lesser mass murder would be in order.

And the idea that women aren't yet able to make any progress socially/economically without affirmative action policies and that they shouldn't be removed ever, even as conditions evolve such that some become irrelevant and new problem areas are identified.

That they don't even have a fighting chance. I dunno, but that strikes me as fairly sexist in besmirching women and feminism by suggesting that they'd just go back into the kitchen if we took away some policies that just bolster the number of them going to certain places.

Just as long as the pronoun being used in a gender-neutral sense doesn't switch every other paragraph like it seems to in 3.5 writing sometimes. :smallyuk: The only thing worse than ze and zie is when the writers can't decide to say he or she, so they go with both, alternating.

[Mystic Muse]

Why not? Why is responding in kind an acceptable approach to an act of military aggression, but not to an act of sexism? Sometimes it's the only way of making you notice that you are, as you just implied, being sexist yourself.


Maybe because when you fight fire with fire you just get a bigger fire? alternatively, an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

[Pyrian]

Pyrian: There is no choice.That is an opinion - an opinion that I think is entirely destructive to your own cause, as I have explained. You're not going to win a battle against sexism by supporting sexism. It's a culture war, and culture wars fought on those terms tend to lose, as people on the defensive inherently recognize "sexism is bad except when I do it" as hypocritical, and you need the support of those you're attacking to succeed.

Consider suffrage, for example. Interesting thing to happen, really; women given the right to vote in a process in which they inherently had no real say! If the strategy pushed had been one of your style, i.e., switch the right to vote from men to women, the men involved would have never passed it.


Without affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women. That's the problem.With affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women, and use that affirmative action as its reason and its excuse.


Sexism is just the means to the end.The belief that the ends justify the means, while technically correct in principle, almost invariably fails in practice, because in practice ends almost invariably reflect the means.

EDIT:
Just as long as the pronoun being used in a gender-neutral sense doesn't switch every other paragraph like it seems to in 3.5 writing sometimes. :smallyuk: The only thing worse than ze and zie is when the writers can't decide to say he or she, so they go with both, alternating.Aww, I liked that. :smallcool:

[Coidzor]

EDIT:Aww, I liked that. :smallcool:

It kept confusing me as to whether it was breaking from the general use of a pronoun to referring to a specific character. x.x

[Mando Knight]

Pyrian: There is no choice. Without affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women. That's the problem. Sexism is just the means to the end.

Making the patriarchy the enemy isn't the answer either. A patriarchal society can be led with kindness and justice, without taking special precautions either way.

[Lamech]

Pyrian: There is no choice. Without affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women. That's the problem. Sexism is just the means to the end.
No. Encouraging equality is the means of acheiving equality. Saying that sexism is okay only teachs people that sexism is okay. Sexism against males won't counter sexism against females or vica versa it will just make more sexism.


Why not? Why is responding in kind an acceptable approach to an act of military aggression, but not to an act of sexism? Sometimes it's the only way of making you notice that you are, as you just implied, being sexist yourself.First off an act of military aggression is an organized attack, by an organized group with clearly defined members, and acceptable targets consist of the attacking group. So, by that flawed analogy the sexists would be acceptable targets for sexism, but thats not sexism at all really. Also using the sexism of others to justify sexism, allows them to use the exact same logic to be sexist. Three, all the -isms basically need to use the claim that there is a differance between the groups, so now the sexists you claim to be opposing can simply claim the traits you claim make your prefered group better, in fact, makes your prefered group worse.

And most importantly... your being sexist, which IMO is wrong. Being sexist means your going to take it out on bystanders who may be totally egalitarian. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Faulty]

See, my problem with a statement like, "Attack the patriarchy at all costs! The patriarchy is evil and does nothing of any worth! The patriarchy is bad!" is that there's no real substance behind it. It also reeks of wanting to form a hardcore matriarchy, something that would be just as bad. Being sexist is never the answer to sexism.

How is there no substance behind "the patriarchy is bad"? A patriarchal system explicitly means that men are dominant. Which is bad, period. Therefore, "the patriarchy is bad" is a very substantive and reasonable statement.

Also, saying that that reeks of matriarchy is falicious. You're basically saying that the statement "I think a society in which men dominate women is bad" is identical or implies "I want a society in which women unilaterally dominate men." Which is not true, obviously.


I'll also point out that the women most likely to rise to power in such a system would probably, at this point, be just as power hungry and abusive as most men. I hate it when people assume "women make better leaders because they're more touchy-feely than men" or the like. First off, controlling your emotions is one of the first things any leader needs to be able to do well, so being "touchy-feely" isn't an advantage, and secondly, women can be just as cold and vindictive as any man. Even more so, in some cases. So what are the major advantages that women bring to the table that make them out and out better?

No one said that women make better leaders due to some essential feminine. Most feminists oppose essentialism, even positive essentialism.


I also hate it when people look to animals and say that people operate exactly the same. Why do you people assume that all men are violent and that all women love peace and just want to get along?

It was more a statement than anything. Humans ARE animals. They just function differently. No one was stating that men are like chimps and women are like bonobos.


Also, I think that using sex to solve (read: avoid)

Why do you say avoid?


every problem would be a horrible idea with humans. Running around having sex willy-nilly isn't a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. A quick look at the vast majority of relationships should give a big clue that humans are meant to be monogamous by nature, and using sex as a quick-fix just ends up with people being hurt. Bonobos are obviously built differently, and so comparing human society to them is just silly.

The meaning and value of sex is both relative and subjectivity, and evolves culturally over time. Sex is nothing more than a mechanical act at its most basic... and honestly, even trying to boil it down to that is problematic, because it's still a way of referential and in addressing it shapes some sort of meaning or value. ANYWAY I DIGRESS. The act of sex has meaning attributed to it discursively. There's no reason why rampant social sex could not at some point exist in a completely healthy way. The monogamous relationship as it stands in a heteronormative is formed around a structure where a man controls the woman. Monogamy as it exists needs a revision itself.


In short, I see no advantage to either a patriarchy or a matriarchy. A system where men and women are equal is best, and that is what should be supported, rather than simply opposing the current system.

I'd say this is even a problem. It sort of ignores intersexual, transgender, etc. people. A society where sex, gender, race, etc. has no substantive force in the greater cultural matrix is one that should be supported.



I want to address some more posts, for catharsis more than anything. I need to go get to Topics in Feminist Theory though, so I'll have to do it after class.

[PhoeKun]

Just as long as the pronoun being used in a gender-neutral sense doesn't switch every other paragraph like it seems to in 3.5 writing sometimes. :smallyuk: The only thing worse than ze and zie is when the writers can't decide to say he or she, so they go with both, alternating.

You'll notice if you go back and look over the 3.5 Player's Handbook that the use of 'he' or 'she' stays consistent within the descriptions of the various classes. The section on Fighters uses 'he' exclusively, the section on Wizards uses 'she' exclusively, and so on. You'll also notice a character portrait showing an example character of that class. You'll also notice the gender of that character matches the pronouns used in that section.

Far from being random, they split the gender of their characters approximately 50/50, then used pronouns to correspond with their examples. I think it's a pretty interesting attempt to balance gender perceptions without resorting to a strictly neutral pronoun or dancing around the issue in a way likely to compromise the exact wording of their rules. So honestly, props to WotC and other companies that have taken this approach.

Re: Feminism. I am for a world in which women and men are seen as equals. But with the singular 'they' all but accepted as common parlance, I don't really see what fighting against gender neutral 'he' has to do with our dreams for a better future. And I say this as a linguist.

[BisectedBrioche]

Pyrian: There is no choice. Without affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women. That's the problem. Sexism is just the means to the end.

Bisected8: OK, which point(s) would you change then?

I'm not questioning them, I'm merely pointing out they contradict one another. Either using gender specific pronouns as generic pronouns is sexist (as the first two points claim) or it isn't (as the final point claims).

Also, it slipped my mind before, but; in older forms of English, while gendered pronouns were used, words which described genderless things were given genders and used gendered pronouns as appropriate. French still uses this system (hence why it has "le" and "la"; masculine and feminine forms of "the").

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

OK, I have beaten around the bush in my responses, so I'll address the issue now.

Militant feminism gives the cause of striving for a more gender-egalitarian society a bad name. Fighting sexism by being sexist solves nothing; it only exacerbates social tension between men and women. Suppose we were to take the phrase 'fight fire with fire' literally; why, that wouldn't help to put out a fire at all. It would, in fact, only perpetuate the existing fire. Just as flames change their shape, the actual positions of dominance between men and women would shift, but the underlying conflict cannot be solved that way.

I hold similar principles with regard to box-ticking culture, in which prescribed numbers of different ethnicities, sexual orientations and women are employed to tick the aforementioned boxes. It may be intended to boost equality, but what it really does is lead to further social segregation; in my view, it is far better for companies to be able to employ those who are best at the prospective job, entirely irrespective of age, race, gender or orientation, and in doing so put everybody on the same playing field. Giving nobody advantages or disadvantages in such things is truly egalitarian.

That's why, as far as I'm concerned, militant feminism negates the very thing it should be striving for; equality between men and women.

[Tiger Duck]

I use the male pronoun as neutral because I'm male myself. And I see every nameless persons as a copy of me till they distinguish them somehow, and even then they stay me but... And I have no problem with others doing the same with me.

edit: look at that I apparently use the singular they as neutral in English:smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

I'd say this is even a problem. It sort of ignores intersexual, transgender, etc. people. A society where sex, gender, race, etc. has no substantive force in the greater cultural matrix is one that should be supported.

Well, yes. We're still figuring out what to make of them culturally. And trans individuals would very much like to fit neatly into those two categories, just as the opposite number to what they got issued at birth, to the point of living as members of the sex opposite to their birth.

Otherwise they're more muddled and fall into the catch-all terms for such nebulousness instead of trans which has acquired a more precise definition. With more time and research, eventually those areas will be more understood and filled in and so on, but for now, eh.

There's always bigger fish to fry somewhere.

[Kneenibble]

Old English gender (linguistically) is funny to me for this reason.

The naming of genders is kind of arbitrary: whatever gender (i.e. pattern of declension and adjective agreement) the word for 'woman' is in, the words that follow the same are called feminine; same for 'man' and masculine. There's nothing prior gendered about the words that become masculine or feminine. And words whose nominative and accusative forms are the same get called neuter (ne/uter: not either). There's nothing prior ungendered about those words, they just happen to decline in a certain way.

Anyways, sorry for the pedantry, but it sets up the weirdness. You have se wer and se man that set the precedent for calling the one gender masculine. But then you have not seo wif, but þæt wif, and I can't think of another word for woman (seo is the feminine article, þæt is the neuter). Wif has the same form in nominative and accusative and gets put in the neuter gender.

And yet I'm sure you'd still say "seo cwæð," when a woman speaks. It's wyrd.

[Hazyshade]

OK. Though there are some things I am dying to say in response to all of that, there is no way I can do it while remaining on the subject of gender pronouns and away from the subject of politics. If anyone is genuinely interested in discussing political issues with me (rather than playing misrepresent-a-Sushi-Monster) please PM me.

[Worira]

Frankly, just from reading your posts, I find myself switching between "That's an entirely reasonable point, we should be working to rectify this scenario" for Serpentine's posts, and "Oh, you silly feminists" for Sushi Monster's. This despite the fact that you're saying pretty much the same thing. And I think I agree with Potatocubed on why: Sushi Monster's posts make more frequent use of the phrase "the patriarchy". This makes me picture, whether or not it's anyone's intent, a cunning cabal of mustache-twirling villains plotting new and innovative ways to subjugate women.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Sushi Monster is a "silly feminist", just that that's my gut reaction when reading her posts.

[BisectedBrioche]

Frankly, just from reading your posts, I find myself switching between "That's an entirely reasonable point, we should be working to rectify this scenario" for Serpentine's posts, and "Oh, you silly feminists" for Sushi Monster's. This despite the fact that you're saying pretty much the same thing. And I think I agree with Potatocubed on why: Sushi Monster's posts make more frequent use of the phrase "the patriarchy". This makes me picture, whether or not it's anyone's intent, a cunning cabal of mustache-twirling villains plotting new and innovative ways to subjugate women.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Sushi Monster is a "silly feminist", just that that's my gut reaction when reading her posts.

Hey, we shaved off our moustaches. They were making it hard to sniff our brandy. Also, right wing feminism is our latest insidious scheme (I do so miss the "traintrack days" though). All it took was making a few crazies take the idea too far and now no one takes it seriously. :smalltongue:

*strokes cat and laughs evily*

[Solaris]

The only reason we can talk about the pro's and con's of establishing a matriarchy here is that it bears absolutely no resemblance to any real-world politics. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT:Violence in response to violence is an exception to the general rule; this is because in practice, there is often no choice. The use of force in self-defense should not be considered a precedent for much of anything else.

More specifically, though, being sexist in retaliation for sexism essentially makes the argument that sexism is ok, and prevents you from making any convincing argument about sexism being inherently bad. In short, you cannot convince sexist people that sexism is bad by being sexist yourself.

Notably, the violence example suffers from all the disadvantages of other examples. It, too, tends to beget further violence rather than preventing it.

And he won the thread.
But if you're begetting more violence when you do violence, you didn't do enough of it the first time.

Personally, I laugh at accusations of sexism. I've seen real sexism at work. It ain't pretty. It downright infuriates me, and most red-blooded men too. Real sexism is things like women not being allowed to go to school, not being allowed to have jobs, not being allowed to read, that sort of thing. Not, "Oh, he used 'he' when referring to a person of unknown gender".
Please. There're people suffering from real oppression. I think it's quite safe to say that nobody on this board is. I think I've seen about one post in this entire thread that actually brought any data to support the theory that male as the default gender is sexist. The rest of you? Yeah. Not so much.


Pyrian: There is no choice. Without affirmative action, the patriarchy will continue to subjugate women. That's the problem. Sexism is just the means to the end.

Bollocks. Affirmative action is just -ism in reverse. When you say that sexism is just the means to the end, I get chills down my spine when I think about what the 'end' you're talking about is. If male-dominated society is bad, then how is female-dominated society good? You may not think you want female-dominated, but if you're using sexism to get equal treatment then I'd be wary of building something too large to stop.
Sushi Monster, I'm sure you're a decent person. I don't hold this against you personally, so try don't take what I'm about to say personally. The fact that you get so worked up about this subject and yet bring to the table such awful, awful arguments just sickens me. I'm an egalitarian at heart. I fight to defend the rights of all human beings regardless of race, gender, or creed. Literally fight - I'm in the armed forces. You're espousing the belief that sexism is okay to fight sexism. I hope that you misstated your beliefs on the subject, but that's following the way of thought that it's okay to do something wrong because someone else is doing something wrong.
It's not. Wrong is wrong. Period.

And Serp, I don't think it entirely fair for you to be blaming current generations for the actions of their fathers, nor is it right for you to claim reparations for the suffering of your mothers. Something done to you? Kosher. Something done a hundred years ago? Not kosher. After all, I don't hold all the crap my mother's done to me against other women. Why is it right for you to hold crap guys did to their wives in another culture against males nowadays?
Note that I'm not trying to defend honest-to-goodness patriarchal societies. I don't consider the male-dominated governmental bodies of the US, Europe, Australia, and so forth to be anything more than a relic. They're on their way out, and good riddance. But it ain't right to be lumping a government that happens to have a primarily male body due to the slow turnover of politicians with a government that has a male body because women aren't allowed to read, much less hold office.

[Faulty]

Frankly, just from reading your posts, I find myself switching between "That's an entirely reasonable point, we should be working to rectify this scenario" for Serpentine's posts, and "Oh, you silly feminists" for Sushi Monster's. This despite the fact that you're saying pretty much the same thing. And I think I agree with Potatocubed on why: Sushi Monster's posts make more frequent use of the phrase "the patriarchy". This makes me picture, whether or not it's anyone's intent, a cunning cabal of mustache-twirling villains plotting new and innovative ways to subjugate women.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not saying Sushi Monster is a "silly feminist", just that that's my gut reaction when reading her posts.

I think that's less an issue with feminism's terminology and more with people who are uneducated as at actual feminist theory. Patriarchy is really an excellent term for the sexism experienced in, at least, the "West". Our culture is phallocentric. The man, the father, the male figure head, man as dominator is, as far as sex/gender goes, hegemonic. The term describes things well. If people would actually read some feminist theory and learn about what precisely patriarchy is, there'd be a more aware response.


Personally, I laugh at accusations of sexism. I've seen real sexism at work. It ain't pretty. It downright infuriates me, and most red-blooded men too. Real sexism is things like women not being allowed to go to school, not being allowed to have jobs, not being allowed to read, that sort of thing. Not, "Oh, he used 'he' when referring to a person of unknown gender".
Please. There're people suffering from real oppression. I think it's quite safe to say that nobody on this board is. I think I've seen about one post in this entire thread that actually brought any data to support the theory that male as the default gender is sexist. The rest of you? Yeah. Not so much.

I would say that most red-blooded men are sexist or complicit in the sustainment of patriarchy. The only way "man" can survive as a positive term--which it most certainly can--is by positing new masculinities. ANYWAY I DIGRESS.

Sexism comes in explicit and implicit forms. Explicit sexism is stuff like sexual harassment, denying women jobs because of their sex, etc. Implicit sexism is stuff like "he" being considered neutral (it really harkens back to medieval and Greek views of woman as man, but missing some parts), or the fact that the covers of Maxim are socially acceptable, or that women are expected to wear heels, put on make up, stay thin, etc to be considered functionably attractive and yet find themselves at the same time a target as a result (talking about how "women take so long to get ready", how the way attractive way a woman dresses makes her unprofessional, etc). Seriously, explicit and implicit sexism are both alive and well in a variety of ways.


Bull****. Affirmative action is just -ism in reverse. When you say that sexism is just the means to the end, I get chills down my spine when I think about what the 'end' you're talking about is. If male-dominated society is bad, then how is female-dominated society good? You may not think you want female-dominated, but if you're using sexism to get equal treatment then I'd be wary of building something too large to stop.
Sushi Monster, I'm sure you're a decent person. I don't hold this against you personally, so try don't take what I'm about to say personally. The fact that you get so worked up about this subject and yet bring to the table such awful, awful arguments just sickens me. I'm an egalitarian at heart. I fight to defend the rights of all human beings regardless of race, gender, or creed. Literally fight - I'm in the armed forces. You're espousing the belief that sexism is okay to fight sexism. I hope that you misstated your beliefs on the subject, but that's following the way of thought that it's okay to do something wrong because someone else is doing something wrong.
It's not. Wrong is wrong. Period.

The idea that affirmative action is (reverse) sex/race/whatever-ism is an incredibly flawed one. It's not sexist. Women face serious hurdles getting equal employment and representation with men, and AA is a way of making sure that women get what they need to function as equal members of society. There's no quota saying that 90% of employees must be women, but I think a 50% quota is perfectly fair. Women are 51% of the population, and the biological differences between men and women that would affect career choice and other such things are practically non-existant, so the only reason there shouldn't be a 50/50 or so split in all fields is due to legal or cultural issues. I don't see how making sure women get the representation and jobs they deserve is heading towards a matriarchy.

AA is egalitarianism. In a society where not all are treated equally, some people deserve more attention.


And Serp, I don't think it entirely fair for you to be blaming current generations for the actions of their fathers, nor is it right for you to claim reparations for the suffering of your mothers. Something done to you? Kosher. Something done a hundred years ago? Not kosher. After all, I don't hold all the crap my mother's done to me against other women. Why is it right for you to hold crap guys did to their wives in another culture against males nowadays?
Note that I'm not trying to defend honest-to-goodness patriarchal societies. I don't consider the male-dominated governmental bodies of the US, Europe, Australia, and so forth to be anything more than a relic. They're on their way out, and good riddance. But it ain't right to be lumping a government that happens to have a primarily male body due to the slow turnover of politicians with a government that has a male body because women aren't allowed to read, much less hold office.

Sexism in other cultures does not excuse sexism in our culture. Our society is honest to goodness patriarchal, and everyone's actions affect everyone. Stuff that happened in the past has present reparations, and men are in a patriarchal society where they benefit it. There's no fairness. Men need to resist the privilege they get. You think it sucks? Imagine how it is for women.

[Coidzor]

I think that's less an issue with feminism's terminology and more with people who are uneducated as at actual feminist theory. [...] If people would actually read some feminist theory and learn about what precisely patriarchy is, there'd be a more aware response.

Well, you're not going to get people to pick up a feminist theory textbook without some patience.

Especially if the approach decided upon is to go on about a patriarchy when the way mainstream society is portrayed is as a combination plutocracy and kleptocracy. The ideas have to be linked up with what's in the mind of the audience you're dealing with before you can, well, deal with 'em.

Nor is it really a good idea to use theory raw in a discussion with the laity, especially when it's known that the theory is easily misinterpreted without good explication. Some prep work is always a necessity. And patriarchy really is a loaded word that gets a rise out of people, making its use tricky and requiring a good framework to make sure its not counterproductive and producing tangents.

Tangents like all of this, say.


Women are 51% of the population, and the biological differences between men and women that would affect career choice and other such things are practically non-existant, so the only reason there shouldn't be a 50/50 or so split in all fields is due to legal or cultural issues. I don't see how making sure women get the representation and jobs they deserve is heading towards a matriarchy.

Or because people, life, and statistics don't work that way and a 50/50 split would only occur unilaterally with forcing people into jobs they didn't want, and it should really be more of a trending towards that kind of split, especially considering things as a whole, rather than individual professions. Also, completely forgetting the economic ones, unless you really believe legal and economic issues are one and the same.

What's this about the representation they deserve though? In the West, they have the vote, and so deserve whoever they put into power. They're already the majority of the population in general and of the population at universities. So what are you talking about? The proportion of male to female politicians?


Sexism in other cultures does not excuse sexism in our culture. Our society is honest to goodness patriarchal, and everyone's actions affect everyone. Stuff that happened in the past has present reparations, and men are in a patriarchal society where they benefit it. There's no fairness. Men need to resist the privilege they get. You think it sucks? Imagine how it is for women.

Nor does it say that since we have sexism and had sexism in our past as well that we're responsible for the actions of other cultures.

Nor the fact that there are occurrences of reparations being paid an argument of whether they are right to occur.

I happen to agree that there should be, but only insofar as the entity that did the misdeeds is the one that pays. A government that commits genocide is still culpable a hundred years later. The great-grandchild of a murderer is not. By the same token, the child of a rapist is not culpable for the crimes of the father.

[thubby]

The idea that affirmative action is (reverse) sex/race/whatever-ism is an incredibly flawed one. It's not sexist. Women face serious hurdles getting equal employment and representation with men, and AA is a way of making sure that women get what they need to function as equal members of society. There's no quota saying that 90% of employees must be women, but I think a 50% quota is perfectly fair. Women are 51% of the population, and the biological differences between men and women that would affect career choice and other such things are practically non-existant, so the only reason there shouldn't be a 50/50 or so split in all fields is due to legal or cultural issues. I don't see how making sure women get the representation and jobs they deserve is heading towards a matriarchy.

AA is egalitarianism. In a society where not all are treated equally, some people deserve more attention.

any quota is automatically sexist since you've stopped hiring people on merit.
AA demands homogeny where you should expect none due to reasons well outside of the employer's influence.

[Serpentine]

See, my problem with a statement like, "Attack the patriarchy at all costs! The patriarchy is evil and does nothing of any worth! The patriarchy is bad!" is that there's no real substance behind it.It is by definition the dominance of a society by men at the expense of women. Yes, there is substance behind a desire to move away from that mode of society.

It also reeks of wanting to form a hardcore matriarchy, something that would be just as bad.No, it doesn't. It says something that you assume it does.

I'll also point out that the women most likely to rise to power in such a system would probably, at this point, be just as power hungry and abusive as most men. I hate it when people assume "women make better leaders because they're more touchy-feely than men" or the like. First off, controlling your emotions is one of the first things any leader needs to be able to do well, so being "touchy-feely" isn't an advantage, and secondly, women can be just as cold and vindictive as any man. Even more so, in some cases. So what are the major advantages that women bring to the table that make them out and out better?Quite true. That doesn't mean there's any advantage to excluding them, either.

I also hate it when people look to animals and say that people operate exactly the same. Why do you people assume that all men are violent and that all women love peace and just want to get along? Also, I think that using sex to solve (read: avoid) every problem would be a horrible idea with humans. Running around having sex willy-nilly isn't a good idea by any stretch of the imagination. A quick look at the vast majority of relationships should give a big clue that humans are meant to be monogamous by nature, and using sex as a quick-fix just ends up with people being hurt. Bonobos are obviously built differently, and so comparing human society to them is just silly.I never said anything of the sort. That was mostly just an amusing aside, as to how a matriarchal society can be a demonstrably good thing.

In short, I see no advantage to either a patriarchy or a matriarchy. A system where men and women are equal is best, and that is what should be supported, rather than simply opposing the current system.Agreed. But you can't exactly support a new system without opposing the current...

Do the Mongolians under Genghis Khan count as a matriarchy (as the society back home was completely controlled by the women) or a patriarchy (as the men were running around fighting wars)?[/spoiler]Depends. Who was officially in charge? Keeping in mind that "official" and "practical" do not always coincide.

Making the patriarchy the enemy isn't the answer either. A patriarchal society can be led with kindness and justice, without taking special precautions either way.The fact that it can doesn't mean that it's right, that it will, nor that another way couldn't do it better.
Suppose we were to take the phrase 'fight fire with fire' literally; why, that wouldn't help to put out a fire at all. It would, in fact, only perpetuate the existing fire.Dunno about the rest of the world, but in Australia we do literally "fight fire with fire", though burning off.
Also, "militant feminism" is a fringe component at best, and should not be considered representative.
Personally, I laugh at accusations of sexism. I've seen real sexism at work. It ain't pretty. It downright infuriates me, and most red-blooded men too. Real sexism is things like women not being allowed to go to school, not being allowed to have jobs, not being allowed to read, that sort of thing. Not, "Oh, he used 'he' when referring to a person of unknown gender".
Please. There're people suffering from real oppression. I think it's quite safe to say that nobody on this board is. I think I've seen about one post in this entire thread that actually brought any data to support the theory that male as the default gender is sexist. The rest of you? Yeah. Not so much."Small" sexism is exactly as real, and far more difficult to eliminate, than "big" (or, as you put it, "real") sexism. The fact that in some places women aren't allowed to work at all doesn't excuse the glass ceiling here (that is, in "our world"). That some women aren't allowed to go to school does not mean the (supposed) "girls suck at maths" stereotype is a-okay.
"Real oppression" needs to be opposed. So do more subtle attitudes and policies. "They have it worse than you so STFU" is an absolutely disgusting argument.

And Serp, I don't think it entirely fair for you to be blaming current generations for the actions of their fathers, nor is it right for you to claim reparations for the suffering of your mothers. Something done to you? Kosher. Something done a hundred years ago? Not kosher. After all, I don't hold all the crap my mother's done to me against other women. Why is it right for you to hold crap guys did to their wives in another culture against males nowadays?That is why I said "in a "big" sense", and stressed that I don't think it's right or useful for practical application. I don't think it would be unreasonable for women as a whole to have a shot at running humanity for a while, but that doesn't mean I actually want it to happen.

Note that I'm not trying to defend honest-to-goodness patriarchal societies. I don't consider the male-dominated governmental bodies of the US, Europe, Australia, and so forth to be anything more than a relic. They're on their way out, and good riddance. But it ain't right to be lumping a government that happens to have a primarily male body due to the slow turnover of politicians with a government that has a male body because women aren't allowed to read, much less hold office.As said already, you are in an honest-to-goodness patriarchal society. It just happens to be one in which a substantial amount of improvement has occurred, with a great deal of kicking and screaming, misrepresentation, backlash and overreaction along the way. The fact that it's less patriarchal than other places, doesn't make it not patriarchal at all, and absolutely does not mean that its remaining problems should be ignored and/or belittled.

Seriously, is there a gender-equal equivalent to matriarchy and patriarchy?

[Quincunx]

The closest set-up to "separate but equal" which I know of was the Iroquois representative democracy: only men could be sent to the Six Nations councils to discuss and vote on the issues, but only women had the vote on which men to send. I saw nothing about the men being able to vote on the issue of breaking a female vote-rigging bloc as the major flaw. (If women voted for their husband's tribe when married or with their blood tribe when widowed, a few arranged marriages would've done it over time, but again, I'm ignorant on that point.)

*****

Sushi Monster, here is the missing link for your arguments: weighting female accomplishments exposes latent male sexism, and once that patriarchy is exposed, you then both agree to drop the sexism, one point at a time. Since the sexist tactic of using one gender's pronouns exclusively is now barred, how do you test how people view the unknown person without introducing a sexist assumption into the test?

Your normal audience is, I wager, aggressively ignorant of their privilege. This one, in this thread, isn't. (At least we haven't got any of those folk so ignorant of their privilege, whatever privilege it is, that they consider it as the norm and act disadvantaged when someone outside their group assumes the same privilege.)

*****

Serpentine, Solaris, you two balance each other just fine. I read and agree with both even as you argue opposite sides of the relative oppression of the Western woman.

*****

Pyrian, you've just pwned us all pretty hard. I need to go sit down with an icepack. :smallfrown:

[potatocubed]

I think that's less an issue with feminism's terminology and more with people who are uneducated as at actual feminist theory. Patriarchy is really an excellent term for the sexism experienced in, at least, the "West". Our culture is phallocentric. The man, the father, the male figure head, man as dominator is, as far as sex/gender goes, hegemonic. The term describes things well. If people would actually read some feminist theory and learn about what precisely patriarchy is, there'd be a more aware response.

Can you recommend a 'feminism for noobs' book? Or, better yet, a 'feminism for committed agents of the patriarchy' book?

The primary problem I have with educating myself in feminist theory is that all the theory I read seems to be rooted in the experience of being female (which I don't have), an extensive background in feminist theory and/or sociology (which I don't have), or a willingness to just accept what I'm told (which I don't have).

[Hazyshade]

Your normal audience is, I wager, aggressively ignorant of their privilege. This one, in this thread, isn't. (At least we haven't got any of those folk so ignorant of their privilege, whatever privilege it is, that they consider it as the norm and act disadvantaged when someone outside their group assumes the same privilege.)

If everyone on this forum is able to agree that men are privileged by the default use of male pronouns... why does this thread exist?

Not directed at anyone in particular:

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.
In the same way, sexism is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The divine right of the patriarchy to avoid having a mirror held up to their own sexism is much worse.

Potatocubed: Men and Feminism (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Feminism-Seal-Studies-Shira-Tarrant/dp/1580052584/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1270810711&sr=8-1). I've read it, it's good.

[Faulty]

Can you recommend a 'feminism for noobs' book? Or, better yet, a 'feminism for committed agents of the patriarchy' book?

The primary problem I have with educating myself in feminist theory is that all the theory I read seems to be rooted in the experience of being female (which I don't have), an extensive background in feminist theory and/or sociology (which I don't have), or a willingness to just accept what I'm told (which I don't have).

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

That may be useful.

[Quincunx]

Sushi Monster: This thread is the actual audience. The forum is your desired audience.

This topic was split from The DM's girlfriend (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=147694), over in the d20 roleplaying section of this forum, when the posts changed from retelling anecdotes of how this situation played out to generalizations about female and male behavior. Going back to that thread and rekindling this thread's discussion here would be discouraged. Now, is it discouraged because of some belief in the sovereignity of the initial poster over the topic's contents, belief that the rules of the forum discourage mingling topics such that splitting off divergent topics is preferred, belief that the patriarchy does not wish to be further upset by being reminded of latent sexism once more, or some other belief?
Pause, 2.4 seconds.
Smile.

[Hazyshade]

...it depends who is doing the discouraging? Sorry, I didn't follow that bit. I have no desired audience. I don't make a distinction between forum readers and thread readers. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm confused. I wasn't trying to answer your post with the JS Mill quote. Thank you for sort of backing me up.

[Recaiden]

The idea that affirmative action is (reverse) sex/race/whatever-ism is an incredibly flawed one. It's not sexist. Women face serious hurdles getting equal employment and representation with men, and AA is a way of making sure that women get what they need to function as equal members of society. There's no quota saying that 90% of employees must be women, but I think a 50% quota is perfectly fair. Women are 51% of the population, and the biological differences between men and women that would affect career choice and other such things are practically non-existant, so the only reason there shouldn't be a 50/50 or so split in all fields is due to legal or cultural issues. I don't see how making sure women get the representation and jobs they deserve is heading towards a matriarchy.

AA is egalitarianism. In a society where not all are treated equally, some people deserve more attention.

But it is still unfair. It is unfairness used to correct for unfairness in other aspects of society, is all. A 50% quota is more fair than a 90% quota, but it is still unfair because you're judging on gender rather then skill/experience/actual qualifications. This can and hopefully does lead to more opportunities for the disadvantaged who would get those jobs ordinarily in a society that was fair in other aspects.
It isn't heading towards a matriarchy. It's mostly heading towards having equality in the proportion of jobs, giving women representation, and so on. But it doesn't solve any causes of the gender imbalance in professions, and is slightly sexist in its means.



Agreed. But you can't exactly support a new system without opposing the current...

The only difference is whether the emphasis is on achieving equality or on destroying the unequal society we have now. It's pretty slight, but it matters to people whether they'll support it, or how much.

[Hazyshade]

The only difference is whether the emphasis is on achieving equality or on destroying the unequal society we have now. It's pretty slight, but it matters to people whether they'll support it, or how much.

Because it would be unreasonable to expect people to give a damn of their own accord.

By "people" of course I mean the unwashed masses who are not members of the GitP forums.

[Recaiden]

Because it would be unreasonable to expect people to give a damn of their own accord.

By "people" of course I mean the unwashed masses who are not members of the GitP forums.

No, but it's less likely for people to be expected to and to act against their own personal interests, even when such is by accepted standards the right thing to do.

[Lamech]

or the fact that the covers of Maxim are socially acceptable, or that women are expected to wear heels, put on make up, stay thin, etc to be considered functionably attractive and yet find themselves at the same time a target as a result (talking about how "women take so long to get ready", how the way attractive way a woman dresses makes her unprofessional, etc). Seriously, explicit and implicit sexism are both alive and well in a variety of ways.
Maxim being socially acceptable isn't something I would call sexist, since things like playgirl seem to be as well. One might infer something from the fact there are more Maxim-types, then playgirl-types, but since they are both acceptable I fail to see how there acceptance could be an example of sexism. If society is sexist in the exact same way against both genders its not sexism (could still be a problem).

You also mention that women have to do x,y, and z to be attractive. Well guys are expected to work out to build muscle, still not have fat, are frequently won't be considered unless they do the actual asking, wear clothes that "suit" them ect. And yes there are jokes about guys when they don't do a good job of presenting themselves as well. And no the things a guy would wear to look attractive wouldn't match what they wear in a proffesional setting either... so, I'm slightly confused as to what exactly the complaint is.

P.S. You of course have a great many other good points that I didn't bother to quote.

[AtomicKitKat]

My 2 cp before I probably forget about this thread altogether. Humans/Humanity/Man/Men/Mankind was the generic term, before it got co-opted by the patriarchy.

[BisectedBrioche]

My 2 cp before I probably forget about this thread altogether. Humans/Humanity/Man/Men/Mankind was the generic term, before it got co-opted by the patriarchy.

As was woman et al before it was co-opted by the matriarchy.

Mankind and human still are generic.

[The Extinguisher]

We need a reset button on civilization. We've screwed up way to much already. Hopefully next time we can do it where everyone is equal from the start. Guys and humans, girls are humans, everyone is a human. Isn't that good enough?

[Catch]

I popped in here expecting a discussion on grammatical conventions and discovered instead, as though peering under an upturned rock, the squirming, wriggling, light-blind creature of gender rhetoric, gorged with bile for "the patriarchy." Is it time to break out the sigh face? Yes, it is. :smallsigh:

Now, if anyone's willing to pause a moment from the flank-nipping and denouncements of character, could a gregarious soul inform me (concisely, if possible) as to how and when pronouns are oppressive?

As I've read in this thread, it was declared that using gender-specific pronouns for persons of undefined gender is "sexist." Unambiguously yes, sexist in all cases. I keep seeing this word, and I do not think it means what you think it means.

Sexism is an attitude - more specifically held by a group or an institution - that one gender less valuable, less competent and inferior to another. More simply, sexism is the belief that one gender is superior to another, either in a specific area, or holistically as a human being.

Now consider the following dialogue:

"Ugh, I got pulled over on my way to your place for speeding, and I was doing like five over! The cop was nice about it, though."

"Oh yeah? What'd he say?"

"Actually, it was a woman. She let me off with a warning, even though she totally could have written me up."

Given this instance, would you say it's sexist for the second person to assume the police officer would be male? Remember, "sexism" refers to a belief in gender competence or value.

Now, if I told you this dialogue took place in the city of Chicago, where the police department is 76% male, would you then say it's sexist to assume a police officer in the area would be male?

In some cases, gender assumptions are based on prevalence. The majority of police officers in the United States are male. The majority of preschool teachers are female. Referencing a position or role that is predominately populated by one gender, is it sexist to assume an unknown person of that role would be of the majority gender? Remember, sexism is a question of ability or worth.

Let's consider another instance - your female friend is speaking of a new acquaintance of hers. Given that your friend socially associates with mostly women, is it "sexist" to assume her new friend is female?

What I'm getting at here is contextual justification. When an unknown person is more likely to be of one gender or another, based on who is speaking, or what details you may already know, I assert that it's acceptable not only to assume and choose the more probable pronoun, but also to be wrong. Assumptions informed by facts aren't unjustly biased, because they're based on probability. When I'm counting the money in my wallet and setting aside the gratuity, I'm mentally picturing the hypothetical server as female, not because it's a "woman's job," but because in my experience and in my area, people taking orders in restaurants are more likely to be female. Are assumptions such as these (i.e., based on prior, quantifiable knowledge) "sexist?"

Conversely, these pronoun decisions may in fact be based on subjective presumptions of gender: Soldiers are male because men are stronger. Social workers are female because women are more amiable. When stereotypes and statistics can both inform an assumption of gender, how do you decide if the assumption is "sexist?" Is it always one or the other, or can it be both?

What I'm getting at here is, when do you decide to be offended? When is a person assuming based on experience and when are they assuming based on stereotypes? And finally, when are you entitled to infer someone's prejudices, if at all?

[Helanna]

Sexism is an attitude - more specifically held by a group or an institution - that one gender less valuable, less competent and inferior to another. More simply, sexism is the belief that one gender is superior to another, either in a specific area, or holistically as a human being.



Sexism: attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

So, yes, your example would be sexist, because it contains an assumption that a cop was male, simply because traditional stereotypes dictate that cops are usually male. It may not be intentional, but it's still there. It's a similar thing with pronouns. (For the record, I support 'they' as a singular pronoun just for accuracy reasons. Why randomly choose a gender if we already have a neutral word that'll work just fine?)

I do agree with you in that I think way too many people get too offended over something that's not worth it. As you say, it's a reasonable assumption. I'm just pointing out that sexism doesn't have to be intentional or based solely on someone's view of a certain sex's worth.

[Hazyshade]

Are assumptions such as these (i.e., based on prior, quantifiable knowledge) "sexist?"
Yes.


When is a person assuming based on experience and when are they assuming based on stereotypes?
In your mind you may compartmentalise the two, but you can't fully separate them. Stereotypes influence us in ways we can't consciously perceive. Anyone who claims to be above being influenced by stereotypes is lying.


When are you entitled to infer someone's prejudices, if at all?
Who cares: if you are a non-sexist person but use sexist language, the sexist language is still a problem.

[Coidzor]

So, yes, your example would be sexist, because it contains an assumption that a cop was male, simply because traditional stereotypes dictate that cops are usually male. It may not be intentional, but it's still there. It's a similar thing with pronouns. (For the record, I support 'they' as a singular pronoun just for accuracy reasons. Why randomly choose a gender if we already have a neutral word that'll work just fine?)

I do agree with you in that I think way too many people get too offended over something that's not worth it. As you say, it's a reasonable assumption. I'm just pointing out that sexism doesn't have to be intentional or based solely on someone's view of a certain sex's worth.


Main Entry: sex·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsek-ˌsi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: 1sex + -ism (as in racism)
Date: 1968

1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

— sex·ist \ˈsek-sist\ adjective or noun


Sexism, a term coined in the mid-20th century,[1] is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other. It can also refer to hatred of, or prejudice towards, either sex as a whole (see misogyny and misandry), or the application of stereotypes of masculinity in relation to men, or of femininity in relation to women.[2] It is also called male and female chauvinism.

So, sexist by one rubric of sexism, not sexist by another. The problem here lies in differing definitions.

[Fifty-Eyed Fred]

But the English language is not sexist, for a language cannot BE sexist. People who speak it may be, though.

In my opinion, a sexist act is a concious one; the aforementioned assumption that, for example, a soldier of unspecified gender is male, is not sexist, as no implication that one gender is superior to the other was intended. Of course stereotypes exist, but a reasonable assumption such as that is merely someone choosing the more likely option linguistically, not trampling over women's liberty, or whatever other nonsensical rhetoric may be applied here.

[Tiger Duck]

In your mind you may compartmentalise the two, but you can't fully separate them. Stereotypes influence us in ways we can't consciously perceive. Anyone who claims to be above being influenced by stereotypes is lying.
While that influence may be present I personally don't think we have to remove it, which doesn't mean I would care if others worked to that end.
What does it mater that more girl choose to become preschool teacher and boy choose to become cops. As long as any woman that wants to become a cop gets her fair shot.



Who cares: if you are a non-sexist person but use sexist language, the sexist language is still a problem.


Now back to pronouns.
in Dutch the pronoun to describe a group of peoples is the same as the one to describe a single women (zij) I have never hear anyone complain about that. In fact I hadn't even noticed that till this tread.

[Catch]

So, yes, your example would be sexist, because it contains an assumption that a cop was male, simply because traditional stereotypes dictate that cops are usually male. It may not be intentional, but it's still there. It's a similar thing with pronouns. (For the record, I support 'they' as a singular pronoun just for accuracy reasons. Why randomly choose a gender if we already have a neutral word that'll work just fine?)

I do agree with you in that I think way too many people get too offended over something that's not worth it. As you say, it's a reasonable assumption. I'm just pointing out that sexism doesn't have to be intentional or based solely on someone's view of a certain sex's worth.

I don't count Dictionary.com as a reputable source, so our definitions are contested. I don't believe "isms," such as racism, sexism, ageism, et al. can't be reduced with integrity to simply assumptions based on stereotypes, though they certainly play a part.

Stereotyping is a part of developmental psychology, and is part of the way people categorically understand the world, though the word "stereotype" has acquired a connotation largely negative, when the process itself can be benign. Past experiences and shared knowledge create associations and assumptions for relating to people. Children learn that people wearing uniforms are usually important and have authority. That's a stereotype. Most people have two parents. Dogs are jumpy, cats are lazy, old people smell funny, people in the 80s didn't know how to dress themselves and so forth. Stereotypes are just a way of collecting all of the common traits of a certain type of people into one ideal model, in order to know what to expect. That alone isn't harmful, but when incorrect information filters in, often negative assumptions, then a stereotype is flawed.

That said, "isms" are usually defined by negative stereotypes, specifically to devalue, harm, or to deny fair treatment of an individual. There's an inherent negativity or even hostility to these assumptions, which actually matters. When questioning "is this sexist" then, perhaps a more specific question is, "is this assumption harmful?"


Yes.

Make your case. I assumed the "and why" was implicit, so either I was unclear or you're being cheeky. Explain the problem, if you would, and the significance.


In your mind you may compartmentalise the two, but you can't fully separate them. Stereotypes influence us in ways we can't consciously perceive. Anyone who claims to be above being influenced by stereotypes is lying.

True, but should the default response be to assume prejudice of a person? Stereotypes, as I mentioned above, are benign as a concept, and only become malignant when negative or flawed.


Who cares: if you are a non-sexist person but use sexist language, the sexist language is still a problem.

Yes, but this relies on an objective definition of what is "sexist language," which I've yet to see delineated. What you interpret as "sexist," my burgeoning suspicion says, may not be shared by a majority of people, or even many, and depending on definitions of "sexist," the harm may not be inherent and offense is determined by the audience.

Would you respond in the same way to a person offending out of ignorance as someone actively prejudiced? Language is language, but it's fallacious to suggest intent doesn't matter.

[Helanna]

So, sexist by one rubric of sexism, not sexist by another. The problem here lies in differing definitions.

Yes, but all of them say that sexism can simply be the application of stereotypes - i.e, assuming a police officer is male just because that's stereotypical.


I don't count Dictionary.com as a reputable source, so our definitions are contested. I don't believe "isms," such as racism, sexism, ageism, et al. can't be reduced with integrity to simply assumptions based on stereotypes, though they certainly play a part.

Well, Coidzor just posted several other definitions that all support my basic point - sexism can just be the projection of a stereotype, even if unintentional. I do agree with your basic point, that the use of the word 'he' isn't particularly sexist, but I do disagree with your definition of sexism, which seems to imply that it has to be an intentional feeling of superiority.


Children learn that people wearing uniforms are usually important and have authority. That's a stereotype. Most people have two parents. Dogs are jumpy, cats are lazy, old people smell funny, people in the 80s didn't know how to dress themselves and so forth. Stereotypes are just a way of collecting all of the common traits of a certain type of people into one ideal model, in order to know what to expect. That alone isn't harmful, but when incorrect information filters in, often negative assumptions, then a stereotype is flawed.

I tend to think of all stereotypes as negative simply because they don't prepare people very well for dealing with individuals. Yes, children learn that people in uniforms are authority figures. Look how much trouble people get in for automatically believing and following the orders of people in fake uniforms. Most people have two parents (supporting them while they grow up, I assume you meant) - hardly accurate today. They can be useful shortcuts, but in the end, they really don't mean anything at all.

However, as I said, I agree with your basic points. I don't think that assuming a cop was male is a harmful assumption at all, even though it may be slightly sexist, and all stereotypes aren't necessarily bad ones. I'm basically just debating semantics, I think, so feel free to ignore me.

[Serpentine]

Catch: The problem with "he" being the default isn't that the people using it are sexist, but that it's perpetuating - NOT deliberately - the idea that the default for humanity is male. Using "he" as a supposedly "neutral" term means that every "gender-unknown" person is considered to be male. This "humans are men, and there's also women" was a very real, detectable attitude for a very long time. We have, in practice, largely moved past the "women are secondary" stance, but the "neutral he" is a relic of that time, perpetuating it beyond when it should have died for good, or at the very least totally obsolete and in need of replacing.

As for your example, if police officers in that person's area tend to be men, it's not unreasonable for them to unconciously assume that the individual in question was. If there is no particularly significant gender disparity, it would indicate that there might be reason to look into the reasons - personal, social or whatever - that they make that assumption. It does not mean that person is sexist, and none of us are suggesting that. The closest we get to such a statement is that it might be indicative of certain ingrained social attitudes that must be examined and, hopefully, eliminated.

Language can and does both indicate and influence thought. It is a valid area of investigation and change, no matter how "minor" it might be in the grand scheme of things.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

This is why I use "they" and "them" when referring to a single person of unknown gender.

"So, I was stopped by a police officer today."
"Oh really? What did they say?"


It works so much better.

[Terumitsu]

This was likely one of the worst threads to start reading at 2 AM. I say this as I find the general exchange to be, on a whole, rather interesting and thought provoking. A good thing in my book. Making people think I mean.

Anyway, here is this lurker giving their two bits:

I have to say that I must side with the fact that the unintentional sexism in the English language is indeed a problem. I do find a question brewing in the back of my brain upon reaching this point, however:

What course of action should we take to change this?

I know that alternatives have been spoken of already in referencing a word or three that blends meanings but the issues with that have already been well discussed and I shall not bring them up again. Perhaps I could rephrase my question to ask simply "What should we do?" because we can banter for as long as we like and while that may sway a few opinions, can we do anything more to bring this to attention and elicit a more favorable set of conditions?

I've probably just typed a load of nonsense due to me being up so drattedly late but I do hope my intent is carried through and that there will be nitpicking upon that rather than select portions of my words. Call it a philosopher's pet peeve.

[Serpentine]

No, that's a totally valid question. One option might be to make up a new singular gender-neutral pronoun, but I don't think language really works that way. We could make "they" acceptable, but it has its own problems with being plural, and again, it involves artificially evolving language, and I think that's very difficult at best. Then there's he/she and his/her and the like, which people tend to dislike for stylistic reasons. All that's left that I can think of is also using the feminine as an alternative, a la the D&D books... Anything else?

[fknm]

Anything else?
You could probably just avoid using pronouns for a person whose gender you don't know, although that would be quite awkward.

For instance, "that cop" instead of "him".

[The Neoclassic]

Catch: The problem with "he" being the default isn't that the people using it are sexist, but that it's perpetuating - NOT deliberately - the idea that the default for humanity is male. Using "he" as a supposedly "neutral" term means that every "gender-unknown" person is considered to be male. This "humans are men, and there's also women" was a very real, detectable attitude for a very long time. We have, in practice, largely moved past the "women are secondary" stance, but the "neutral he" is a relic of that time, perpetuating it beyond when it should have died for good, or at the very least totally obsolete and in need of replacing.

Agreed. It may not be blatantly sexist, but it does have connotations that certainly place men as the "normal/default" gender. It's not that hard to move towards using truly gender neutral pronouns (be it recently invented ones, "one", or singular "they/their"), and as such, I don't think we should be perpetuating "he" as gender neutral when frankly, it's at best a reflection of outdated and sexist notions.


Language can and does both indicate and influence thought. It is a valid area of investigation and change, no matter how "minor" it might be in the grand scheme of things.

Absolutely. Besides, having a truly gender-neutral pronoun would also increase clarity in language! It would remove any confusion of when the speaker/writer actually knew the gender of the person he/she/they/whatever was referring to, and provide a truly neutral term for when gender doesn't matter.

[Serpentine]

Coincidentally, this very topic came up with my mother today. So, Dr. Mum considers "they" the valid gender-neutral term :smallbiggrin: Also, apparently "fishers" is coming into vogue as a gender-neutral replacement for "fishermen". Quite nice, I think, especially as it adheres to established norms (e.g. "butchers", "teachers", etc).

[Solaris]

All that's left that I can think of is also using the feminine as an alternative, a la the D&D books... Anything else?

Not an alternative default, I hope you mean, because that would simply replace one version of sexism with the other.

It is interesting to note that it seems the bulk of people saying 'he' is sexist are female, while the bulk who disagree are male. Anyone else noticed that?

[Serpentine]

We've already gone over that. Repeatedly. No, I referred to the D&D books specifically because of the manner in which they alternate between the use of "he" and "she".

What do you mean by that? I hope not that our view isn't valid because we're only saying that because we're female. Maybe it's because for men, "male" is the default, and for women it is not, or something like that, perhaps?

[Coidzor]

More likely men are less likely to pick up on it, so when it is pointed out they express that they don't see what the big deal is and receive either a lecture or outright hostility leading to a perception amongst some that the real problem is people having nothing better to do than complain about this apparent triviality.

That's my best grasp of the way it plays out anyway.

[Catch]

More likely men are less likely to pick up on it, so when it is pointed out they express that they don't see what the big deal is and receive either a lecture or outright hostility leading to a perception amongst some that the real problem is people having nothing better to do than complain about this apparent triviality.

Generally, yes.

Additionally, there are so many alternatives to the offending universal "he," and so few instances in dialogue or discourse where it would be the least awkward pronoun choice that the discussion is mostly rhetoric.

As I've observed it, people infer gender in conversation based on context clues or job sterotypes, and in academic work, "one," "they," "he/she," and "he or she" predominate when describing a hypothetical person.

This isn't to say the debate is "not a big deal, you guys y'all" as the perceived and internalized inequalities are still present.

Speaking of which, I've noticed the phrase "you guys" popping up a lot in my area (Midwest US), used about equally by men and women to colloquially address a small group. My folks pointed this out to me a few years ago, that it's especially annoying when a restaurant hostess will say it, as "you guys" isn't applicable when a group contains at least one woman. Since "y'all" is a word out of its element where I live, I've heard the uncoupled "you all" in its place, and more commonly the plural "you."

Anyone else notice this sort of thing? What's your preferred alternative?

[Serpentine]

Now that's an interesting one. You've gotten me thinking about it, and I was going to say that I apply "guys" to any bunch of men or women. If I'm talking about "a guy", or "guys", then that's male, but for a specific set of "guys" - "you guys" or "those guys" - it's totally neutral. As in, I wouldn't think twice about talking to a group of entirely female friends as "you guys". Huh.

[Coidzor]

The only alternative I can think of off the top of my head, for the same sense/level of colloquialism vs. formality is "y'all."

And some part of me just prefers to deal with the occasional woman piping up that she isn't a guy than to have people label me as a hick, reactionary dinosaur, ultra-sexist, ultra-racist, inbred, and/or otherwise unsavory character by revealing that I'm not from the same home region as they are.

So it's basically a calculated risk between sounding about as sexist as the next John Quincy Public's baseline and sounding more sexist and more other undesirable things.

And if you get into ladies and gentlemen you go into awkward formality. And, "You fellows," occasionally has a similar objection by women that they are not male but rather female as if our eyes and noses couldn't identify them as such, even when it's explained that fellow is now a gender neutral term due to academia and one or two other settings.

Peeps works ok, but is fairly familiar and sometimes just seems to rub people the wrong way.

[Solaris]

We've already gone over that. Repeatedly. No, I referred to the D&D books specifically because of the manner in which they alternate between the use of "he" and "she".
Just because it's been gone over doesn't mean some people actually understood what was said. I apologize for lumping you in with them, though.


What do you mean by that? I hope not that our view isn't valid because we're only saying that because we're female. Maybe it's because for men, "male" is the default, and for women it is not, or something like that, perhaps?

Just an observation void of any real proposed hypothesis, and certainly not saying someone's viewpoint isn't valid because they're female. That's a really insulting thing to accuse me of, Serp, so I think we're about even.


More likely men are less likely to pick up on it, so when it is pointed out they express that they don't see what the big deal is and receive either a lecture or outright hostility leading to a perception amongst some that the real problem is people having nothing better to do than complain about this apparent triviality.

That's my best grasp of the way it plays out anyway.

Looking back at this thread, I'd say that's fairly accurate.

[Lamech]

Generally, yes.

Additionally, there are so many alternatives to the offending universal "he," and so few instances in dialogue or discourse where it would be the least awkward pronoun choice that the discussion is mostly rhetoric.

As I've observed it, people infer gender in conversation based on context clues or job sterotypes, and in academic work, "one," "they," "he/she," and "he or she" predominate when describing a hypothetical person.

This isn't to say the debate is "not a big deal, you guys y'all" as the perceived and internalized inequalities are still present.

Speaking of which, I've noticed the phrase "you guys" popping up a lot in my area (Midwest US), used about equally by men and women to colloquially address a small group. My folks pointed this out to me a few years ago, that it's especially annoying when a restaurant hostess will say it, as "you guys" isn't applicable when a group contains at least one woman. Since "y'all" is a word out of its element where I live, I've heard the uncoupled "you all" in its place, and more commonly the plural "you."

Anyone else notice this sort of thing? What's your preferred alternative?I will use you guys for a group of all males, mixed genders, and all females. In fact, I seem to use it for all plural groups of people. "You guys" is gender neutral.

[Cealocanth]

As a gender neutral singular pronoun I use s/he on forums such as this. "It" is technically correct but it is often found insulting. So I just go the long way around and say (for example) "will he or she be coming to him or her?"

[edit: And that truly gender neutral pronoun you are looking for is "it", as in "I met a poliece officer this afternoon
really? what did it say?" The problem is that society has all but ruined that pronoun because of the stereotype that all gender neutral words reffer to a homosexual, or that all its are inferior because they do not have a specified gender in the sentnce. We need to adopt one from annother language (why not? english does it all the time.) If anyone out there has one, we coulod start using it.]

[Serpentine]

Just an observation void of any real proposed hypothesis, and certainly not saying someone's viewpoint isn't valid because they're female. That's a really insulting thing to accuse me of, Serp, so I think we're about even.Just checking. I read a particular tone into it that I'm glad to know was wrong. Sorry, and thanks for not meaning that in a loaded "isn't it interesting that..." sort of a way. Probably doesn't help that the last time I heard something along those lines was "isn't it interesting that the only people who haven't forgiven me are girls?" or thereabouts.
By the way, I don't think it's sexist to use "she" as a replacement for the neutral "he", so long as it's in an attempt to somewhat even out the disparity in general speech. If it's used to equalize, not to totally replace, especially in the absence of a suitable truly neutral replacement, it's not sexist.

[Worira]

As a gender neutral singular pronoun I use s/he on forums such as this. "It" is technically correct but it is often found insulting. So I just go the long way around and say (for example) "will he or she be coming to him or her?"

[edit: And that truly gender neutral pronoun you are looking for is "it", as in "I met a poliece officer this afternoon
really? what did it say?" The problem is that society has all but ruined that pronoun because of the stereotype that all gender neutral words reffer to a homosexual, or that all its are inferior because they do not have a specified gender in the sentnce. We need to adopt one from annother language (why not? english does it all the time.) If anyone out there has one, we coulod start using it.]

Actually, it's because the word "it" refers to inanimate objects, or animals.

[Xyk]

Personally I use "they". It has been used often enough to become an appropriate word.

[Serpentine]

Wait, where did the idea that gender neutral terms apply to homosexuals come from? :smallconfused: Genderqueers or, at a stretch, transexuals I can see, but that's about it, and really only if you're referring to words like "ze" that's more of a third gender option than gender neutral per se.

[Solaris]

Just checking. I read a particular tone into it that I'm glad to know was wrong. Sorry, and thanks for not meaning that in a loaded "isn't it interesting that..." sort of a way. Probably doesn't help that the last time I heard something along those lines was "isn't it interesting that the only people who haven't forgiven me are girls?" or thereabouts.

Yeah, I'm not that kinda guy. Females can confuse the hell out of me sometimes, but I actually prefer 'em to males.


By the way, I don't think it's sexist to use "she" as a replacement for the neutral "he", so long as it's in an attempt to somewhat even out the disparity in general speech. If it's used to equalize, not to totally replace, especially in the absence of a suitable truly neutral replacement, it's not sexist.

Equalizing is fine. Heck, using it exclusively so long as you're not actively trying is, too, just like I have no problems with someone using 'he' exclusively when it comes naturally.


Wait, where did the idea that gender neutral terms apply to homosexuals come from? :smallconfused: Genderqueers or, at a stretch, transexuals I can see, but that's about it, and really only if you're referring to words like "ze" that's more of a third gender option than gender neutral per se.

Beats the heck out of me. Last I heard, gay guys were still guys.
I almost said "Last I checked", but that would've been wrong.

[Cealocanth]

Wait, where did the idea that gender neutral terms apply to homosexuals come from? :smallconfused: Genderqueers or, at a stretch, transexuals I can see, but that's about it, and really only if you're referring to words like "ze" that's more of a third gender option than gender neutral per se.

It's a bad stereotype floating around like a mad virus. As goes on with most teenagers, people are always seperated into social groups. The term gay/homosexual has spread to mean anything from stupid to literally bisexual. People that I'm around are inadvertenly sensitive to that sort of thing, so much so that the mention of the word "it" is calling somone gay or homosexual.

[Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll]

It's a bad stereotype floating around like a mad virus. As goes on with most teenagers, people are always seperated into social groups. The term gay/homosexual has spread to mean anything from stupid to literally bisexual. People that I'm around are inadvertenly sensitive to that sort of thing, so much so that the mention of the word "it" is calling somone gay or homosexual.

Never heard that before, and I'm a teenager, I should know :smallwink:

I do say "That's so homosexual" to throw people off balance though. It usually works, makes them think what they're really saying when they say 'that's so gay'.

But that's off topic.

[Riffington]

Since "y'all" is a word out of its element where I live, I've heard the uncoupled "you all" in its place, and more commonly the plural "you."

Anyone else notice this sort of thing? What's your preferred alternative?

The correct word is Yinz.

[Solaris]

The correct word is Yinz.

Bwuh? I've heard y'all, but never heard yinz before.

[Recaiden]

Bwuh? I've heard y'all, but never heard yinz before.

That's because it's even more localized than y'all.

[arguskos]

That's because it's even more localized than y'all.
To where? One town or somethin'? I mean, hell, I lived in the heart of ya'll land for years and never heard yinz.

Must be rural Deep South, I can't think of anywhere else it'd be.

[Recaiden]

To where? One town or somethin'? I mean, hell, I lived in the heart of ya'll land for years and never heard yinz.

Must be rural Deep South, I can't think of anywhere else it'd be.

Pittsburgh.

[Serpentine]

Yeah, I'm not that kinda guy. Females can confuse the hell out of me sometimes, but I actually prefer 'em to males.It was a girl who said that. And the supposed "forgiveness" was for serial cheating and manipulation.

Ceal: I have never, ever heard that before. The closest is flaming gay men referring to each other as "girls" and the like (which, by the way, really annoys me. Your sexuality does not dictate your sex. Get your own :smallannoyed:).

[Sholos]

Am I the only person who is bothered by flaming gays? I have two gay friends (not counting my female friends that are bi/lesbian, just the gay male ones). They both act like normal people. Heck, one of them you probably wouldn't know he was gay unless you asked/he told you/you saw him doing something. I don't know why, but something about the way flaming gays act bothers me, and it's obviously not that they're gay. Anyone else feel this way?

[Serpentine]

Because it's a really annoying way to behave regardless of the sexuality attached to it?

[potatocubed]

Because "Look at me, I'm so [adjective]" is not a substitute for a personality?

[Totally Guy]

My little brother told me recently:

"I'm not just gay anymore..."

I asked him what he was now. And told me he was still gay but now he was himself first and gay as a secondary feature. He said that he was no longer defined by his sexuality.

And that's good. I couldn't join in with any of his hobbies when they were all some variant of being gay.

