Members banned from this thread: Amelia and John T Ford


Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 107
Thanks Tree47Thanks

Thread: Proper English Sexism

  1. #11
    Inside Your Heads syrenn's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    13,925
    Thanks
    6863

    From
    the sadness of my soul
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    The entire point of this book:



    ....is that our English language/American culture reinforces and reflects our prejudices as to the normality and superiority of men. "Actors", "firefighters", "wait staff", etc. etc. etc. are all gender neutral replacements for other words that came into common usage since the 1970's in an effort to correct this prejudice.

    But these nouns do not correct the structural problem: English lacks any gender neutral way to refer to an individual and it lacks a gender neutral honorific.

    "Dear Sir or Madam" is still unsatisfying because the male reference comes first.

    "Ms." is a superior form of address for women, as it avoids the requirement that a woman's marital status must be revealed by the honorific. "Miss" and "Mrs." are archaic, although some people still like to use them.

    So, you brilliant PHers.....how do we replace "you guys"? Neither "all y'all" or "youse" sounds the least bit palatable outside their regional listeners.

    Any ideas?

    This is NOT going to be easy!



    And that before we cope with the way UK people pronounce the letter "z".


    yeah... sorry no. I prefer to speak proper English as opposed to...... proper total bullshit make me feel good participate in my therapy pc idiotic speak.
    Last edited by syrenn; 26th December 2017 at 09:08 AM.
    Thanks from Madeline

  2. #12
    A Character Tennyson's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,542
    Thanks
    347

    From
    Barsoom
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    No, of course not. The masculine form is universal in English.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
    I believe it is a dichotomy that feminists language changers have created. "He" in Article II is a gender neutral indefinite pronoun or a pronoun for "President," which is gender nuetral. The other words they want to change are gender neutral indefinite pronouns.
    Thanks from Madeline

  3. #13
    Veteran Member Chief's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    26,472
    Thanks
    7180

    From
    Earth
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    The entire point of this book:



    ....is that our English language/American culture reinforces and reflects our prejudices as to the normality and superiority of men. "Actors", "firefighters", "wait staff", etc. etc. etc. are all gender neutral replacements for other words that came into common usage since the 1970's in an effort to correct this prejudice.

    But these nouns do not correct the structural problem: English lacks any gender neutral way to refer to an individual and it lacks a gender neutral honorific.

    "Dear Sir or Madam" is still unsatisfying because the male reference comes first.

    "Ms." is a superior form of address for women, as it avoids the requirement that a woman's marital status must be revealed by the honorific. "Miss" and "Mrs." are archaic, although some people still like to use them.

    So, you brilliant PHers.....how do we replace "you guys"? Neither "all y'all" or "youse" sounds the least bit palatable outside their regional listeners.

    Any ideas?

    This is NOT going to be easy!



    And that before we cope with the way UK people pronounce the letter "z".
    I'm against gender neutrality. I have a gender and so does my wife. It doesn't matter to me if a person addresses us as Mrs. Chief and Mr. Chief. Heck, I'll chuckle if we are addressed as Mrs Chloe and Mr. Chloe and won't be harmed in the least. I think we are inconveniencing 99.9% of people for the marginal benefit of the .1% who would be better off just learning to get over it.

    For the record, I am for empowerment of everyone and against sexism. I believe that men and women are of equal quality, but are not identical. I believe that all should have equal opportunity, but that standards should not be changed to artificially divide up things between the sexes. I am not against equal pay between the sexes, but I think its unclear that sexism drives pay disparity. (Males may pursue raises more aggressively resulting in more pay increases, rather than companies deliberately paying them more than females, as an example) One thing I am very against is knee jerk overcorrections... and this feels like that.

    I saw that in the Navy too... the Navy is seriously looking at removing "man" from rates. So, now it's a problem that a job title is called Yeoman. Let's not forget to get "man" out of woman too, because we wouldn't want the wo to be harmed.

    It's just getting silly.
    Thanks from Madeline

  4. #14
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,692
    Thanks
    34317

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Chief View Post
    I'm against gender neutrality. I have a gender and so does my wife.
    I don't think anyone is suggesting that we should take gender away from actual human beings whom we name specifically.
    It doesn't matter to me if a person addresses us as Mrs. Chief and Mr. Chief. Heck, I'll chuckle if we are addressed as Mrs Chloe and Mr. Chloe and won't be harmed in the least. I think we are inconveniencing 99.9% of people for the marginal benefit of the .1% who would be better off just learning to get over it.

    For the record, I am for empowerment of everyone and against sexism. I believe that men and women are of equal quality, but are not identical. I believe that all should have equal opportunity, but that standards should not be changed to artificially divide up things between the sexes. I am not against equal pay between the sexes, but I think its unclear that sexism drives pay disparity. (Males may pursue raises more aggressively resulting in more pay increases, rather than companies deliberately paying them more than females, as an example) One thing I am very against is knee jerk overcorrections... and this feels like that.
    We're talking about situations where we mean a generic human, not a man or a woman but a person whose gender is not known.

    I saw that in the Navy too... the Navy is seriously looking at removing "man" from rates. So, now it's a problem that a job title is called Yeoman. Let's not forget to get "man" out of woman too, because we wouldn't want the wo to be harmed.

    It's just getting silly.
    I don't know what's appropriate for the military. I know that we often replace "Chairman" with simply "Chair" in my line of work. But I don't think that "Yeo" would work too well. <chuckle> But not all military ranks indicate gender (Ensign, Lieutenant). Perhaps the few that do could be replaced by something completely different? I do understand that the generic "Mister" you use in the Navy might be particularly problematic.
    Thanks from Panzareta, Madeline and Friday13

  5. #15
    quichierbichen
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    62,692
    Thanks
    34317

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    The entire point of this book:


    There's a great deal more to that book than just a discussion of language. It's almost a thousands pages!

    "Ms." is a superior form of address for women, as it avoids the requirement that a woman's marital status must be revealed by the honorific. "Miss" and "Mrs." are archaic, although some people still like to use them.

    So, you brilliant PHers.....how do we replace "you guys"? Neither "all y'all" or "youse" sounds the least bit palatable outside their regional listeners.
    Why do we need one? Why is it essential that we distinguish between the singular and the plural "you?" And if we do, what does that have to do with gender-inclusivity?
    Thanks from Friday13 and Helena

  6. #16
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    53,396
    Thanks
    30676

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    Technically, WOMEN are not in the Constitution though the 14th and the 19th amendments expand their rights, neither clarify, confirm or deny the masculine form as being for WOMEN.

    That's why the ERA is still alive (though on life support or IGNORED or scoffed at).
    This is 100% wrong-o. No constitutional scholar (or English language expert) agrees with you.

    But.....it does underscore the point in the Op. The female is not specifically mentioned, which creates the impression that women are an afterthought. This is not a problem specific to the constitution. It's specific to the structure of the English language.

    Amirite, @Leo2?

    As for the Equal Rights Amendment, it is not "still alive". But neither is it a dead letter, either.

    From the NPR website on March 21, 2017:

    Nevada has ratified the Equal Rights Amendment — roughly 35 years after a deadline imposed by Congress.

    On Wednesday, the state Senate approved the long-dormant ERA, which among other things guarantees that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex." The senators passed a measure sent to them by the state Assembly, which had already approved it earlier this week.

    It has been a long, twisty path for the ERA, which was first passed by Congress in 1972 and last approved by a state (Indiana) in 1977. The amendment teetered just three states short of the threshold necessary to see it adopted into law nationwide — a threshold it failed to achieve by the time Congress' deadline came and went.

    But for ERA supporters such as Democratic state Sen. Pat Spearman, that deadline is little more than a paper tiger.

    "It was in the resolving clause, but it wasn't a part of the amendment that was proposed by Congress," she tells KNPR. "That's why the time limit is irrelevant."

    (Note: Probably she is wrong, but it's an interesting argument.)

    After all, Spearman and others argue, Congress' original ratification deadline was 1979, and national lawmakers already bumped that forward to 1982 — so what's stopping them from bumping it forward again?

    "The Equal Rights Amendment is about equality, period," says Spearman, the Nevada bill's chief sponsor. A former Army lieutenant colonel and one of two openly gay senators in the Legislature, she says that regardless of timing, the goals of the amendment endure.

    "We have delayed passage long enough," she says. "Now is the time to show the country, and the global neighborhood, we as Nevadans lead when it comes to equality for all."

    *Snip*


    Many of the [GOP state senators] had argued that the ERA would be a detriment to families and a boost to abortion rights activists, while still others found the exercise useless, given the lapsed deadline. They said the more laudable aspects of the amendment have been rendered obsolete by the enactment of separate laws that fulfill the same function.

    And then, there's the matter of that deadline, which Republican Assemblywoman Robin Titus was far less inclined to dismiss. She says she was "deeply disturbed by the theatrics" of ratifying an overdue amendment, according to the Los Angeles Times. As she tells the newspaper, "I don't believe my constituents sent me to cast symbolic votes with no chance of success."

    (Note: LOLOLOLOL. What else are GOP state legislators for, if not to pass "symbolic votes with no chance of success"?)

    "I would argue that this chamber is full of symbolism," Jill Tolles, the sole Republican assemblywoman who voted for the measure, tells the Reno Gazette-Journal, adding:

    "On my left hand, I wear a ring that symbolizes my promise to love and respect and be faithful to one man for the rest of my life. We stand underneath a seal that reminds us that we are a battle born state and home means Nevada. We pledge allegiance to a flag every single day to celebrate the freedom that was so hard fought for."

    For pro-ERA groups such as the National Organization for Women, the matter is more than simply symbolic. After Indiana became the 35th state to ratify the amendment, in 1977, the group pursued what it called a "three-state strategy" — a plan to identify and persuade the states it needed to put it over the threshold.

    That plan didn't succeed, but Nevada has given NOW President Terry O'Neill new cause for hope.

    "Now it's a two-state strategy," she tells the Times. "It's very exciting. Over the past five years, Illinois and Virginia have come close. I think there is clear interest in this."


    For now the pro-ERA Nevada lawmakers — who don't need GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval's signature but have his support — are celebrating the symbolic victory with some auspicious timing: They ratified the ERA 45 years to the day since Congress originally passed it.
    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...after-deadline

    O, pretty cool. I knew none of this!

    Thanks for the tip, @cpicturetaker12!



    If you live in a state beshitted by Phyllis Schafley's 1970's era opposition to the ERA, you might consider letting your state lawmakers know, you support ratification of the ERA.
    Last edited by Madeline; 26th December 2017 at 03:24 PM.

  7. #17
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    53,396
    Thanks
    30676

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Amelia View Post
    Seriously? You're expecting that someone who would choose the white supremacist life would do better in the realm of gender equality or with respect to mental health concerns?

    Seriously?

    Don't stress yourself unless you pride yourself on fighting lost causes.
    To whom are you referring? Unless you know more about @John T Ford than I do, which is limited to his posts on PH, you have no business calling him a white supremacist.

    I'm surprised at you, madam. That's a type of personal insult banned by the TOS here, isn't it?

    You're meant to be the PH at-large etiquette coach!



    If we are all going to behave as rudely as I do, the future of PH is grim indeed.

    Last edited by Madeline; 26th December 2017 at 03:33 PM.

  8. #18
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    27,690
    Thanks
    2587

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    I realize this is not going to save the planet, John. OTOH, you are striking a VERY unattractive pose when you belittle the concerns of women as regards the language used to describe or include them.

    We really resent language that demeans us.

    A lot.



    We expect those men who love and respect women to take note of our concerns, and adapt.

    Does this not include you?
    Funny how you don't seem to give a whit about what men may think...as if like everything else liberal, life is only a one way street.

  9. #19
    Veteran Member carpe diem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    27,690
    Thanks
    2587

    From
    San Diego, CA
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    This is 100% wrong-o. No constitutional scholar (or English language expert) agrees with you.

    But.....it does underscore the point in the Op. The female is not specifically mentioned, which creates the impression that women are an afterthought. This is not a problem specific to the constitution. It's specific to the structure of the English language.

    Amirite, @Leo2?

    As for the Equal Rights Amendment, it is not "still alive". But neither is it a dead letter, either.

    From the NPR website on March 21, 2017:



    https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...after-deadline

    O, pretty cool. I knew none of this!

    Thanks for the tip, @cpicturetaker12!



    If you live in a state beshitted by Phyllis Schafley's 1970's era opposition to the ERA, you might consider letting your state lawmakers know, you support ratification of the ERA.
    The misandrist view has been heard...thank you very much.

  10. #20
    told you so Amelia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    44,947
    Thanks
    26735

    From
    Wisconsin
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    To whom are you referring? Unless you know more about @John T Ford than I do, which is limited to his posts on PH, you have no business calling him a white supremacist.

    I'm surprised at you, madam. That's a type of personal insult banned by the TOS here, isn't it?

    You're meant to be the PH at-large etiquette coach!



    If we are all going to behave as rudely as I do, the future of PH is grim indeed.


    He makes racist posts on PH. He just came off of a 7-day ban for racist posting. He's a white supremacist. If I get penalized for saying so, so be it. He trolled your thread but if you want to keep hitting your head on the wall trying to get him to be more appropriate about gender and those with mental illness than he is about race, go for it. It's your time.
    Thanks from Friday13 and PACE

Page 2 of 11 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. 100% Proper Self-Defense
    By Madeline in forum Current Events
    Replies: 305
    Last Post: 27th June 2016, 05:01 PM
  2. Proper Pricing
    By william the wierd in forum Economics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11th June 2011, 04:40 PM
  3. Proper Protocol?
    By Gypsy in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 25th November 2009, 02:08 PM
  4. The Proper Course of Action
    By Pragmatist in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th October 2007, 04:49 PM

Search tags for this page

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed