Okay I must ask...WHERE are you from and how were you raised? Honestly. You mention Germany, UK, Canada and state you are Canadian but someone else here mentioned they are from Canada, I know a few Canadians and you are the only person to my knowledge that goes by Policeman/Women Landlord/lady. I have to say you are either full of yourself for knowing such trivial terms or are somewhat ignorant in that area honestly.Mandalore_15 said:
Poll: Do you think this is sexist?
- Thread starter Mandalore_15
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think you deserve the troll titleMandalore_15 said:
"How many women are firefighters?
In the U.S., around 6,200 women currently work as full-time, career firefighters and officers. Several hundred hold the rank of lieutenant or captain, and about 150 are district chiefs, battalion chiefs, division chiefs, or assistant chiefs. [All of these numbers increase every year; for the most recent available statistics and a state-by state breakdown of the numbers, see our Status Report]. While accurate figures on volunteer firefighters are difficult to obtain, it can be estimated that 35-40,000 women are in the volunteer fire service in the U.S.
Women are firefighters outside the U.S. as well. The most significant numbers are to be found in Great Britain, where more than 200 women are wholetime (career) firefighters and approximately 200 others serve in a retained (volunteer) capacity. Women firefighters can also be found in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, the Netherlands, South Africa, Ghana, Panama, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Chile, and Brazil.
How many women firefighters have died in the line of duty? A total of 98 fire service women are known to have died in the line of duty, including 23 British firewomen killed by enemy action in World War II. See our honor roll for more information."
http://www.i-women.org/questions.php
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/03/04/women-firefighters-are-no-longer-a-novelty-2/
"WOMEN FIREFIGHTERS, not firewomen"
Back to my question, WHERE are you from mate? You don't seem to know much about the UK being there.
How in the hell is that sexist? Not at all; particularly in this instance. For one thing, you can't have a female lord, can you? My landlord is a woman so I call her my landlady because... well, she's a lady, isn't she?Mandalore_15 said:
Anyroad, I quite like how you pointed out that, "The whole thing took be back to when Hollywood actresses campaigned to be called "actors" so they could feel "equal to the men."" which is something that we were discussing just this week actually about feminism. Now, there's nothing wrong to say, for example, "Headteacher", "Police officer" if one really must be politically correct if you can call it that, because those terms are all unisex. Well, that's how I see it. I also really liked your point of gender nouns in other languages. Some, like Finnish and Chinese, don't have any at all which is fair enough.
In short, if the term is unisex, then it's alright. However, like your own real life example, it is in no way at all sexist. She implied that her landowner was a man if you look at it one way. Now that I think about it, I would be quicker to call a female a landlord than a male a landlady, haha. Then again, that is the right term for her; landlady. All that happened to you was that you assumed she had a male landowner (landowner sounds a wee bit odd...), you realised and said to yourself, "Ah, she meant her landlady." because you thought she was a man at first. Erm. Does that make sense? I knew upon reading that line straight away that you were not, indeed, correcting her.
I don't think it was sexist at all. To be fair, I probably would have done the exact same!x
Well, I guess it's not essential but if you look on almost every language that isn't english, everything has a form for masculine and feminine, you could say it's just following roots.KaiserKnight said:
For someone to be identified as a woman, there must be some grasp on the concept of men and women being different. The word "woman" applies to, well, women, but not to men.brandon237 said:
This is inherently a discriminatory judgement. Doesn't matter if it's true, if it's negative, or if it's positive. It just has to, in some way or another, imply that men and women are different.
It may very well be true, especially in the biological sense, but it is sexist nonetheless.
For something or someone to not be sexist, it would have to ignore sex and gender entirely. For example, Calculus, Dominoes, Architectural Drafting, Breakfast Pizzas, and VY Canis Majorus.
YOU! you called a woman a woman?! how dare you!!
first of all, there *are* differences between the genders - that's why we can distinguish women from men in the first place.
secondly... ladies and gentlemen, how is clling a woman a woman and a man a man sexist (regarding the usual negative connotative meaning usually... meant)?
maybe we shouldn't address women and men as "miss/es" and "sir/mister" anymore, rather than "person"? person is much much more neutral, and not sexist as the dispicable aforementioned affronts to gender equality?
kids should be referred to as "not-fully-grown-up-and-or-matured-person" accordantly.
first of all, there *are* differences between the genders - that's why we can distinguish women from men in the first place.
secondly... ladies and gentlemen, how is clling a woman a woman and a man a man sexist (regarding the usual negative connotative meaning usually... meant)?
maybe we shouldn't address women and men as "miss/es" and "sir/mister" anymore, rather than "person"? person is much much more neutral, and not sexist as the dispicable aforementioned affronts to gender equality?
kids should be referred to as "not-fully-grown-up-and-or-matured-person" accordantly.
if this carries on we wont be able to refer to people as him or her anymore.
"Who are you talking about?"
"erm, you know, what's their name, that... entirely equal human, over there...."
"?????"
"you know the one with the kind of.... boobs?"
gender narrows down who you?re referring to instantly to by about 50%
including gender in professional description doesn?t automatically mean you?re going "PHWOAAAAR" at the very concept of a policewoman.
and yeah, I said POLICEWOMAN.
they?re just like policemen, but they don?t have cocks & ballsacs(one less vulnerability there).
no discrimination at all.
biological truth.
The surest way to fuck it up is to say "lady policeman" which apparently people used to say, makes me imagine an Aphrodite in kevlar..
"Who are you talking about?"
"erm, you know, what's their name, that... entirely equal human, over there...."
"?????"
"you know the one with the kind of.... boobs?"
gender narrows down who you?re referring to instantly to by about 50%
including gender in professional description doesn?t automatically mean you?re going "PHWOAAAAR" at the very concept of a policewoman.
and yeah, I said POLICEWOMAN.
they?re just like policemen, but they don?t have cocks & ballsacs(one less vulnerability there).
no discrimination at all.
biological truth.
The surest way to fuck it up is to say "lady policeman" which apparently people used to say, makes me imagine an Aphrodite in kevlar..
Some people are just overly sensitive to issues that are not there to begin with. I miss when the uber-feminists had and wanted everyone to use their new word for woman that didn't have man in it.
It's just English people get over it.
It's just English people get over it.
Wikipedia begs to differ:DarkRyter said:
The bolded words should tell you everything
It is sexist if the actual treatment is different, the observation and acknowledging of something is in no way discrimination.
That is wikipedia on sexism, should clear everything up with the bolded focus
To call someone a woman for being a woman counts as prejudicial treatment. Acknowledgement of gender is a behavior that differs when applied towards different groups, male and female. You call a man a man, and you call a woman a woman. It is a discrimination based upon sex.brandon237 said:Wikipedia begs to differ:
The bolded words should tell you everything
It is sexist if the actual treatment is different, the observation and acknowledging of something is in no way discrimination.
That is wikipedia on sexism, should clear everything up with the bolded focus
Sexual Discrimination, Sexism.
Funny thing about 'Germany having sexes for every noun and no one complaining'. Italian has the same thing, and a lot of professions only had male genders, so they added female versions rather recently.
I think it reinforced specific heteronormative gender roles, especially terms like "male nurse", but I think that there aren't more female neurosurgeons and such to be bigger issues.
I think it reinforced specific heteronormative gender roles, especially terms like "male nurse", but I think that there aren't more female neurosurgeons and such to be bigger issues.
Heh, she was probably just annoyed at you for correcting her (pro tip: this annoys people a lot...I do it too when I don't catch myself in time), even if it was just you using your outside voice by accident, and that seemed a more logical thing to get you for. Either that or she thought you seemed shocked that the owner was a woman.
I can think of a lot more people who'd say it's sexist to call a woman a landlord, implying a denial of the existence of women who rent property to tenants or that there are so few they aren't worth having their own title. It's like referring to all people as "Mankind". Hence "Police Officer", "Firefighter" (which actually makes a lot more sense than "Fireman" if you think about it) and "Postal Worker". Gender neutral terms are pretty much safe, so people generally use them in official capacities. The legal official term for landlord is probably gender neutral too.
Er, in short, specifying with "Landlady" is probably more modern and politically correct, since the most modern and politically correct option is to use a gender-neutral title and I don't know what that would be or if you could use it without sounding like a legal robot.
I can think of a lot more people who'd say it's sexist to call a woman a landlord, implying a denial of the existence of women who rent property to tenants or that there are so few they aren't worth having their own title. It's like referring to all people as "Mankind". Hence "Police Officer", "Firefighter" (which actually makes a lot more sense than "Fireman" if you think about it) and "Postal Worker". Gender neutral terms are pretty much safe, so people generally use them in official capacities. The legal official term for landlord is probably gender neutral too.
Er, in short, specifying with "Landlady" is probably more modern and politically correct, since the most modern and politically correct option is to use a gender-neutral title and I don't know what that would be or if you could use it without sounding like a legal robot.
It's not sexist, words like this help you describe somebodies profession and gender in one word. Although people making these words in the first place might be a bit sexist, considering you call a man actor an actor, and a woman actor an actress.
They're still handy words though, they're just there to shorten everything down.
They're still handy words though, they're just there to shorten everything down.
Jeez, you're a little judgemental, aren't you? So you've never blurted out something you were thinking completely by accident?Satsuki666 said:
I don't see why it is sexist, nor do I see why it matters. It actually pisses me off when people do that. Landlord/landlady are both fine, but I want to kick you in the teeth if you say "landperson". The same thing is true for every other time you put "person" instead of whatever the male/female word for it is.
