People need to understand that language does this not to be sexist, but because it is important to be able to tell men/women simply at a glance, hence different words for different genders.
Sexist Words
- Thread starter Giest4life
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here in Britain, while they try to make us politically correct, most people simply still don't give a shit.
Hell, even the teachers back in college would outwardly try to be politically correct and later on throughout the year would get tired of faking it and go back to how they actually talked. Its a waste of time and the only people who get offended are oversensitive.
In my not so humble opinion, because I'm going to assume i'm right. It'll be easier to go to sleep that way. Goodnight escapist.
Hell, even the teachers back in college would outwardly try to be politically correct and later on throughout the year would get tired of faking it and go back to how they actually talked. Its a waste of time and the only people who get offended are oversensitive.
In my not so humble opinion, because I'm going to assume i'm right. It'll be easier to go to sleep that way. Goodnight escapist.
Interestingly enough, a lot of languages have genders for most nouns. French, Spanish, and Italian have masculine and feminine versions of most jobs and all countries; German and Greek also have a neuter gender. As a language teacher, I can totally get behind you calling a country "She"; after all, the French and Spanish have feminine names for their proud nations.Giest4life said:
In France, when Segolene Royale was running for president, the Academie (which is in charge of "standardizing" language) declared official feminine versions of president, doctor, and several other jobs as a matter of not political, but grammatical correctness. Fun fact!
Well, first off this anti-sexist vocabulary shift is more obvious in the US because A) they have a lot of cultural guild to wash off, B) English tends to attach the "-man" suffix to a profession to create the noun describing the person practicing said profession from back when "sexism" didn't really exist (sexism is valid when considering things such as "gender equality, women's rights and so on. Back then everyone knew they didn't exist, hence no sexism). Other languages do this less often if at all, so the problem doesn't exist.
That being said, I think this approach is nothing more than a weak attempt to paint over the issue without actually addressing it. Changing vocabulary won't change mentality.
That being said, I think this approach is nothing more than a weak attempt to paint over the issue without actually addressing it. Changing vocabulary won't change mentality.
Eh, I just wish we would pick a gender to have all these gender specific nouns to lean towards. Make things simpler.
Some things I don't take issue with--"chairman" becoming "chairperson" or just "chair", "flight attendant" replacing "stewardess," etc--but the phenomenon of "if it has 'man' or 'men' in it, change it to 'person'" (which I have never seriously run up against, I'll grant) seems absolutely ludicrous.
"Women of noncolor". That itself doesn't seem politically correct to me.likalaruku said:It's only a matter of time before these things become mandatory in schools.
Considering that considering people of "color" has historically troublesome connotations.
In fact it would be better if we dropped terms like "white" to refer to people as well. If people want to call someone by their ethnic descent, they can call them that. We're all originally of African descent anyway. And if you want to mention a person's looks, mention a person's looks properly. Call someone "light skinned", or "dark skinned" or "tan skinned" if they are. Say they have a small nose if they have a small nose, a round face if they have a round face, a long nose if they have a long nose, or something like that. Most "black" people are brown to begin with.
Wanting to use terms that don't have bad implications isn't a bad thing. Or even inaccurate terms. That some people find it more offensive to say "that man with large lips" rather than "that black man" is silly.
I mean, if you have to, have to call people out by their physical features, just call them by them, instead of culturally loaded terms that establish outdated cultural ideas.
Why must people make ridiculous comparisons to using inoffensive terms lacking in racist or sexist baggage?
I think that those who would strive to have gender-neutrality of language should speak Lojban, and leave English to us who can appreciate a good "horseman" once in a while.
You know what is a bigger issue? English almost can't describe Time Travel verb tenses at all!
You know what is a bigger issue? English almost can't describe Time Travel verb tenses at all!
I mus admit I am very niggardly with respect to words which need to change.
Making language essentially dull, boring and unable to actually communicate accurately seems to be the intention.
Why should we change words because they might possibly conceivably in some usages be seen offensive?
Some people perhaps,might, possibly be better of by growing a pair, or getting thicker skin.
Their is no such thing as the right not to be offended, but there seems to be a dearth of understanding on some peoples behalf about language.
Making language essentially dull, boring and unable to actually communicate accurately seems to be the intention.
Why should we change words because they might possibly conceivably in some usages be seen offensive?
Some people perhaps,might, possibly be better of by growing a pair, or getting thicker skin.
Their is no such thing as the right not to be offended, but there seems to be a dearth of understanding on some peoples behalf about language.
Awww, but 20's sexist is so classy.Hitokiri_Gensai said:
In all seriousness, I'm not big for actively fiddling with terms out of hypersensitivity, but I do think that words hold a lot of power. If you can change a word for something you can change the way people see it. So, if changing the word means making it apply to a broader range of people then isn't it worth it that those people now feel as if that word can apply to them? If that makes any sense.
Even if you don't believe all that, though, "That's the way we've always said it" isn't a good reason to keep a word the same and language will evolve whether you like it or not.
Right. Now I remember.thebobmaster said:
I actually only played a little of that game, since I find the combat really frustrating, but I remember that.
That game is really similar to A Song of Ice and Fire, though, if just in writing.
They even give the main character a giant dog...
That's a very good point.Grey Carter said:
I disagree. Firstly, you don't ever run out of gender equality points, you don't have to stop discussing minor issues for fear you wont have enough to tackle the big ones.Grey Carter said:
Secondly, saying "man" to mean "person" is a comparatively small inequality, but it's still a part of a hole. Such things don't spring out of nowhere, and neither do the bigger, more important ones, they are built on a culture that tolerates (or worse, encourages) inequality.
I feel the need to bring some useless trivia in here; according to American custom, other American ships are referred to as female, allied ships are male, and enemy ships are "it". The more you know!thebobmaster said:
Yeah. I had to go to my schools rainbow brigade (GSA club) as per an agreement with my friend who is their vice president and they went on about them for quite a while. The president actually demands to be referred to by these idiotic non-words.BabyRaptor said:
I am in favor of gay rights and such, but people who want to be called shit like "ze" instead of he and her hurt the cause more than help it. That sort of nonsense is the reason I only show up to GSA when my attendance is part of some sort of deal.
edit-
In American English it is common to refer to the homeland as "she". I don't know if the person you're quoting is American or if he was even referring to the homeland, but it is not uncommon to do this in America.Woodsey said: