Pages: 1 2  Next -- Posted by Spasty at 2:54 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 I personally feel that using gender distinction or making it further neutral in English is useless. "Chairman" is already neutral. The suffix -man has nothing to do with men, it's simply a suffix meaning "person." Maybe at one time it was for men, but it now is doesn't. Let's take a look at things for a moment. Should we also change our words for females? Female. Woman. That's part of the language. As for the distinction between "actor" and "actress," that's even more ridiculous. That doesn't even have anything masculine in it, and the women want their own. We don't need to follow the French's "actrice." The only case that I feel it is needed is when the word deals with sexuality and gender. For instance, adulterer and adulteress -- those aren't really a needed distinction, but I can see why someone would need that. Why is it needed to clearly state that you're a woman who waits on tables? "Waiter" is an all-purpose word. So, the feminists saying that it takes away women's rights or whatever, no, it just makes our word all-purpose, and your words "special." So, your rights? No -- ours. Great members of the Intellectual Forum, discuss. -- Posted by PHo at 2:59 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 I really don't mind the whole "actor"/"actress", "waiter"/"waitress" thing, it's not big deal. And anyone that thinks that have "man" as a suffix is politically incorrect is an idiot, like you said "WoMAN" "FeMALE". Though I would wonder what they would change those to if they decided to take the "masculine" part out of them. -- Posted by PetitOiseau at 3:09 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 All right, I will. Because that you are NOT a woman or girl, you have no idea how important it is to girls and women that we are equal to men. Yes, it may just be a word to you, but let's focus in: that word has MAN. Of course it's been come to known but as times have changed, so should the words as well. Everytime I hear a man complain about how women fight too hard for equal rights, I think of a story my mom told me when I was little. My mom applied for a job that she was very experienced in but did not get it because the boss of the company hired a man instead just for that fact- he was a man. My mother was devestated. The man sent her roses to make her feel better, but that made her feel worse. She didn't sue because she was afraid her case wasn't strong enough. The suffix 'man' has EVERYTHING to do with men - it's right there in the word. At one time it meant 'man' - it still does. To you it's just a word - to me, not changing that word and calling me a ___man when I am a WOMAN cancels everything ever told by Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The reason words are 'woman' and 'female' is because Eve was part of Adam. Again, I'm not sure I even like that. I don't like the fact that female came from male. Why can't women be independent? This is probably why I enjoy 'The da Vinci Code' so much. The distinction between actor and actress states if the person is a man or woman. It's so important that you call me a word with a suffix that applies to both sexes. When you don't I feel as if all the equality between men and women has gone. I find it funny that the only time you would want a distinction between gender is a word in which describes a sinful acting person. Well, we MUST know if it was a women and must use the feminine suffix because if we used a masculine suffix and the person committing adultry was a woman, God forbid we thought this sinful act was committed by a man! I find this offensive. OUR rights are NOT specific to men. OUR rights are for MEN AND WOMEN. PERSON is a word that means both. So instead of saying chairman, you say chairperson. Is it so hard to say a word that not only shows respect for me, a woman, but just has three extra letters? Rebuttal that for me, please. -- Posted by Spasty at 3:44 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Quote: from PetitOiseau at 6:09 pm on Nov. 16, 2006All right, I will. Because that you are NOT a woman or girl, you have no idea how important it is to girls and women that we are equal to men. Language doesn't change your rights, just like "sinister" being "left" in Latin doesn't make left-handed people evil, or evil people left-handed. Yes, it may just be a word to you, but let's focus in: that word has MAN. Of course it's been come to known but as times have changed, so should the words as well. They have changed. Nature hasn't found the necessity to make everything neutral, so it hasn't. Religion hasn't had this effect, either. Everytime I hear a man complain about how women fight too hard for equal rights, I think of a story my mom told me when I was little.   My mom applied for a job that she was very experienced in but did not get it because the boss of the company hired a man instead just for that fact- he was a man.   My mother was devestated. The man sent her roses to make her feel better, but that made her feel worse. She didn't sue because she was afraid her case wasn't strong enough. That's a job, and this is language. What you call something doesn't change what it is. Let's bring in a religious example. The Christian god can be named God, Allah/Al-llah, YHVH, Jehovah, Dío, Dieu, and thousands of other names. Has he changed at all by changing his name? Not at all. The only difference is that one is considered his "true" name, but that's more of a religious discussion than female rights. The suffix 'man' has EVERYTHING to do with men - it's right there in the word. At one time it meant 'man' - it still does. To you it's just a word - to me, not changing that word and calling me a ___man when I am a WOMAN cancels everything ever told by Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. How does saying, "This woman is a chairman," call you a man? It's language, deary. Men really don't give a damn because it doesn't make sense. It's a word. It changes nothing. In Spanish, woman is "mujer," yet they don't change it to "mujera," which would be a more proper ending, as words ending in R tend to be masculine (though the word "mujer" is not). It's the same concept. It can look like a masculine word, yet it doesn't have to be. "She is a chairman." Yep. You still have your gender, otherwise it would become "He is a chairman," regardless to the fact that you're a female. The reason words are 'woman' and 'female' is because Eve was part of Adam. Again, I'm not sure I even like that. I don't like the fact that female came from male. Why can't women be independent? This is probably why I enjoy 'The da Vinci Code' so much. That's the religious aspect of language, and most likely those aren't the origins of the word. Judaism began in the Middle East (or northern Africa, I forget, something like that). English derived from things that are very far from those. The distinction between actor and actress states if the person is a man or woman. It's so important that you call me a word with a suffix that applies to both sexes. When you don't I feel as if all the equality between men and women has gone. Right, so I would call you an "actor," as that is a neutral word. Giving it another word means that there are two words for females and only one for males. Biased much? I find it funny that the only time you would want a distinction between gender is a word in which describes a sinful acting person. Well, we MUST know if it was a women and must use the feminine suffix because if we used a masculine suffix and the person committing adultry was a woman, God forbid we thought this sinful act was committed by a man! I find this offensive. Not at all, see, I was going to use "widow" and "widower," but that doesn't use the -ess suffix. You need these words because they are the same as the distinction between "wife" and "husband." I marry a woman, a woman cheated on me, and a woman died. You marry a man, a man cheats on you, and a man dies. These are words that aren't quite related. Words in other languages are totally different (usually) for those, but there are always more neutral words (such as spouse). Why is it that in language there's a distinct separation between "wife" and "husband?" I don't know, it's how things are. OUR rights are NOT specific to men. OUR rights are for MEN AND WOMEN. PERSON is a word that means both. So instead of saying chairman, you say chairperson. Is it so hard to say a word that not only shows respect for me, a woman, but just has three extra letters? I haven't a problem with saying "chairperson," i just have a problem with the idea. I don't like it when people go and change language like that, getting rid of evolution. It's not natural. It's weird. Slighly related is that I avoid using English-borrowed words in other languages. I don't say "weekends" instead of "fines de semana." Rebuttal that for me, please. Responses in bold. -- Posted by PetitOiseau at 4:00 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Quote: from Spasty at 6:44 pm on Nov. 16, 2006Quote: from PetitOiseau at 6:09 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Language doesn't change your rights, just like "sinister" being "left" in Latin doesn't make left-handed people evil, or evil people left-handed. Language that I use everyday DOES affect my rights. It's something I must live with everyday and it makes me mad to think that it's something that belongs to men even though I use it as well. They have changed. Nature hasn't found the necessity to make everything neutral, so it hasn't. Religion hasn't had this effect, either. That's a job, and this is language. What you call something doesn't change what it is. Let's bring in a religious example. The Christian god can be named God, Allah/Al-llah, YHVH, Jehovah, Dío, Dieu, and thousands of other names. Has he changed at all by changing his name? Not at all. The only difference is that one is considered his "true" name, but that's more of a religious discussion than female rights. Bringing religion into this is pointless. Not everyone is religious and showing me religious points and examples will not affect me because I am not that religious. God is not said to be a man or woman - my personal beliefs don't say so. And the many names he uses is for RELIGIONS, not sexes. How does saying, "This woman is a chairman," call you a man? It has the word man in it. It's language, deary. Men really don't give a damn because it doesn't make sense. It's a word. It changes nothing. I don't like being talked down to. I'm an equal just like you so talk to me like I'm a person. Would you call another man 'deary'? If men don't 'give a damn' because it doesn't make sense, then they are as naiive as you are being. It does NOT make sense. In the past, in history, have we accepted beliefs that did not make sense? Facts that did not make sense and were not true? No, so why should we accept it now? It changes everything. It changes how I feel, if I see if you have respect for me in the fact that I am a woman or not. In Spanish, woman is "mujer," yet they don't change it to "mujera," which would be a more proper ending, as words ending in R tend to be masculine (though the word "mujer" is not). It's the same concept. It can look like a masculine word, yet it doesn't have to be. "She is a chairman." Yep. You still have your gender, otherwise it would become "He is a chairman," regardless to the fact that you're a female. I do not have my gender in the word CHAIRMAN, which is what I want. Why is it so hard for you to let me be equal to