[Solaris]

Am I the only person who is bothered by flaming gays? I have two gay friends (not counting my female friends that are bi/lesbian, just the gay male ones). They both act like normal people. Heck, one of them you probably wouldn't know he was gay unless you asked/he told you/you saw him doing something. I don't know why, but something about the way flaming gays act bothers me, and it's obviously not that they're gay. Anyone else feel this way?

In short, no, no you're not. Those cats give the other gay guys a bad name.

[Faulty]

I don't care about flaming gays. I think negative opinions about them are due to latent homophobia in our culture. I'd actually take a flaming gay over a flaming heterosexual.

[Cleverdan22]

flaming heterosexual.

Frat guys?

But yeah, Sholos, you aren't the only person on that boat. In my experience, they seem kind of fake and revel in making people feel weird, guys and girls alike.

[Kneenibble]

And that's good. I couldn't join in with any of his hobbies when they were all some variant of being gay.

I don't think he'd want his brother joining in with that anyways. :smalltongue:

[Faulty]

Frat guys?

Yeah, basically. :smalltongue:

[Sholos]

I don't care about flaming gays. I think negative opinions about them are due to latent homophobia in our culture. I'd actually take a flaming gay over a flaming heterosexual.

Why is being a flaming gay more acceptable than being a flaming heterosexual? Is that some heterophobia? :smalltongue: But, seriously, why?

On a personal note, I had never really thought of the term "flaming heterosexual" before now, but if frat guys is who it applies to, then I'm annoyed by them, too.

[JonestheSpy]

Am I the only person who is bothered by flaming gays? I have two gay friends (not counting my female friends that are bi/lesbian, just the gay male ones). They both act like normal people. Heck, one of them you probably wouldn't know he was gay unless you asked/he told you/you saw him doing something. I don't know why, but something about the way flaming gays act bothers me, and it's obviously not that they're gay.

Maybe because you don't like people who like being different. Gay people are fine with you as long as they act "normal" - how do you feel about other folks whose behaviour clearly differentiates them from "normal"? Or perhaps it's the more specific subversion of gender norms.

Myself, I find it an entertaining affectation, and if i was going to, say, go to a party full of strangers, I'd have a lot more fun if it was a bunch of "flaming gays" than "normal" people.

[Serpentine]

I don't care about flaming gays. I think negative opinions about them are due to latent homophobia in our culture. I'd actually take a flaming gay over a flaming heterosexual.Seriously, Faulty? I can't just find that sort of behaviour incredibly grating simply because that sort of behaviour is incredibly grating, regardless of who it's attached to? Because it would still annoy the bajeebus out of me no matter who was doing it, it just happens to be mostly attached to homosexual males. Anyone who wears their sexuality as their primary personality trait is probably going to annoy me, no matter what that sexuality is, and that also seems to be tied up with flaming.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm rather offended by the accusation that I can't be annoyed by a particular personality trait without being "latently homophobic".
edit: Same to Jones. I like different people. I find them most interesting, most of the time. But flaming just annoys me, simple as that. Gay people are fine with me regardless, but that doesn't mean I have to like all of them, like I don't like all of any other group of people.

[Xyk]

Am I the only person who is bothered by flaming gays? I have two gay friends (not counting my female friends that are bi/lesbian, just the gay male ones). They both act like normal people. Heck, one of them you probably wouldn't know he was gay unless you asked/he told you/you saw him doing something. I don't know why, but something about the way flaming gays act bothers me, and it's obviously not that they're gay. Anyone else feel this way?

Honestly, it's not a big deal to me. It's a little obnoxious, but not any more than the typical jock archetype or the socially inept geek archetype. To be honest it's more fun than those other two because it's rarer where I come from. It's amusing.

Attaching it to a specific orientation is discriminatory and blatantly defies one of my core beliefs: "Human is the only race/orientation."

@Serpentine: You are entitled to your opinions of a specific behavior.

[cho_j]

Quote:Originally Posted by thubby
machines and other fabrications are usually female, where "he" is usually used for unknown people. i could see an argument for that social norm being sexist.

Only if it's something you love. My howitzer's a female (despite being some seriously blatant 'fertility' imagery), my truck's a female, my TV's an it.

Wait, so, if you love the object, it's not sexist? Considering the long history of women being treated simultaneously as property and people, I'd say using "he" for a hypothetical person and "she" for an object towards which one feels affection is quite sexist... though, personally, I don't think there's a sexist INTENT behind using these terms. I don't believe people take a moment before speaking to specifically think "ha, I'm going to use 'he' as the gender-neutral pronoun so as to imply the inferiority of women!"

But the thing is, I hate when people use 'he' to mean some unknown or hypothetical person. Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but when somebody says, "say somebody wants to be a doctor— how many years of med school does he have to go though?" or something similar, my feminist senses start tingling like mad. It gets even worse when the hypothetical scenario involves a position in society that women have yet to break into; for instance, whenever I write about the presidency in my government class, I make sure to write "if the president wants to do x, he or she has to..."

I'm most in favor of using they. It's the simplest thing, has been used for a long time, and would put my nerves at ease while writing essays. Because, whether "he" as the gender neutral has sexist intent or not, many other parts of the English language do. (Consider, for instance, the terms "man slut" and "man whore." The idea there is that a slut or whore is a woman unless otherwise specified.)

...So in short, let's use "they." I promise to stop ranting if we do.

[Faulty]

Why is being a flaming gay more acceptable than being a flaming heterosexual? Is that some heterophobia? :smalltongue: But, seriously, why?

On a personal note, I had never really thought of the term "flaming heterosexual" before now, but if frat guys is who it applies to, then I'm annoyed by them, too.

I just feel less comfortable around that type of person. :smalltongue:


Seriously, Faulty? I can't just find that sort of behaviour incredibly grating simply because that sort of behaviour is incredibly grating, regardless of who it's attached to? Because it would still annoy the bajeebus out of me no matter who was doing it, it just happens to be mostly attached to homosexual males. Anyone who wears their sexuality as their primary personality trait is probably going to annoy me, no matter what that sexuality is, and that also seems to be tied up with flaming.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm rather offended by the accusation that I can't be annoyed by a particular personality trait without being "latently homophobic".
edit: Same to Jones. I like different people. I find them most interesting, most of the time. But flaming just annoys me, simple as that. Gay people are fine with me regardless, but that doesn't mean I have to like all of them, like I don't like all of any other group of people.

I should have specified that it's not the case with all people, obviously. If you find the behaviour grating, then yeah, that's fine. I just find that often backlash against flaming homosexuals seems to be accompanied by a discomfort with homosexuals as a whole. Sorry if I offended you, I didn't mean to insinuate that it's a blanket case.

[Serpentine]

Apology accepted. Be careful with that sort of thing, lest you find yourself "playing the gay card" to invalidate the opinions of others.

edit: that's genuinely meant just as a friendly caution, by the way. No snarkiness intended.

[Faulty]

edit: that's genuinely meant just as a friendly caution, by the way. No snarkiness intended.

I figured. :smallsmile:

[Coidzor]

I don't think he'd want his brother joining in with that anyways. :smalltongue:

...I'd hope not. :smallyuk:



...Great. Now I'm left dwelling on why ships are female.

And why countries have sexes. :smallsigh:

[Ravens_cry]

...I'd hope not. :smallyuk:



...Great. Now I'm left dwelling on why ships are female.

And why countries have sexes. :smallsigh:
The same reason bread is male and milk is female in Spanish, the history of the language.

[Xyk]

...I'd hope not. :smallyuk:



...Great. Now I'm left dwelling on why ships are female.

And why countries have sexes. :smallsigh:

To make baby countries.

[potatocubed]

To make baby countries.

Just like making baby people, the gestation of a new country is often accompanied by screaming, pain, and a lot of blood.

[Sholos]

Just like making baby people, the gestation of a new country is often accompanied by screaming, pain, and a lot of blood.

Of course, so is making baby people...

[Worira]

That's what he said!

No, really. He just said that.

[Ostien]

I'd just like to jump in and say Garner's Modern American Usage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garner%27s_Modern_American_Usage) says that the use of the singular they is a-okay, even if grammar nit pickers might disagree. This is because they contend that the English language is fluid and it has changed, will continue to and the singular they convention is becoming increasingly popular and will most likely be a standard convention. So really the nit-pickers are behind the times. Garner writes: “Disturbing though these developments may be to purists, they're irreversible”

Also there is evidence of the use of the singular they long ago (so really what is “pure” English for the purists?). It is simply a preference issue but to say that it is “wrong” really does not take into account the actual use and flexible evolution of the English language.

[Sholos]

That's what he said!

No, really. He just said that.

Yeah, I just noticed that. I completely misread that post.:smallredface:

[JonestheSpy]

edit: Same to Jones. I like different people. I find them most interesting, most of the time. But flaming just annoys me, simple as that. Gay people are fine with me regardless, but that doesn't mean I have to like all of them, like I don't like all of any other group of people.

Well, I was addressing Sholos's comment about how he's fine with gay people who act 'normal'. Yeah, I know was being somewhat provocative, but the idea that "It's okay to be different as long as you appear and act 'normal' " to be quite annoying - which I know is not exactly what Sholos said, but it could certainly be interpreted that way.

Sure, you can find flaming to be annoying without being the least bit homophobic - I certainly know plenty of gay people who don't like flaming either. I just hate the concept that it's in any way superior to act 'normal'.

[Solaris]

Wait, so, if you love the object, it's not sexist? Considering the long history of women being treated simultaneously as property and people, I'd say using "he" for a hypothetical person and "she" for an object towards which one feels affection is quite sexist... though, personally, I don't think there's a sexist INTENT behind using these terms. I don't believe people take a moment before speaking to specifically think "ha, I'm going to use 'he' as the gender-neutral pronoun so as to imply the inferiority of women!"

If there's no sexist intent, then how is it sexist? If I only perceive that truck barreling down at me, but it's not really there, will I be run over? If I only perceive an insult, did the other insult me or did I simply find offense when there was none?
That's how I see it, anyhow. Your mileage may vary. I'm of the school of thought that words are nothing but air. "Say what you will. What is, is. What is not, is not." That kind of thinking.

From what I've heard, the Russians call their ships 'he'. They have an even worse record when it comes to female rights than English-speaking nations (in general) do. I'm not saying there's causality, mind, I'm just sayin'.


But the thing is, I hate when people use 'he' to mean some unknown or hypothetical person. Maybe I'm being oversensitive, but when somebody says, "say somebody wants to be a doctor— how many years of med school does he have to go though?" or something similar, my feminist senses start tingling like mad. It gets even worse when the hypothetical scenario involves a position in society that women have yet to break into; for instance, whenever I write about the presidency in my government class, I make sure to write "if the president wants to do x, he or she has to..."

I'm most in favor of using they. It's the simplest thing, has been used for a long time, and would put my nerves at ease while writing essays. Because, whether "he" as the gender neutral has sexist intent or not, many other parts of the English language do. (Consider, for instance, the terms "man slut" and "man whore." The idea there is that a slut or whore is a woman unless otherwise specified.)

...So in short, let's use "they." I promise to stop ranting if we do.

Honest, you're about a page late for this bit. We've pretty much all accepted that 'they' is better all-around (even if I'll continue using 'he' simply because I'm really too lazy to go futzing around with a couple decades' worth of habit because someone might be offended... and I'm in the military, so it probably is a 'he').

Man-slut and man-whore are a bird not brought up yet. I agree, that is sexism in the language/culture. Worse, they're often used in a mockingly admiring manner, whereas calling a woman a slut/whore is just a straight-up insult. Double standards like that are a bad thing. There's double-standards that run against men, too, albeit not as strongly. That's still a bad thing. Like I've been saying pretty much every time I bothered to post, two wrongs doesn't make a right.

I do find that interesting, that people can be offended by what someone else says. Sticks and stones, ja? Military folks develop thicker skins than civilians, it appears. We call each other by names and use insults that'd probably wind us up under arrest if we were to use them in the civilian world in the course of daily business. Heck, I've heard three holocaust jokes just this morning. Offensive? Sure, I suppose. Was I offended? No. Words, after all, are just air. I think a little of that stoicism would do wonders for the rest of the world culture.


Well, I was addressing Sholos's comment about how he's fine with gay people who act 'normal'. Yeah, I know was being somewhat provocative, but the idea that "It's okay to be different as long as you appear and act 'normal' " to be quite annoying - which I know is not exactly what Sholos said, but it could certainly be interpreted that way.

Sure, you can find flaming to be annoying without being the least bit homophobic - I certainly know plenty of gay people who don't like flaming either. I just hate the concept that it's in any way superior to act 'normal'.

Normalcy is overrated, but being annoying isn't exactly an acceptable substitute.

[arguskos]

Heck, I've heard three holocaust jokes just this morning. Offensive? Sure, I suppose. Was I offended? No. Words, after all, are just air. I think a little of that stoicism would do wonders for the rest of the world culture.
I had this exact conversation last night with some friends. My thought was that everything has humorous potential. There's no sense treating something as sacred, it's all just words anymore. Laugh about it, prevent it from happening again, move on. *shrug* Makes sense to me.

[JonestheSpy]

If there's no sexist intent, then how is it sexist? If I only perceive that truck barreling down at me, but it's not really there, will I be run over? If I only perceive an insult, did the other insult me or did I simply find offense when there was none?
That's how I see it, anyhow. Your mileage may vary. I'm of the school of thought that words are nothing but air. "Say what you will. What is, is. What is not, is not." That kind of thinking.

I disagree - I think words are very important - they define our reality, in many respects. And really, just because one believes one is not choosing to be offensive doesn't automatically mean you're not. You could, for instance, be expressing the ingrained biases of your society and not even be really conscious that you're doing so. Easy to say No Big Deal, What's The Problem? - as long as you're not part of the group biased against.


Heck, I've heard three holocaust jokes just this morning. Offensive? Sure, I suppose. Was I offended? No. Words, after all, are just air. I think a little of that stoicism would do wonders for the rest of the world culture.

I can't help wondering, do you have any relatives who died in the holocaust? If not, do you think you might possibly feel otherwise if you did?




Normalcy is overrated, but being annoying isn't exactly an acceptable substitute.

See, this is kind of what I mean about the power of words and defining reality. I don't find flaming gays annoying, it's not an inherent quality of the behaviour, just your perception. So what you're really saying is:



Normalcy is overrated, but acting in a way I personally find annoying isn't exactly an acceptable substitute.

See the problem there? Heck, no one's even been able to say why they don't like flaming gays, just that they don't.

[Riffington]

Man-slut and man-whore are a bird not brought up yet. I agree, that is sexism in the language/culture. Worse, they're often used in a mockingly admiring manner, whereas calling a woman a slut/whore is just a straight-up insult. Double standards like that are a bad thing.

I think that's culture, not language. Come up with a new word for a sex-positive female, and within a year of general use it'll become as positive/negative a term as slut is.



There's double-standards that run against men, too, albeit not as strongly.

Probably stronger. A guy who relies on a woman to support him is a deadbeat (and this probably drives a lot of the rest of the sexism in our culture).



...Great. Now I'm left dwelling on why ships are female.

Because they are vessels :p



And why countries have sexes. :smallsigh:
Is Germany the only male one?

[Solaris]

I disagree - I think words are very important - they define our reality, in many respects. And really, just because one believes one is not choosing to be offensive doesn't automatically mean you're not. You could, for instance, be expressing the ingrained biases of your society and not even be really conscious that you're doing so. Easy to say No Big Deal, What's The Problem? - as long as you're not part of the group biased against.

And what if I am part of a group that's biased against, and I simply don't care that people hate me? Try being a US trooper in the Middle East. You get used to people hating you. Heck, certain parts of the United States, you walk around in uniform you'll get spat on, called a baby-murderer, you name it. Yeah, I got some idea as to what it's like to be part of a hated group.


I can't help wondering, do you have any relatives who died in the holocaust? If not, do you think you might possibly feel otherwise if you did?

Yes, possibly, but nobody who was present for these jokes were involved in the holocaust, nor was anyone within a generation of them involved. The closest most of us got are grandfathers who fought in the war.
Now, if we were talking about cracking holocaust jokes in front of a survivor, that's a bird of a whole different color. That's worth getting a beatin' for. I understand what you're saying, I just feel it's irrelevant.


See, this is kind of what I mean about the power of words and defining reality. I don't find flaming gays annoying, it's not an inherent quality of the behaviour, just your perception. So what you're really saying is:

See the problem there? Heck, no one's even been able to say why they don't like flaming gays, just that they don't.

Alright. I find the over-the-top behavior obnoxious. That goes for pretty much any kind of over-the-top behavior, mind. I'm not a Jim Carrey fan either. I don't like the affected lisp. I dislike limp-wristed hand-waving. That snapping thing drives me nuts no matter who does it. Dressing flamboyantly like that appalls me. Like I said, it ain't homophobia 'cause I could care less what someone does in the privacy of their own home with someone else. It doesn't affect me, therefore I don't have a right to say they can or can't. I am, however, well within my rights to express a dislike of a certain manner of dress and behavior just as someone is well within their rights to express a dislike of my manners of dress and behavior. It neither helps nor harms them just as it neither helps nor harms me.

Words are only air, after all. Have you ever run across the philosophy that it's not the thing that causes a person to react, but rather the idea of the thing? In short, reactions don't come from outside, but rather they come from within.

[Serpentine]

If there's no sexist intent, then how is it sexist?Because people don't tend to think carefully about what they're saying as they say it. When men used to talk about how women belonged in the kitchen, do you think they were conciously making a decision to oppress women? No, they were just going along with the cultural norms, doing what was considered okay. Does that mean it wasn't sexist of them to say so? If you think it does, well, if everyone thought that way we women would probably still be in the kitchen. You can say "there is a culture of ingrained sexism here, as indicated by things such as this, and this is how we can fix it" without condemning any individual. Language can have meaning seperate to its intent.

I'm of the school of thought that words are nothing but air.That is a rather naiive view, one that hardly holds up in the real world. If that were true, we wouldn't need laws against "inciting to violence", or hate speech. The fact is, language does both indicate thought and influence it. Denying this is nothing but burying your head in the sand, or coming up with excuses to say whatever you want.

There's double-standards that run against men, too, albeit not as strongly. That's still a bad thing. Like I've been saying pretty much every time I bothered to post, two wrongs doesn't make a right.Yep, and that's why you should support feminism.

I think a little of that stoicism would do wonders for the rest of the world culture.Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Belittling people who actually do care about the problem is just going to make it worse.
In fact, this reminds me of a study I just heard about: rural men in Australia are more likely to just ignore medical problems than city men. They also have a life expectancy that's 8 years lower.

[Coidzor]

When men used to talk about how women belonged in the kitchen, do you think they were conciously making a decision to oppress women?

Uh. Yes. They didn't want the women getting uppity or having a real chance at becoming better than them. Also, they still do, only now it's (mostly) tongue-in-cheek. I'm sure, even in your land where you've never heard the word sammich naturally, instead opting for the term... "sarnie," that you've heard the kitchen-sammich line.


Language can have meaning separate to its intent.

So you've got me wondering on what the ruling on languages that actually have sexism built-in with giving different gender to different qualities, virtues, vices, sins, and concepts? Neuter the lot of 'em as the final solution?

Erode and replace them until they're no longer living languages?

[Solaris]

Because people don't tend to think carefully about what they're saying as they say it. When men used to talk about how women belonged in the kitchen, do you think they were consciously making a decision to oppress women? No, they were just going along with the cultural norms, doing what was considered okay. Does that mean it wasn't sexist of them to say so? If you think it does, well, if everyone thought that way we women would probably still be in the kitchen. You can say "there is a culture of ingrained sexism here, as indicated by things such as this, and this is how we can fix it" without condemning any individual. Language can have meaning seperate to its intent.

I don't believe it's the same, as saying women belong in the kitchen is an expression of sexist intent. So yes, they were making a decision to oppress women. Perhaps not conscious, but there's demonstrable sexism there.
'Sides, most girls I've met cook worse than I do. They can do the dishes instead.

But referring to a ship as 'she' is no more oppressing women than the Russians referring to a ship as 'he' is oppressing men. Frankly, I can't even see how. I mean, I read that argument about objectification of women - but trust me, that's not how men objectify women. Maxim covers and cleavage-baring starlets are a better example of the objectification of women. That became more commonplace after the sexual revolution, something I believe women lost more than they won. Objectifying a woman involves reducing her to the 'fun bits' of her body, whereas referring to a ship in the feminine is about as opposite as possible.
At least, I don't see any resemblance between a Victoria's Secret model and the USS Nimitz. That might just be me, though.


That is a rather naiive view, one that hardly holds up in the real world. If that were true, we wouldn't need laws against "inciting to violence", or hate speech. The fact is, language does both indicate thought and influence it. Denying this is nothing but burying your head in the sand, or coming up with excuses to say whatever you want.

We don't. I know, excuses with my head buried and whatnot. I could say the same to you, but that wouldn't make it any more true. I really don't think we need laws against hate speech or inciting to violence on account of how easily they're abused. Language does indicate thought - we figure a part of the reason rural Iraqis of Diyala were so dim compared to urban Iraqis was because of their illiteracy and simpler language. But those laws lead into something like thoughtcrime, because if it's illegal to express hatred of someone (not that I'm advocating hate, mind) then logically it's illegal to hate someone. This starts wandering into politics, so I think I can sum it up best with this: If you agree, you agree, and if you do not, you do not.

I, of course, believe that placing great value on others' opinion (not the same as debating the topic, what we're doing, but acting like there's a vested interest in the other party coming 'round to your point of view without one being present) is immature. We're each entitled to our own opinion, and it matters not a whit whether or not we agree or disagree. There's the whole of the Pacific Ocean between us, and in three years neither will remember the other even existed.


Yep, and that's why you should support feminism.

I support equal rights for all people under the law. If that's different, well...
You have to understand, a lot of encounters I've had with feminists have been with the femi-nazi strain. Calling oneself a feminist nowadays strikes me like calling oneself an abolitionist or a suffragette. Your experience is different from mine, of course, and I may be completely wrong in this, but there it is.


Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Belittling people who actually do care about the problem is just going to make it worse.
In fact, this reminds me of a study I just heard about: rural men in Australia are more likely to just ignore medical problems than city men. They also have a life expectancy that's 8 years lower.

I'm belittling people who get worked up over what other people think of them, sure. In cases where there's actually a problem, such as a woman being paid less than a man or being treated like a servant, that's something to get worked up over. That's the difference between going to the doctor every time you have a little sniffle and going to the doctor when you're actually sick.
You are not going to convince me that I should care what anyone else thinks, nor are you going to convince me that anyone else should care about what anyone else thinks about them. I'm sorry, you're just not. Take race relations, for example. Racial epithets against whites in the US aren't outlawed, whereas racial epithets against blacks are considered especially heinous and (IIRC) can be prosecuted as hate speech. It's because just about every white person, ever, doesn't give two rats about being called names like that. We don't place any value in the names, so the names have no value.

[Serpentine]

I wasn't talking about most of that. I'm still talking about gender pronouns. I have no particular opinion either way on the subject of gendering objects, nor have I been considering "other people's opinions" as something to be concerned about. I've been talking exclusively about the use of masculine pronouns as the default anonymous. So, I don't really have much to respond to, there...
Except this: "I support equal rights for all people under the law." Congratulations, you're a feminist. Although I and, I presume, most other feminists would add ", in practice and culture" to that.

Anyway, I suppose basically I can just reiterate that it is possible to use sexist language without concious sexism, and it is possible to criticise the use of sexist language without making accusations of concious sexism. And language does matter, it is an indicator of thought and belief, and it does influence thought and belief. Saying that words have absolutely no impact on anything is just plain wrong. If there're any cognitive linguists or somesuch around who can elaborate on that, that'd be handy, as it's not really my field.

[Solaris]

I wasn't talking about most of that. I'm still talking about gender pronouns. I have no particular opinion either way on the subject of gendering objects, nor have I been considering "other people's opinions" as something to be concerned about. I've been talking exclusively about the use of masculine pronouns as the default anonymous. So, I don't really have much to respond to, there...

I think we already beat that horse to death. I was looking to bludgeon the rest of the team while I was at it.


Except this: "I support equal rights for all people under the law." Congratulations, you're a feminist. Although I and, I presume, most other feminists would add ", in practice and culture" to that.

Also an abolitionist and a suffragist, but I don't think that really needs saying either. Such beliefs are, in my experience, more noteworthy for their absence.


Anyway, I suppose basically I can just reiterate that it is possible to use sexist language without conscious sexism, and it is possible to criticise the use of sexist language without making accusations of conscious sexism.

And to reiterate, I disagree with this as I think sexism requires an intent. Without an intent to treat women as and a belief in women being inferior, I don't think it possible for language to be sexist. It's kind of like the question, if there's noone in a bedroom, is it still a bedroom?


And language does matter, it is an indicator of thought and belief, and it does influence thought and belief. Saying that words have absolutely no impact on anything is just plain wrong. If there're any cognitive linguists or somesuch around who can elaborate on that, that'd be handy, as it's not really my field.

This part I don't disagree with, but I think you're misunderstanding me. I've run out of ways to explain it, to be honest.

[Worira]

Of course it's a bedroom. It's not called a peopleroom, is it?

[Coidzor]

A thought occurs. Can we still call Anonymous male?

[Serpentine]

And to reiterate, I disagree with this as I think sexism requires an intent. Without an intent to treat women as and a belief in women being inferior, I don't think it possible for language to be sexist. It's kind of like the question, if there's noone in a bedroom, is it still a bedroom?Of course it is :smallconfused: If you go into a house, there will be the rooms known as "bedrooms" and "loungerooms" and "kitchen" and "bathroom" and so on, even if there's no furniture, much less no people. In fact, sometimes people use "bedrooms" like they would a "loungeroom". For their specific purposes, it's not a bedroom, but that's still what it will be called on the real estate description. Categorisation can be separate from use.
Hey, thanks for a good analogy :smallsmile:

"N I double G E R" doesn't stop being a slur just because some groups of people use it without insulting intent. And the use of "he" to refer to a sexless unknown can still be sexist even if its use is automatic and without thought.
Honestly, though, I'm not sure that "sexist" is the right word to use (and I don't think I was using it early on?). "Indicative of unconcious and/or cultural gender disparity", perhaps.

[potatocubed]

A thought occurs. Can we still call Anonymous male?

Yes, since it's an established part of Anonymous' paradigm that There Are No Girls On The Internet.

[Hazyshade]

But those laws lead into something like thoughtcrime, because if it's illegal to express hatred of someone (not that I'm advocating hate, mind) then logically it's illegal to hate someone.

Logically? Nothing is logically illegal. Illegal acts are not defined by logic, but by law. Please explain how, logically, hating someone and expressing hatred of someone are the same thing?


And to reiterate, I disagree with this as I think sexism requires an intent. Without an intent to treat women as and a belief in women being inferior, I don't think it possible for language to be sexist.

I agree with Serp; that's just a Get Out Of Jail Free card for sexists. Take your example: a "men's magazine" featuring topless models described in a way that reduces them to their "fun bits". If the editor of said magazine geniunely believes that women aren't inferior to men - if he (let's say this editor is a man) goes so far as to give an interview where he comes out with the old chestnut "Actually, I think women are superior to men in general" - would he still be guilty of sexism for having produced the magazine?


So you've got me wondering on what the ruling on languages that actually have sexism built-in with giving different gender to different qualities, virtues, vices, sins, and concepts? Neuter the lot of 'em as the final solution?

Erode and replace them until they're no longer living languages?

A language that refuses to adapt to reality is the opposite of a living language. I don't see a language's HP total as an argument either way though - if it needs changing, it needs changing.

[Riffington]

I really don't think we need laws against hate speech or inciting to violence

FYI your country has laws against incitement but not against hate speech. I don't know what is written re: regulations on base, but obviously if there are regulations against hate speech on base those must be rather loosely enforced.

[Coidzor]

A language that refuses to adapt to reality is the opposite of a living language. I don't see a language's HP total as an argument either way though - if it needs changing, it needs changing.

So, that's a yes on neutering romance languages, then?

[Mando Knight]

Logically? Nothing is logically illegal. Illegal acts are not defined by logic, but by law. Please explain how, logically, hating someone and expressing hatred of someone are the same thing?
You know one's thoughts by his words and deeds. As such, without the expression of a thought, it cannot be spread to others. Thus, by outlawing all expression of a thought, you in effect outlaw the thought itself.

I agree with Serp; that's just a Get Out Of Jail Free card for sexists. Take your example: a "men's magazine" featuring topless models described in a way that reduces them to their "fun bits". If the editor of said magazine geniunely believes that women aren't inferior to men - if he (let's say this editor is a man) goes so far as to give an interview where he comes out with the old chestnut "Actually, I think women are superior to men in general" - would he still be guilty of sexism for having produced the magazine?
The editor is then sexist the other way, and is no better than those who declare women inferior to men, and his actions show me that he believes that most men have the mental and emotional capacity of mere animals.

A language that refuses to adapt to reality is the opposite of a living language. I don't see a language's HP total as an argument either way though - if it needs changing, it needs changing.
Language that conforms to political correctness is an enslaved language.

This may seem rather tautological, but the only ones I've seen complain about language being sexist are the ones who either complain about perceived sexism in other places or push for unnecessary levels of political correctness. My gut reaction to those kinds of people is to tell them to grow up. If an actual wrong is being committed against you, then complain, but don't bother me with perceived wrongs based on another's refusal to comply to your delicate preferences.

[Hazyshade]

You know one's thoughts by his words and deeds. As such, without the expression of a thought, it cannot be spread to others. Thus, by outlawing all expression of a thought, you in effect outlaw the thought itself.
That still doesn't follow. Even if we assume for the sake of this scenario that thoughts are only good or bad to the extent that they're legal or illegal, how does preventing a thought from being spread to others outlaw the thinking of it by oneself?


The editor is then sexist the other way, and is no better than those who declare women inferior to men, and his actions show me that he believes that most men have the mental and emotional capacity of mere animals.
I wasn't asking about the interview quote, I was asking about the act of producing the magazine (and since the question was directed at Solaris, I was using the example Solaris gave of a sexist act - feel free to substitute your own).


Language that conforms to political correctness is an enslaved language.
Sounds good to me! Language getting uppity and bossing humans around causes no end of problems.


This may seem rather tautological, but the only ones I've seen complain about language being sexist are the ones who either complain about perceived sexism in other places or push for unnecessary levels of political correctness. My gut reaction to those kinds of people is to tell them to grow up. If an actual wrong is being committed against you, then complain, but don't bother me with perceived wrongs based on another's refusal to comply to your delicate preferences.
How exactly do you define actual wrongs as opposed to perceived wrongs? Could it be that an actual wrong is something you personally feel is worthy of being complained about, and a perceived wrong is something to which your gut reaction is grow up? Yes, that would make your point rather tautological. Unless it's an attempt at guilt by association - assocation with the politically correct (or alternatively "polite") movement - in which case my gut reaction to you is grow up.

[potatocubed]

You know one's thoughts by his words and deeds. As such, without the expression of a thought, it cannot be spread to others. Thus, by outlawing all expression of a thought, you in effect outlaw the thought itself.

