 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
 Posted: 04-10-2013 13:13 Post subject: |
 |
|
|
| Ronson8 wrote: | Perhaps we should follow the Yanks where senior female officers in the military are often addressed as sir.  |
Or perhaps, just address everybody as, ma'am? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
theyithian Keeping the British end up
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Total posts: 11704 Location: Vermilion Sands Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-10-2013 13:39 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | theyithian wrote: | Could someone please explain to these morons that linguistic gender is not the same as biological gender. Their bastardised English loses in numerical agreement anything it gains from political pandering. "The chairperson must make their decision..." is is as illiterate as inelegant.
File alongside niggardly and bullet points. |
So just what is the significance of, 'linguistic gender'?
No doubt you'd be the sort to insist that schoolgirls wear skirts as part of their school uniform, too?
 |
Grammatical Vs Natural Gender:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
It's a little more complicated than a set of knackers - knock yourself out.
Edit: Unsporting comment removed, amusing video left:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WgUktfdDy4
Last edited by theyithian on 04-10-2013 18:09; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Spookdaddy Cuckoo Joined: 24 May 2006 Total posts: 3924 Location: Midwich Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-10-2013 14:10 Post subject: |
|
|
|
My original point was really about this being somehow new usage, which it doesn't particularly strike me as.
I'd actually generally agree with the linguistic versus natural gender thing. For a start I know several BA’s and MA’s who are female, and a couple of male nurses – they all seem okay with it, and I can’t say I get hugely confused by it all; generally speaking, having a quick look at them sorts it all out for me.
Having said that, given certain comments about the use of the words 'husband' and 'wife' in relation to same-sex marriage on another thread, I'm not entirely sure that there isn't maybe sometimes a tendency to be a teeny bit selective deciding when it is appropriate to apply the linguistic versus biological argument. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 04-10-2013 20:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
And I quote from the Wikipedia entry:
There are exceptions, it's English. However, when it comes to a word like, chairman, there's another Wikipedia entry that might be relevant.
| Quote: | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#Rationale
Gender neutrality in English
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Gender-neutral language is a form of linguistic prescriptivism that aims to minimize assumptions about the gender or biological sex of people referred to in speech or writing. This article discusses aspects of gender neutrality as they relate to the English language.
...
Rationale
Proponents of gender-neutral language argue that the use of gender-specific language often implies male superiority or reflects an unequal state of society.[1][2] According to The Handbook of English Linguistics, generic masculine pronouns and gender-specific job titles are instances "where English linguistic convention has historically treated men as prototypical of the human species."[3] Words that refer to women often devolve in meaning, frequently taking on sexual overtones.[4]
These differences in usage are criticized on two grounds: one, that they reflect a biased state of society,[5] and two, that they help to uphold that state. Studies of children, for instance, indicate that the words children hear affect their perceptions of the gender-appropriateness of certain careers.[6] Other research has demonstrated that men and women apply for jobs in more equal proportions when gender-neutral language is used in the advertisement, as opposed to the generic he or man.[7] Some critics make the further claim that these differences in usage are not accidental, but have been deliberately created for the purpose of upholding a patriarchal society.[8] Proponents of gender-neutral language give many examples of usages that they find problematic.
A reason to avoid gender-bias in language is to maintain clarity and accuracy when communicating to some audiences. Using he to refer to a person of unspecified gender may be misunderstood, possibly in different ways by different people.
... |
A word like, 'chairman', clearly suggests that a man has the chair. Personally, from a linguistic point of view, I don't see the problem with addressing the chair. It doesn't really matter who holds the chair, in as much as it is the function of whoever holds the chair to moderate or preside over the committee, or meeting, or whatever. Addressing, 'the chair', should cover all eventualities. It is the function symbolised by the chair, not the functionary on the chair, that is important.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/hold+the+chair |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theyithian Keeping the British end up
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Total posts: 11704 Location: Vermilion Sands Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 02:57 Post subject: |
|
|
|
Human, Mankind, Man - the less-hairy-ape-type thing.
Perhaps if we rename the species we'll sleep sounder in our beds. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 05-10-2013 09:52 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| theyithian wrote: | Human, Mankind, Man - the less-hairy-ape-type thing.
Perhaps if we rename the species we'll sleep sounder in our beds. |
We weren't discussing humanity, we were discussing the use of language with regard to gender politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5310 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 06-10-2013 19:41 Post subject: |
|
|
|
This story I think probably goes here. Members of the LSE Atheist Society threatened with disciplinary action for wearing Jesus & Mo T-shirts at Freshers' Fair.
| Quote: | Chris Moos and Abishek Phandis of the London School of Economics Atheist Society are being threatened with being kicked out of the LSE Freshers’ Fair for – get this – wearing Jesus and Mo T-shirts. Around ten guards had surrounded them – it’s down to two now. They have been told to remove their T-shirts; if they refuse they will be physically removed from the university.
LSE: what ever happened to freedom of thought?
Yes, we know people have a “right” and “choice” to wear the burka (which is a mobile prison for women) but two LSE students don’t have a right to wear a T-Shirt poking fun at religion?
Listen up LSE: I am coming to your university for a debate on 15 October on the burka, and guess what I’m wearing? A Jesus and Mo T-Shirt. Now where can I get one of those quick?
By the way, below is the offending T-Shirt and also the latest Jesus and Mo comic. I’d suggest you look away or call the guards now if you are one of those pathetic people who is so afflicted with cultural relativism and multiculturalism that you can no longer tolerate anything that is deemed offensive to Islamists. I say Islamists because “Muslims” are people just like you and I (shock, horror). Some will be offended by Jesus and Mo; others will find it funny. Most will not threaten or kill for it. It’s the Islamists that do that and who silence criticism and dissent day in and day out and evidently also today with the help of LSE guards. Shameful don’t you think?
|
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 06-10-2013 19:52 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Sounds like a publicity stunt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5310 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 06-10-2013 20:00 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Sounds like a publicity stunt. |
Why do you think that?
I don't think it was, the LSE passed a motion last year essentially outlawing criticism of Islam following the publication of some Jesus & Mo cartoons on the Atheist Society's website.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/about/
*Edited for typo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| gncxx King-Size Canary
Great Old One Joined: 25 Aug 2001 Total posts: 13561 Location: Eh? Gender: Male |
| Posted: 06-10-2013 20:06 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Just cynical, I guess, but there's a great big plug for this comic all the way through the article. All publicity is good publicity and all that. Maybe they just have an axe to grind and the comic is a handy channel for that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Quake42 Warrior Princess
Great Old One Joined: 25 Feb 2004 Total posts: 5310 Location: Over Silbury Hill, through the Solar field Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 06-10-2013 20:11 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Just cynical, I guess, but there's a great big plug for this comic all the way through the article. All publicity is good publicity and all that. Maybe they just have an axe to grind and the comic is a handy channel for that? |
Well, given that they were promoting the Atheist Society, I'm guessing that any axe they had to grind was probably regarding the oppressive nature of organised religion, rather than a particular desire to promote an online cartoon. The rather heavy handed actions of the student union and security rather seemed to prove their point.
TBH even if it was some sort of weird publicity stunt, does that make their treatment okay? I don't believe it does, particularly in an environment which is supposed to be dedicated to free enquiry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| ramonmercado Psycho Punk
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 Total posts: 17933 Location: Dublin Gender: Male |
| Posted: 06-10-2013 23:19 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Quake42 wrote: | This story I think probably goes here. Members of the LSE Atheist Society threatened with disciplinary action for wearing Jesus & Mo T-shirts at Freshers' Fair.
| Quote: | Chris Moos and Abishek Phandis of the London School of Economics Atheist Society are being threatened with being kicked out of the LSE Freshers’ Fair for – get this – wearing Jesus and Mo T-shirts. Around ten guards had surrounded them – it’s down to two now. They have been told to remove their T-shirts; if they refuse they will be physically removed from the university.
LSE: what ever happened to freedom of thought?
Yes, we know people have a “right” and “choice” to wear the burka (which is a mobile prison for women) but two LSE students don’t have a right to wear a T-Shirt poking fun at religion?
Listen up LSE: I am coming to your university for a debate on 15 October on the burka, and guess what I’m wearing? A Jesus and Mo T-Shirt. Now where can I get one of those quick?
By the way, below is the offending T-Shirt and also the latest Jesus and Mo comic. I’d suggest you look away or call the guards now if you are one of those pathetic people who is so afflicted with cultural relativism and multiculturalism that you can no longer tolerate anything that is deemed offensive to Islamists. I say Islamists because “Muslims” are people just like you and I (shock, horror). Some will be offended by Jesus and Mo; others will find it funny. Most will not threaten or kill for it. It’s the Islamists that do that and who silence criticism and dissent day in and day out and evidently also today with the help of LSE guards. Shameful don’t you think?
|
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie |
Good old Maryam! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Cochise Great Old One Joined: 17 Jun 2011 Total posts: 1104 Location: Gwynedd, Wales Age: 58 Gender: Male |
| Posted: 07-10-2013 08:34 Post subject: |
|
|
|
I can handle dissent regarding Christianity. Can even enjoy and laugh along with some of the portrayals of God - Bruce Almighty, Simpsons. But if I'm expected not to be offended by militant Atheists, why should I worry about offence to said atheists or members of other religions because I want to demonstrate my religion as long as I do it in peaceful ways ? Shouldn't they then 'turn the other cheek' as well?
Does this not tie in to those who object to the Muslim veil?
Does not the whole thing point out that those who want black and white rules completely defining such things are asking the impossible, and what we need is tolerance - and, reciprocally to tolerance, compromise on behalf of the 'tolerated'?
In my opinion - until recently - English law evolved the way it did precisely because it is only sensible to make a law against something when it is clearly unacceptable to a vast majority. The recent departure into trying to control people's 'offence' by law can only have unexpected consequences, not least of which is further spreading disobedience to and contempt of the legal system in general (which is already in enough trouble over drugs and failure to pursue certain crimes).
There is another topic discussing the effect of social media etc - could it not be that we are as a result failing to join the dots any more between issues that are clearly related?
Just playing Devil's advocate - probably most of you don't believe in him so I'll have to do it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| theyithian Keeping the British end up
Joined: 29 Oct 2002 Total posts: 11704 Location: Vermilion Sands Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 07-10-2013 15:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | theyithian wrote: | Human, Mankind, Man - the less-hairy-ape-type thing.
Perhaps if we rename the species we'll sleep sounder in our beds. |
We weren't discussing humanity, we were discussing the use of language with regard to gender politics. |
You said 'Chairman'. Chairman = chair+man. The 'man' in question is not from an adult male person, but from mann, the old English for person - it picked up the additional male connotation because the holder of the post was generally male, but the term is actually gender neutral - as in my examples above.
Etymology does not govern use and is not set in stone, but there's no reason to suggest that any word with the suffix -man need be exclusively male. This wasn't the case for hundreds of year and the -woman, -person variation were later politicised alternatives. Anyway, that's why my comment was relevant.
References [great site]:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=chairman&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man&allowed_in_frame=0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pietro_Mercurios Heuristically Challenged
Gender: Unknown |
| Posted: 07-10-2013 16:21 Post subject: |
|
|
|
| theyithian wrote: | | Pietro_Mercurios wrote: | | theyithian wrote: | Human, Mankind, Man - the less-hairy-ape-type thing.
Perhaps if we rename the species we'll sleep sounder in our beds. |
We weren't discussing humanity, we were discussing the use of language with regard to gender politics. |
You said 'Chairman'. Chairman = chair+man. The 'man' in question is not from an adult male person, but from mann, the old English for person - it picked up the additional male connotation because the holder of the post was generally male, but the term is actually gender neutral - as in my examples above.
Etymology does not govern use and is not set in stone, but there's no reason to suggest that any word with the suffix -man need be exclusively male. This wasn't the case for hundreds of year and the -woman, -person variation were later politicised alternatives. Anyway, that's why my comment was relevant.
References [great site]:
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=chairman&allowed_in_frame=0
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man&allowed_in_frame=0 |
Yes 'the word, man, is indeed derived from the, Old English word, mann.
Just point me to an Old English usage of the term, 'chairman'. Perhaps, in Beowulf?
I see from your links that the earliest usage was in fact, chairman (n.)
1650s, "occupier of a chair of authority," from chair (n.) + man (n.). Meaning "member of a corporate body chosen to preside at meetings" is from c.1730. Chairwoman in this sense first attested 1752; chairperson 1971.
Not, 'Old English', but comparatively modern corporate business-speak.
As I posted, it's the chair that is the symbol of authority. Who sits in it is of secondary importance. No, language is not immutable. It changes over time according to requirements. The fact that the first recorded usage of the word, chairwoman, gets a mention only a hundred or less, years after the the first recorded usage of, chairman, should be a clue that even in the mid-18th century, chairman had already outlived any pretensions towards universal applicability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
