Poll: Do you think this is sexist?

[Mandalore_15]

To be 'taken aback' and have to question it, after learning a woman holds a job you assume only men have, is sexist.

Clearly you didn't read my post properly. Try again.

Clearly you've already made up your mind. Why even make the thread? You have some need to call a woman who is a landlord, a landlady. The fact that you say you were 'taken aback' makes you sound sexist in this instance.

EDIT: land·lord
Noun/ˈlan(d)ˌlôrd/
1. A person who rents land, a building, or an apartment to a tenant.

Urgh, the reason I was "taken aback" is that I had been going under the misapprehension that she was phoning a MAN only to find out his name was "Chloe". Seriously, it's not difficult to understand!

Because the point was made that you were sexist, and right now you are digging yourself in a hole. It really seems like you came here to prove a point that you weren't sexist, the plan is backfiring and you are getting quite annoyed with the fact that not many are agreeing with you and those disagreeing are proving you wrong. To prove this I just had four people read your main post and this little segment I just quoted. You are being ignorant. You had the misapprehension that a landlord MUST only be a man so when a female name was given then a gender that you thought not possible you reacted badly. Besides landlord, what ELSE did your neighbor say or do to prove it MIGHT have been a male? Ask for a manager, get a female, ask for a manager again, female says she is the manager, look dumbstruck. Same thing with landlord. Hell the bloody definition was given to you RIGHT THERE.

Right, I'm putting this to bed right now because you don't seem to be getting it and I can't be arsed running around in circles with you. It is not sexist to think that a landlord "must only be a man", because the term "lord" conveys maleness. It has nothing to do with men and women's ability to do the same job - it would only be sexist if I view a landlady as being somehow inferior, which I don't. Landlord and landladies are equally capable, the ONLY difference between the two is gender.

Would it be sexist if I was confused because someone was talking to me about a policeman and then told me her name was Sandra? No. What's the difference here? You can go on all you want about people having equal rights to be called a landlord, but if you don't know that it isn't sexist, and it isn't even true in the UK.

Your manager example is completely retarded - manager is a gender-neutral term.

As for reacting badly, read it again. I didn't correct her. It was a half-muttered comment to myself intended to clear up the confusion I was having, it wasn't directed at her and that was obvious from my body language. Due to medication I'm taking I often space out a bit, but it's obvious that's what I was doing. No-one in their right mind would have though I was being confrontational or trying to correct anyone.

 

[Mandalore_15]

See, this has always bothered me about the English language (among others). The incessant need to separate men and women. Using the word "man" in expressions about humanity in general, separate third person words "he" and "she" and such. How about profession words like "midwife"; to be one you need to be able to handle the sight of blood, be calm and reassuring and have solid medical knowledge. Compassion wouldn't hurt. How does that mean only a woman qualifies?

The way I see it, unless there's pairing to be expected in the situation, gender shouldn't matter diddly squat. In before "but the physically demanding professions, yada yada" not every man is a brute, not every woman a delicate lil' thing. My opinion stands.

Back on topic: I wouldn't call you sexist, "nitpicky" fits better. Language is kind of a big deal though, it's the symbols we use to define and communicate our thoughts. In essence, language shapes our world view. Don't take my word for it, look up Wittgenstein (assuming I spelled the name right).

Men can be midwives too you know. I think it just came about that way because it was traditionally a female role, and when men started doing it nobody decided to change it (after all, "midhusband" sounds kinda dumb!).

 

[AlexNora]

To be 'taken aback' and have to question it, after learning a woman holds a job you assume only men have, is sexist.

Clearly you didn't read my post properly. Try again.

Clearly you've already made up your mind. Why even make the thread? You have some need to call a woman who is a landlord, a landlady. The fact that you say you were 'taken aback' makes you sound sexist in this instance.

EDIT: land·lord
Noun/ˈlan(d)ˌlôrd/
1. A person who rents land, a building, or an apartment to a tenant.

Urgh, the reason I was "taken aback" is that I had been going under the misapprehension that she was phoning a MAN only to find out his name was "Chloe". Seriously, it's not difficult to understand!

Because the point was made that you were sexist, and right now you are digging yourself in a hole. It really seems like you came here to prove a point that you weren't sexist, the plan is backfiring and you are getting quite annoyed with the fact that not many are agreeing with you and those disagreeing are proving you wrong. To prove this I just had four people read your main post and this little segment I just quoted. You are being ignorant. You had the misapprehension that a landlord MUST only be a man so when a female name was given then a gender that you thought not possible you reacted badly. Besides landlord, what ELSE did your neighbor say or do to prove it MIGHT have been a male? Ask for a manager, get a female, ask for a manager again, female says she is the manager, look dumbstruck. Same thing with landlord. Hell the bloody definition was given to you RIGHT THERE.

Right, I'm putting this to bed right now because you don't seem to be getting it and I can't be arsed running around in circles with you. It is not sexist to think that a landlord "must only be a man", because the term "lord" conveys maleness. It has nothing to do with men and women's ability to do the same job - it would only be sexist if I view a landlady as being somehow inferior, which I don't. Landlord and landladies are equally capable, the ONLY difference between the two is gender.

Would it be sexist if I was confused because someone was talking to me about a policeman and then told me her name was Sandra? No. What's the difference here? You can go on all you want about people having equal rights to be called a landlord, but if you don't know that it isn't sexist, and it isn't even true in the UK.

Your manager example is completely retarded - manager is a gender-neutral term.

As for reacting badly, read it again. I didn't correct her. It was a half-muttered comment to myself intended to clear up the confusion I was having, it wasn't directed at her and that was obvious from my body language. Due to medication I'm taking I often space out a bit, but it's obvious that's what I was doing. No-one in their right mind would have though I was being confrontational or trying to correct anyone.

um Mandalore_15 is correct its not sexiest to assume a landlord is male can it be incorrect though yes, yes it can, (because someone using the term landlord may be talking about a women) that's why is best to never assume, because when you assume you may seem like an as..... you know where this is going

 

[AlexNora]

I tend to use male terms in a gender-neutral capacity, which is a very fancy way of saying I call everyone "Dude."

My niece hates it.

iv always wanted to go around calling everyone girl.

hey girl xD

 

[Uzbekistan]

I mean, that's what they're there for, right? To indicate a certain professional woman or man?

Though I admit that 'jill off' and 'jill ass' are harder to remember than 'jack off' and 'jack ass.'

I would also like to note that in the military, everyone above you is 'sir' no matter the gender or race.

 

[keideki]

The English language, and for the most part many languages, are full of gender specific words and pronouns. I don't think its wrong to use them. It just boils down to personal choice. Personally I hate it when people say police person instead of policeman or policewoman.

 

[pneuvo]

I have found it preferable to treat women the way they want to be treated without concerning myself with the rightness of it. It is more a matter of self determination than sexism.

Many women have found that separate is not equal, so they wish to be given the same title given to men. That is fine by me. It doesn't make doing otherwise sexist, but perhaps a bit insensitive. Or maybe just slow to change, old fashioned.

Women don't think or act as a monolith, of course, so you have to judge for yourself what is the most desireable way to proceed. Listening to their arguments is a good start. Probably best not to put yourself in a position where you appear to be correcting them on women's issues.

-a hippy from the '60s

 

[Dense_Electric]

If we define sexism as making distinctions based on sex, then yes. You claim the title conveys some important information, the person's sex, but if that's your argument then why sex? Why not race, or age, or height, or preferred brand of toothpaste? Why do we not have separate titles, or even pronouns, based on those things? Sexist language isn't the cause of social problems regarding sex, but it is indicative of it and should be weeded out nonetheless.

Ignoring what I just said, what you did was a bit dickish to be frank. You don't need to pick over someone's language like that, and the term "landlord," whatever you may claim, is among the more gender-neutral titles.

 

[AlexNora]

The English language, and for the most part many languages, are full of gender specific words and pronouns. I don't think its wrong to use them. It just boils down to personal choice. Personally I hate it when people say police person instead of policeman or policewoman.

I would hate that to its police officer

police person isn't even a title... some people

 

[flatten_the_skyline]

In the German language, every noun has a gender. You don't hear them going on about how it's sexist.

I will continue to call actresses actresses, landladies landladies, policewomen... well, you get the idea.

In Germany we have kind of the Opposing debate, where there is a movement that starts saying Policemen and policewomen etc (It is easier to understand if you know some German. Usually the female form ist just an -in at the end, so people say Polizist/in, Polizist_in, Polizist*in or PolizistIn if it is about a person of unknown gender (Some people attribute the _,* or / to the transgender. For this reason I prefer a *). I think the idea is to promote the idea that these activities can be done by women as well, for the activities that are more often used in female form are housewife, prostitute and cleaning woman, which is sexist I guess. AFAIK the solution propagated ist to use terms that describe the activity, because they don't imply any gender whatsoever.

(For example "Studierende" means "people (regardless of gender) who study", while Student means male university student, Studentin means female)

I think you get the idea.

 

[MGlBlaze]

It's a little more complicated than that; possibly rude to correct your neighbour, but whether it was sexist to refer to the landlord/lady as a landlady depends on your own reason for doing that, as well as why you were taken aback (and the fact you were 'taken aback' isn't a good sign, but let's not jump to conclusions here), and whether the landlord/lady wishes to be called 'landLORD' or not or doesn't mind, or whatever.

Historically, there have been female rulers who were referred to as "Kings", after all. The pronoun you should use for someone should really depend on their own wishes.

 

[Hashime]

If landlady vs landlord is sexist, then so are the majority of languages in our world. English is weird in that it does not often explicitly state gender with words. French for example has different adjectives depending on sex, and example is "Beatiful". When you say a man is "Beautiful" you use the word "beaux" for a female it is "belle". Some languages even use different vocabularies when talking to different sexes .

 

[keideki]

The English language, and for the most part many languages, are full of gender specific words and pronouns. I don't think its wrong to use them. It just boils down to personal choice. Personally I hate it when people say police person instead of policeman or policewoman.

I would hate that to its police officer

police person isn't even a title... some people

None the less, I've heard people use it.

 

[Pearwood]

I just use the male term for everything and have yet to come across someone of either gender who really cares. Using -person seems a little pointless and doesn't exactly roll off the tongue either.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Well in a way I guess.

The male version is always the one used, so I think there might be just a little sexism in it, but no more than simple "meh, whatevs" material.

The masculine version is always used because that's how English as a language defaults. Male driven society back then and whatnot.

On topic, no. I don't think it was sexist. See my reply up there.

 

[Asuka Soryu]

No, no thanks. I'd rather say Hero when reffering to someone rather then call a guy a hero and a girl a drug.

 

[Mandalore_15]

I just had a rather interesting encounter with my next-door neighbour. I was asking her if it was OK for me to get some building work done, as the house is terraced and it might inconvenience her. She said she had to call her landlord and ask if it was OK.

Well, she got back to me later on and said, at one point, "I called my landlord Chloe, and she said it's fine."

I was a little taken aback and, instinctively said, "Chloe? Oh, you mean your landlady," to which she replied "erm, that's a bit sexist don't you think?"

No. I don't think so.

Since when has it been "sexist" to use gender-nominative terms? The whole thing took be back to when Hollywood actresses campaigned to be called "actors" so they could feel "equal to the men." This is such rabid bullshit: the reason we have these distinctions is that they relay useful information, i.e. your gender. In the German language, every noun has a gender. You don't hear them going on about how it's sexist.

I will continue to call actresses actresses, landladies landladies, policewomen... well, you get the idea.

So Escapist, what's your opinion on the issue? Should we move towards gender neutral terms, or should overly sensitive women (and some men of course) just get over themselves?

EDIT - I posted this down below but I've moved it up here so everyone can see it straight off:

I wasn't really "correcting" her, as my statement wasn't really aimed at her. It was more just my inner-monologue coming out of my mouth involuntarily. It does that a lot!

I agree with you on everything bar police officers. Police officers are called police officers, there is no need to differentiate between gender within that role. Much like doctors, some things are fine to be gender neutral.

My sister would love this debate, she really would, and is much more of a specialist in the subject. But in my opinion I agree with what has been stated, it aint sexist, thinking it is sexist is just a bit annoying. Although everyone should cool down.

I noticed you live in the UK. Do you really refer to them as police officers? In my neck of the woods they have always been differentiated as policemen and policewomen, so much that I was taught to call them that in infants school. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, just that here, the term police officer is considered strange and somewhat of an Americanism.

 

[DeltaEdge]

I don't have a problem with gender specific terms however, I think that the one of the terms should be changed in status because Land"lord" just sounds much more "esteemed and respected" than just simply "Landlady". Since a lot of the more respectable female terms I know seem somewhat sexist(just me not necessarily to you) I think it would be better to lower the male version Landlord to Landman or Landsir. Just my opinion though and I don't think anyone would bother to change the words for something as silly as this nor do I expect anyone to.