By this logic, if you destroyed a photograph of someone then that person would cease to exist. The evidence of something's existence is not the same thing as its actual existence.

[Sholos]

By this logic, if you destroyed a photograph of someone then that person would cease to exist. The evidence of something's existence is not the same thing as its actual existence.

If restricting speech doesn't influence thought, then what's the real point of restricting it? Isn't the true goal to change how people think, not just what they say?

Also, your comparison fails, as the person's physical existence is better evidence than a photograph. That and the person's effects on this world. Now, if you were to destroy all evidence that the person existed, including changing the state of the world to one in which they had literally no effects? At that point, they practically have ceased to exist.

[snoopy13a]

You are not going to convince me that I should care what anyone else thinks, nor are you going to convince me that anyone else should care about what anyone else thinks about them. I'm sorry, you're just not. Take race relations, for example. Racial epithets against whites in the US aren't outlawed, whereas racial epithets against blacks are considered especially heinous and (IIRC) can be prosecuted as hate speech. It's because just about every white person, ever, doesn't give two rats about being called names like that. We don't place any value in the names, so the names have no value.

Hate speech isn't a crime in the United States or at least in no place I have heard of.

However, hate speech can constitute the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress if it constitutes extreme and outrageous conduct that causes severe emotional distress.

This has a very high burden though and is a relatively rare cause of action for a lawsuit. For a good example of speech that does constute this tort, look at the Sheriff's conduct in the following case (the plaintiff is the estate of the protagnist in Boys Don't Cry):

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ne&vol=sc/apr20/s00-022&invol=1

[Riffington]

Hate speech isn't a crime in the United States or at least in no place I have heard of.
Not in the US. In many nations it is, however.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is, as you point out, not the same thing.

[Mando Knight]

By this logic, if you destroyed a photograph of someone then that person would cease to exist. The evidence of something's existence is not the same thing as its actual existence.

If you destroyed all ability to sense the person, the person would effectively cease to exist. A thought is only known through its expression, so if all expression of that thought is outlawed, the thought itself is effectively outlawed.

[Coidzor]

That still doesn't follow. Even if we assume for the sake of this scenario that thoughts are only good or bad to the extent that they're legal or illegal, how does preventing a thought from being spread to others outlaw the thinking of it by oneself?


If we find out you think this thought, you will be punished.
If we find out you killed the baker with the butcher and the candlestick maker, you will be punished.

This is where they're coming from.


How exactly do you define actual wrongs as opposed to perceived wrongs? Could it be that an actual wrong is something you personally feel is worthy of being complained about, and a perceived wrong is something to which your gut reaction is grow up? Yes, that would make your point rather tautological. Unless it's an attempt at guilt by association - assocation with the politically correct (or alternatively "polite") movement - in which case my gut reaction to you is grow up.

A perceived wrong being something which is neither material nor of direct consequence to one's mental or emotional well-being. For instance, overhearing someone refer to a person of unknown gender as "he" while in a conversation with someone else should have no direct consequence upon the audience's emotional or mental well-being.

If it does, then the implication is that the person who is so fragile as to be wounded by this is likely already broken and thus dismissed as an outlier rather than a normal member of society.

[potatocubed]

If you destroyed all ability to sense the person, the person would effectively cease to exist. A thought is only known through its expression, so if all expression of that thought is outlawed, the thought itself is effectively outlawed.

Nope. Your argument rests on the premise that there is no such thing as the 'thing-in-itself'. That is, that things exist only as they are perceived.

The thing is, a thought is a thing-in-itself (at least in the context of this discussion - the actual metaphysics of the nature of thought are, I'll admit, somewhat beyond me). Even if I am unable to externally express a certain thought, the thought itself remains. We're all familiar with the concept of thinking something but not saying it, right? Same principle.

Now, if I was unable to express a thought internally, even to myself, you might have a point - except that evidence of suppressed memories and PTSD among other things shows that human beings can be affected by thoughts without being consciously aware of them.

The only way your argument could be correct is if there was no such thing as consciousness at all, so that 'thoughts' really did just exist as their expressions and no more.


If restricting speech doesn't influence thought, then what's the real point of restricting it? Isn't the true goal to change how people think, not just what they say?

It's a good question. I think the answer is something to do with the values that our culture instills in us, but it's late and I haven't really got a good answer. I'll think about it and see if I can come up with something.

[Mando Knight]

Nope. Your argument rests on the premise that there is no such thing as the 'thing-in-itself'. That is, that things exist only as they are perceived.
No, it doesn't. A thing can only be found or tested for existence by perceiving it or its effects. If it is not directly perceptible, and its effects have been suppressed, then the thing's existence is functionally negligible, regardless of whether it still exists or not.

Example: I have a pancreas. However, it is within my body, and not directly detectable without medical equipment or cutting me open, and I am probably several hundred or thousand kilometers away from your position. Thus, you currently cannot determine that I have a pancreas by any means other than observing that I exist. If you cannot observe that I exist, then you cannot prove that I have a functioning pancreas. Furthermore, because the only functions my pancreas has are relevant to my existence, if you cannot observe that I exist, then even if I do have a functioning pancreas, its existence is negligible to you, as you cannot find any proof of it.

[Hazyshade]

A perceived wrong being something which is neither material nor of direct consequence to one's mental or emotional well-being. For instance, overhearing someone refer to a person of unknown gender as "he" while in a conversation with someone else should have no direct consequence upon the audience's emotional or mental well-being.

If it does, then the implication is that the person who is so fragile as to be wounded by this is likely already broken and thus dismissed as an outlier rather than a normal member of society.

And who is the judge of what should affect people's mental and emotional well-being? You! Hence your distinction between perceived wrongs and actual wrongs is based on your own value judgements - or in other words, you make it up as you go along!

There are two questions here:
Q1: Is the use of gendered language acceptable?
Q2: Is Q1 important?

People care about the use of language, as proven by the existence of this thread, and have stated reasons why this stuff is important. To me it sounds like you're dodging Q1 by subtly shifting the discussion to Q2 and answering it in the negative.

[Thufir]

There are two questions here:
Q1: Is the use of gendered language acceptable?
Q2: Is Q1 important?

People care about the use of language, as proven by the existence of this thread, and have stated reasons why this stuff is important. To me it sounds like you're dodging Q1 by subtly shifting the discussion to Q2 and answering it in the negative.

Well, yeah. Because if Q1 isn't important, then neither is the answer to it. As such, Q2 should logically be a higher priority, otherwise you could waste ages debating Q1, only to then conclude that the answer doesn't actually matter.

However, in this case, actually, they're not separate questions, because if the use of gendered language is not acceptable, then that's important.
Now, if you changed Q1 to "Is the use of gendered language sexist?" then they become separate, though very closely related, questions. Because you could conclude that it is sexist, but to such a slight degree that it doesn't really matter, or sexist to a degree which matters very much (Which then makes it not acceptable, returning to your initial Q1).

So, yeah. I'm not actually commenting on the debate itself, because I've lost track of it and have work to be doing.

[Hazyshade]

However, in this case, actually, they're not separate questions, because if the use of gendered language is not acceptable, then that's important.
Exactly... so trying to answer Q2 before/without considering Q1, isn't going to work. My point is that in any debate on a subject, arguing that the debate shouldn't be taking place (because e.g. the only people who care about the outcome of it are not normal members of society) is a sneaky way of arguing in favour of the status quo without the inconvenience of making any arguments for it. From that angle I don't think it matters whether the adjective used is acceptable, or sexist, or purple...

[Thufir]

Exactly... so trying to answer Q2 before/without considering Q1, isn't going to work. My point is that in any debate on a subject, arguing that the debate shouldn't be taking place (because e.g. the only people who care about the outcome of it are not normal members of society) is a sneaky way of arguing in favour of the status quo without the inconvenience of making any arguments for it. From that angle I don't think it matters whether the adjective used is acceptable, or sexist, or purple...

And my point is that as you stated the two questions, Q2 is part of Q1. If the answer to Q2 is "No." then the answer to Q1 is automatically "Yes, it's acceptable." You can't answer one without answering the other. Whereas if the adjective is sexist, "Q2: No" means the answer to Q1 is either "No" OR "Yes, but to an insignificant extent." (Of course, what constitutes 'significant' is the main point one needs to address to answer Q2 in this case).

And, for an example where you could answer Q2 without bothering with Q1, let's use your extra example adjective:
Q1: Should the daytime sky be purple?
Q2: Is Q1 important?
I would contend that such a debate would be utterly pointless, because whatever we decide, we can do nothing about it. Thus we answer Q2 and as a result negate the need for Q1.

[Faulty]

No, it doesn't. A thing can only be found or tested for existence by perceiving it or its effects. If it is not directly perceptible, and its effects have been suppressed, then the thing's existence is functionally negligible, regardless of whether it still exists or not.

Example: I have a pancreas. However, it is within my body, and not directly detectable without medical equipment or cutting me open, and I am probably several hundred or thousand kilometers away from your position. Thus, you currently cannot determine that I have a pancreas by any means other than observing that I exist. If you cannot observe that I exist, then you cannot prove that I have a functioning pancreas. Furthermore, because the only functions my pancreas has are relevant to my existence, if you cannot observe that I exist, then even if I do have a functioning pancreas, its existence is negligible to you, as you cannot find any proof of it.

That doesn't change the fact that you quite obviously exist. :smallconfused: To be phenomenological, all consciousness is a consciousness of something. Even if you don't express a thought, as long as you can perceive it, it exists. Your argument actually dismantles itself. When speaking of a thought being expressed/having effects, you are positing an initial thought without which those effects would not be capable. Thus, hate speech laws do not run the risk of erasing thoughts.

I'm fully in support of hate speech laws. There are no individual actors in our society, all our actions influence and are influenced by the actions of others. Any speech has an effect if it reaches an audience, and certain types of speech, such as hate speach, can have very negative effects. Truly "free speech" is a highly overrated concept based on a faulty idea of society and human interaction.

[Coidzor]

Thus, hate speech laws do not run the risk of erasing thoughts.

We were actually arguing over whether hate speech laws make the thoughts themselves illegal, not whether they erase the ability to have the thoughts, last I checked.

[Mando Knight]

That doesn't change the fact that you quite obviously exist. :smallconfused:
And you know this only because you observed that I exist. If you had not observed this, my existence would be negligible to you.

To be phenomenological, all consciousness is a consciousness of something. Even if you don't express a thought, as long as you can perceive it, it exists. Your argument actually dismantles itself. When speaking of a thought being expressed/having effects, you are positing an initial thought without which those effects would not be capable. Thus, hate speech laws do not run the risk of erasing thoughts.
They do not run the risk of erasing thoughts, but outlawing them. By outlawing the expression of an idea, you outlaw the way for that idea to spread. It's indirect thought control.

I'm fully in support of hate speech laws. There are no individual actors in our society, all our actions influence and are influenced by the actions of others. Any speech has an effect if it reaches an audience, and certain types of speech, such as hate speach, can have very negative effects. Truly "free speech" is a highly overrated concept based on a faulty idea of society and human interaction.
You must be careful on your definition of hate speech. If someone expresses disapproval towards your opinion on a topic you hold important, is it hate speech? Is a speech persuading others that the opposite view is correct hate speech? To head down the path of speech regulation is to open that path's floodgates to fools that obtain power without the wisdom and responsibility needed for it. The end of that path is Newspeak and madness.

[Serpentine]

*sigh*

"He" is the main acceptable term for reference to a hypothetical or unspecific person of unknown sex.
Thus, when referring to an unspecific person, that person is, by the influence of the term "he", conciously or unconciously percieved as being male.
This implies, subtly and unconciously, that the male is the default form of humanity.
This in turn reflects the now largely obsolete reality that men were the only ones that really mattered, a view of humanity as being males, and also female are there too.
Much of this reality has been largely eliminated (in our parts of the world), but some vestiges remain, mostly in often unconcious perceptions and cultural factors.
One of these vestiges is the use of "he" as a "neutral" term. It is not a major one, but it is definitely one, and it is the subject of this thread.
In a world where men and women are considered equal, it is reasonable for the "anonymous being" to be truly gender neutral. It is not unreasonable for women to feel that they are adequately represented in our language.
Thus, it would be better to have a truly gender neutral pronoun.

I think that about sums it up.

[Coidzor]

Sums it up pretty nicely too.

[Solaris]

FYI your country has laws against incitement but not against hate speech. I don't know what is written re: regulations on base, but obviously if there are regulations against hate speech on base those must be rather loosely enforced.

And for good reason. We have regulations against committing hate crimes, as the civilian sector has laws against committing hate crimes. We do have regulations against hate speech as well, but they're only enforced in instances where there is real hate speech going on. Someone filing an EO complaint is taken seriously, but most every soldier I've met will only file an EO complaint if there's a genuine breech of equal opportunity right/ethics going on. There's a difference between the thought and the deed, and we cherish freedom of speech so much as to allow people to sound like morons. They can sound stupid all they want, clear up until they start doing something illegal. Then it's on like Donkey Kong.

You can imagine my reaction to Faulty saying free speech is overrated. I think I can sum it up in a board-friendly way: "If you don't like it, go someplace that doesn't have it."


You know one's thoughts by his words and deeds. As such, without the expression of a thought, it cannot be spread to others. Thus, by outlawing all expression of a thought, you in effect outlaw the thought itself.

Yep, that's exactly what I meant.


The editor is then sexist the other way, and is no better than those who declare women inferior to men, and his actions show me that he believes that most men have the mental and emotional capacity of mere animals.

I was going to go with the idea that someone who says one thing and does another is called a 'hypocrite', but that's just me.


This may seem rather tautological, but the only ones I've seen complain about language being sexist are the ones who either complain about perceived sexism in other places or push for unnecessary levels of political correctness. My gut reaction to those kinds of people is to tell them to grow up. If an actual wrong is being committed against you, then complain, but don't bother me with perceived wrongs based on another's refusal to comply to your delicate preferences.

Dude, don't bother arguing with people who push for political correctness for political correctness's sake. They're just not worth the effort of it. I just smile, nod, and continue doing what I'm doing. People, after all, are not nearly as delicate as they seem to think they are.


If restricting speech doesn't influence thought, then what's the real point of restricting it? Isn't the true goal to change how people think, not just what they say?

Show me where you have the right to change how I think through legal force. You're more than welcome to try changing my mind through appeals to emotion or logic, but once you seriously start convicting people of thoughtcrime you've crossed the line.

[Mando Knight]

In a world where men and women are considered equal, it is reasonable for the "anonymous being" to be truly gender neutral. It is not unreasonable for women to feel that they are adequately represented in our language.
Thus, it would be better to have a truly gender neutral pronoun.

And the unfortunate corollary is that without introducing/promoting a new word, the only pronouns we have are
1.) Rather impersonal (it)
2.) Grammatically awkward (singular they and he/she, or avoiding pronouns altogether)
3.) The stated problem (gender-neutral he)
4.) Awkwardly alternating between he and she

And furthermore, the only proposed new pronouns representing an arbitrarily-gendered person sound weird and there are far too many of them. If you can find one set of neutral-gender pronouns that I like and you can convince everyone else to use, then I'll accept that solution. Until then, pick your poison.

[Faulty]

We were actually arguing over whether hate speech laws make the thoughts themselves illegal, not whether they erase the ability to have the thoughts, last I checked.

:B

*shuffles out*


And you know this only because you observed that I exist. If you had not observed this, my existence would be negligible to you.

That doesn't change the fact that you exist. My observation is not necessary to prove your existence. Your singular observation can do that. And you singularly observe your thoughts.


They do not run the risk of erasing thoughts, but outlawing them. By outlawing the expression of an idea, you outlaw the way for that idea to spread. It's indirect thought control.

The idea may not be spread, but the thought can still exist. The thought is not predicated on the expression of the thought.

[Catch]

*sigh*

"He" is the main acceptable term for reference to a hypothetical or unspecific person of unknown sex.
Thus, when referring to an unspecific person, that person is, by the influence of the term "he", conciously or unconciously percieved as being male.
This implies, subtly and unconciously, that the male is the default form of humanity.
This in turn reflects the now largely obsolete reality that men were the only ones that really mattered, a view of humanity as being males, and also female are there too.

Yes, the transitive property of sexism. Allow me to use it to illustrate my frustration with this particular argument.

You imply "he"
"He" implies assumed maleness.
Assumed maleness implies perceived superiority.
Perceived superiority implies female inferiority
Female inferiority implies sexism.

Therefore, you are a sexist. QED.

Shaky reasoning is shaky. It lays at the feet of the unsuspecting and the uninformed the accumulated weight and guilt of centuries of oppression, and I don't think it's unreasonable to say hardly anyone deliberately uses the universal "he" because they explicitly believe men are more important than women.

I disagree with the universal "he" not on moral grounds, but because it's imprecise. Half of the world's population is female, and guessing male for a person of unknown gender isn't a reliable option anymore because most societies are no longer composed of "people who matter" and women, and you have about a 50% chance of guessing wrong. It's important to understand the history of language, but the implications are a bit of a stretch, and irritate the hell out of me. Not that it's intentional, but that sort of transitive argument creates a perceived false dilemma, where you're either for gender-neutral pronouns or you're a sexist.

[Mando Knight]

That doesn't change the fact that you exist. My observation is not necessary to prove your existence. Your singular observation can do that. And you singularly observe your thoughts.
But what good is existence if it is unknown? For a thought to spread, it must be expressed. For a thought to do anything, it must be expressed. A thought by itself is meaningless. If I say or think "I would like something to eat" and yet do not attempt to obtain food, then my desire for food is meaningless.

Those are poor examples. You're stretching the question of reasonable definitions of hate speech into an emotional argument. Hate speech is speech that targets a group (racial, religious, etc) and disparages them, incites violence against them, threatens them, etc. Simple disapproval towards an opinion isn't be hate speech. Suggesting that speech persuading others towards another opinion could ever be considered hate speech is quite obviously untrue. That would require more or less the outlawing of discourse.
Now where do you draw the line? If one side holds the other side's opinion as an aberration, is it hate speech when they say so? If a statement threatening the security of a criminal group is made by a police chief, is it hate speech?

The point is that you can easily rationalize a vast amount of discourse as hate speech if you do not forcibly draw the line and do not budge from it.

You're making the equivalent of a "if gays marry, people will marry their pets" argument. Conflating one thing with something infinitely more extreme. There's always a risk in putting people in positions of power. Seriously, we put "fools" in charge of governments with powerful militaries at their behest, laws that would allow disadvantaged groups some protection from defamation are really not the biggest danger out there.
There's a difference here. A difference in subject matter that changes the game entirely. War is much more overt and directly devastating than playing around with language and law, but the latter has caused as many or more things that should not have been to be.

[Serpentine]

Yes, the transitive property of sexism. Allow me to use it to illustrate my frustration with this particular argument.

You imply "he"
"He" implies assumed maleness.
Assumed maleness implies perceived superiority.
Perceived superiority implies female inferiority
Female inferiority implies sexism.

Therefore, you are a sexist. QED.No. I don't think it is necessary to take it to that end, but if you really must, then the last line should be "therefore, the use of that term is sexist".
Take another example in this area: the "glass ceiling" of business. I doubt that many, if any, deliberately make this happen, and I think it's even less likely to be the fault of any particular individual/s. But is there anyone who would deny that this circumstance is sexist?
It is possible to consider the term or a cultural norm to be sexist without labelling a particular person sexist. Moreover, I don't like the use of the word sexist in this context. Although I think it is probably technically so, I think labelling it so is misleading, as demonstrated by the current focus on it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say hardly anyone deliberately uses the universal "he" because they explicitly believe men are more important than women.I would like to draw your attention to the above post where I explicitely refer to UNCONCIOUS implications and perceptions. The fact is, NOONE is saying people are deliberately using it for sexist reasons, so I would really appreciate it if everyone stopped assuming we are. Another fact is, unconcious perceptions MATTER.


Mando: In this context, it appears that you are saying that sexist thoughts should be allowed to spread :smallconfused: If so, well, no wonder you're against the use of more gender-neutral language, as the entire point of that would be to eliminate unconcious sexist perceptions.

[Solaris]

Mando: In this context, it appears that you are saying that sexist thoughts should be allowed to spread :smallconfused: If so, well, no wonder you're against the use of more gender-neutral language, as the entire point of that would be to eliminate unconcious sexist perceptions.

No, I don't think that's what he means at all. If I read rightly, he's arguing (as am I) that thoughts and ideas should not be suppressed by any governing body (be they an actual government or otherwise), but rather allowed to flourish or fade away on their own merits.

[Lioness]

2.) Grammatically awkward (singular they...

Perhaps only to the grammar purists. The majority of people I know (though they are by no means representative of the world's population) comfortably slip singular 'they' into conversation, even when referring to a person of known gender. I'll concede that it's awkward in writing, but in speech, seems to flow naturally.

I'll grant that he/she or even s/he is grammatically awkward, especially in speech. In my mind, I'd pronounce the first 'hshee' and the second 'sh-hee'. Awkward, indeed.

[Totally Guy]

I remember one time there was controversy at a History department of a university. The students were campaigning that History is "His Story" and followed the logic trail that it was a sexist term.

[Hazyshade]

I was going to go with the idea that someone who says one thing and does another is called a 'hypocrite', but that's just me.

You're missing the point.


Solaris's First Premise: magazines that turn women into objects are sexist. Therefore, producing or contributing to a sexist magazine is tantamount to a personal act of sexism.
Solaris's Second Premise: Sexism requires a belief that women are inferior.
Therefore, someone who does not believe women are inferior is not a sexist.
Scenario: A hypothetical men's magazine editor genuinely, earnestly believes that women are not inferior to men. "Different" perhaps - more interesting for his male readers to look at - but not inferior.
By your reasoning, this man is not a sexist, and has therefore found an easy way to get himself "off the hook" for having produced the sexist magazine in the first place.


Where am I going wrong?

[Sholos]

Show me where you have the right to change how I think through legal force. You're more than welcome to try changing my mind through appeals to emotion or logic, but once you seriously start convicting people of thoughtcrime you've crossed the line.

I think you misread my post. I was arguing against the idea that laws against hate speech don't affect thought. Meaning that legislating speech was, in effect, legislating thought. My point was that there was no point in making laws if they weren't going to change how people think, and if there was a point to doing it that it would be a bad thing to do.

[potatocubed]

Still thinking about that question.

I think that outlawing elements of language is just a bad idea - ethically and practically. Even if it was possible to prevent all expressions of a particular idea, human beings are an adaptive lot: we'd come up with new expressions. (I was reading an article the other day about the evolution of slang terms for homosexuals in London's theatre crowd while being openly gay was still illegal, where people did just that.)

I also think that language control is culture control, and culture control is thought control. So, yes, language control is indirect thought control. The thing is, it's not like we're free now and the evil feminists want to take our freedom away: our thoughts are already being shaped by the values of our culture, and the evil feminists would like to change those values for a different set.

So it's not about banning the use of 'he' and enforcing 'they' instead; it's about pointing out that every time you use a 'generic he' you're reinforcing the pre-existing cultural values, and every time you use 'singular they' you're chipping away at them.

Side note: 'Singular they' is no more or less grammatical than 'generic he', so stop quibbling about grammar. If you check your style guides you'll find that pretty much all of them recommend using the clunky 'he or she' or recasting the sentence to skirt the issue entirely.

[Riffington]

Hate speech is speech that targets a group (racial, religious, etc) and disparages them, incites violence against them, threatens them, etc. Simple disapproval towards an opinion isn't be hate speech. Suggesting that speech persuading others towards another opinion could ever be considered hate speech is quite obviously untrue. That would require more or less the outlawing of discourse.

You're making the equivalent of a [deleted] argument. Conflating one thing with something infinitely more extreme. There's always a risk in putting people in positions of power. Seriously, we put "fools" in charge of governments with powerful militaries at their behest, laws that would allow disadvantaged groups some protection from defamation are really not the biggest danger out there.

I think you need to self-censor your example, too political. Also, it's incorrect. There are dozens of nations with hate speech laws, and every single one has used those laws to suppress important political speech. Claiming they are logically unlikely to be abused is strange when they are universally abused in real life.

Militaries are dangerous, but quite necessary: nations that lack them are easily conquered by nations that have them. In contrast, free speech restrictions are dangerous and unnecessary.

[Faulty]

Eh, I just shucked that part of my post and I'm not going to pursue the subject so as to avoid falling into political commentary.

[Lamech]

No, I don't think that's what he means at all. If I read rightly, he's arguing (as am I) that thoughts and ideas should not be suppressed by any governing body (be they an actual government or otherwise), but rather allowed to flourish or fade away on their own merits.
Ideas only flourish or fade away because people support or oppose them. If no one supported an idea it would cease to exist. And people of course organize. So your saying... that people shouldn't try to oppose ideas? Or that people shouldn't work together to oppose or support* ideas? Because I don't think that will end well. At all. If people didn't get together to support ideas and work against others we probably never would have had, civil rights, democracy, modern medicine, ect.

Or are you saying that groups shouldn't use coercive tactics to enforce their ideas? Such as force of law, or say paying people who support your ideas, for supporting your ideas.

*When you support an idea you also oppose the oppisite. Its impossible to support an idea with out opposing the oppisite.


ThusThe idea may not be spread, but the thought can still exist. The thought is not predicated on the expression of the thought.Still thought control. Take say... the discovery of relativity. The only reason I believe relativity is that people have told me about it. If those people could not do that I would not think it. Therefore if one was able to outlaw and control talk about relativity they would have kept me from thinking it. While the thought of relativity would still exist until its expressors died, it would exist in far fewer people. Also if I learned of this relativity from Einstien it could certainly be erased by say the goverment making Enstien telling me he lied.

Controlling speech controls thoughts. Not in the person facing the restrictions, but in those that said person could otherwise reach.

And if a thought can't be expressed, then it will do no good. Which is all we should be concerned about anyway, so keeping a thought from being expressed is as bad as erasing it.

[Solaris]

You're missing the point.


Solaris's First Premise: magazines that turn women into objects are sexist. Therefore, producing or contributing to a sexist magazine is tantamount to a personal act of sexism.
Solaris's Second Premise: Sexism requires a belief that women are inferior.
Therefore, someone who does not believe women are inferior is not a sexist.
Scenario: A hypothetical men's magazine editor genuinely, earnestly believes that women are not inferior to men. "Different" perhaps - more interesting for his male readers to look at - but not inferior.
By your reasoning, this man is not a sexist, and has therefore found an easy way to get himself "off the hook" for having produced the sexist magazine in the first place.


Where am I going wrong?

When you didn't read the word "hypocrite". Objectifying women is still objectifying women. The fault as much lays on the models who pose as the people who look at 'em and the folks who publish 'em. I disagree with those kinds of magazines, so I vote with my dollars - I don't buy them. Were someone to try and get them legislated out of print, I would fight that because that's someone trying to force their morals on someone else through force of law. That's acceptable when it harms others, but there's no direct harm from Maxim magazine like there is with someone mugging someone else.


Ideas only flourish or fade away because people support or oppose them. If no one supported an idea it would cease to exist. And people of course organize. So your saying... that people shouldn't try to oppose ideas? Or that people shouldn't work together to oppose or support* ideas? Because I don't think that will end well. At all. If people didn't get together to support ideas and work against others we probably never would have had, civil rights, democracy, modern medicine, ect.

Or are you saying that groups shouldn't use coercive tactics to enforce their ideas? Such as force of law, or say paying people who support your ideas, for supporting your ideas.

*When you support an idea you also oppose the opposite. Its impossible to support an idea with out opposing the opposite.

I'm saying that the force of law ought not be brought into what people are saying. The old line us military types use? "I may disagree with what you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
Were I still a private citizen, I may tell Joe Sexist to STFU, but I, as a soldier, may not. Does that clear it up?

[Serpentine]

By the by, the issue of legality only came up when I said that if language didn't mean anything (as was being suggested), then there would be no need for laws against speech-only crimes such as inciting to violence and hate speech (which were probably not great examples, and probably only applicable to certain countries).
So, basically, the only reason legality is an issue at all is because I used a bad example to demonstrate that language is far more than "just air".

[Mando Knight]

Mando: In this context, it appears that you are saying that sexist thoughts should be allowed to spread :smallconfused: If so, well, no wonder you're against the use of more gender-neutral language, as the entire point of that would be to eliminate unconcious sexist perceptions.

There are worse ideas that are allowed to spread. If force of law is going to limit the ideas to be expressed, start with those. However, that is the wrong method to change the culture. Legislating culture has never ended well in the past, and I do not expect it to end well in the future. If you want true equality, then you start from the beginning. You must start with the children.

In the context of my life, my father is the sole breadwinner and definite head of the family, and my mother is a housewife. The equality between my father and mother is not thus clear, but is there. It is not rigidly enforced by each other jockeying for their own rights against each other, but as a natural, fluid relationship wherein the rights and desires of one are reinforced by the other. And thus, through this example of a relationship, even though my only sister is eight years younger than I am, and apparently despite the fact that I was raised thinking that "he" was a perfectly acceptable (and indeed proper) pronoun for a person of unknown gender, I naturally assume equality. I was not aware of the mistreatment of women in other times and places until it was covered in history classes. I was not aware of the civil rights movement's necessity until I was nearly in high school, as I was subconsciously unaware of the fact that people used to treat "different" people so differently.

Even now, I find such ideas bewildering, and I find the idea that the "others" must "pay" for being in what was a culturally advantageous state equally bewildering. And yet at the same time I also believe in a type of "natural order" in which men and women are both equal and not equal: that even as sexist as it may seem, there are just some jobs that a man's got to do, that there are some roles that are better suited to one or the other, but that every role has its place and none is "greater" than another, just different. It is as in a play: would one cast James Earl Jones as Juliet, or Kiera Knightley as Darth Vader? No, that is silly, you'd cast each in the other role. And yet, is one greater than the other, for the reason of filling that role that the other should not? No. If we are to strut and fret about for our hour on the stage, should it not be in the role we are best suited for?

[Hazyshade]

When you didn't read the word "hypocrite".

Au contraire, I thought about referring to your use of that word, but I decided it was irrelevant. One of your premises still needs changing: either there are no acts that are sexist in and of themselves, or sexism doesn't require intent.

[Mando Knight]

Au contraire, I thought about referring to your use of that word, but I decided it was irrelevant. One of your premises still needs changing: either there are no acts that are sexist in and of themselves, or sexism doesn't require intent.

No, it is relevant. It is the solution: the executive's hypocrisy is the only solution to the problem. One cannot truly believe one thing yet willingly act against it. Furthermore, the proposed executive, due to his proposed stated viewpoint (that women in general are superior to men), can be assumed to either be lying about his beliefs on women, or else is promoting the idea that men in general are incapable of viewing women as anything other than objects. Both imply a type of sexism, both promote objectification of women, and both are equally wrong.

[Hazyshade]

[T]he proposed executive... can be assumed to... be lying about his beliefs on women...

If we're allowed to infer people's attitudes from their actions, then there is no "that's not was I was thinking" defence to the use of sexist language. If you use what I consider to be sexist language, but you say you aren't being sexist because you don't actually believe women are inferior, then I'll just assume you're lying.

Solaris may have a different answer, but this is the point I'm trying to make.