you and accept me as an equal? That's the religious aspect of language, and most likely those aren't the origins of the word. Judaism began in the Middle East (or northern Africa, I forget, something like that). English derived from things that are very far from those. Right, so I would call you an "actor," as that is a neutral word. Giving it another word means that there are two words for females and only one for males. Biased much? Biased? I believe that I asked to be called an actress not an actor, which is a word for a man who performs on stage or in movies. That's one word for each. Not at all, see, I was going to use "widow" and "widower," but that doesn't use the -ess suffix. You need these words because they are the same as the distinction between "wife" and "husband." I marry a woman, a woman cheated on me, and a woman died. You marry a man, a man cheats on you, and a man dies. These are words that aren't quite related. Words in other languages are totally different (usually) for those, but there are always more neutral words (such as spouse). Why is it that in language there's a distinct separation between "wife" and "husband?" I don't know, it's how things are. I haven't a problem with saying "chairperson," i just have a problem with the idea. I don't like it when people go and change language like that, getting rid of evolution. It's not natural. It's weird. Slighly related is that I avoid using English-borrowed words in other languages. I don't say "weekends" instead of "fines de semana." It's not natural for women and men to be equal? That's what I read in that sentence. You keep veering from topic and talking about language. Responses in bold. -- Posted by Spasty at 4:21 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Language doesn't change your rights, just like "sinister" being "left" in Latin doesn't make left-handed people evil, or evil people left-handed. Language that I use everyday DOES affect my rights. It's something I must live with everyday and it makes me mad to think that it's something that belongs to men even though I use it as well. It's only offensive because you're making it offensive. In the past, it might have meant that "only men can be _____," but today, it doesn't. We clearly see they can. Today it's just words. Past society and religion shows in language, though the culture affects the language, not the other way around. Our days of the week (most, not all) are named after gods. Christians don't complain about that. They have changed. Nature hasn't found the necessity to make everything neutral, so it hasn't. Religion hasn't had this effect, either. That's a job, and this is language. What you call something doesn't change what it is. Let's bring in a religious example. The Christian god can be named God, Allah/Al-llah, YHVH, Jehovah, Dío, Dieu, and thousands of other names. Has he changed at all by changing his name? Not at all. The only difference is that one is considered his "true" name, but that's more of a religious discussion than female rights. Bringing religion into this is pointless. Not everyone is religious and showing me religious points and examples will not affect me because I am not that religious. God is not said to be a man or woman - my personal beliefs don't say so. And the many names he uses is for RELIGIONS, not sexes.   Right. Then I won't use religion for this one. Bread is called bread, pan, khobs, and again, thousands of other names. It's still bread. You missed my point. My point was that no matter what you call something, it doesn't change. If someone's a waalada, madre, mère, or mother, they are still a mother. They're just called something different. I call my dad dad, father, papa, baba, pa, and daddy, yet he's still the same person. Half of me still came out of his penis. I call my mom mom, mother, mama, ma, and mommy, yet she's still the same person. I still came out of her vagina. How does saying, "This woman is a chairman," call you a man?   It has the word man in it. So does chairwoman. It's language, deary. Men really don't give a damn because it doesn't make sense. It's a word. It changes nothing.   I don't like being talked down to. I'm an equal just like you so talk to me like I'm a person. Would you call another man 'deary'? If men don't 'give a damn' because it doesn't make sense, then they are as naiive as you are being. It does NOT make sense. In the past, in history, have we accepted beliefs that did not make sense? Facts that did not make sense and were not true? No, so why should we accept it now? It changes everything. It changes how I feel, if I see if you have respect for me in the fact that I am a woman or not. I'm not talking down at all. You are my equal. I called you "deary" because you're my best friend. If you were a male, I'd have called you "bud." We accept language now because it's how nature intended it. You're regressing language, not further evolving it. As time goes on, language tends to lose gender (among other things), so in due time, it will become neutral. It was nearly there, until you make it "chairwoman," which makes it that much harder for it to change. In Spanish, woman is "mujer," yet they don't change it to "mujera," which would be a more proper ending, as words ending in R tend to be masculine (though the word "mujer" is not). It's the same concept. It can look like a masculine word, yet it doesn't have to be. "She is a chairman." Yep. You still have your gender, otherwise it would become "He is a chairman," regardless to the fact that you're a female. I do not have my gender in the word CHAIRMAN, which is what I want. Why is it so hard for you to let me be equal to you and accept me as an equal? You are equal to me, love. Aside from not hitting hard; there I have you beat. Exactly, your gender isn't in "chairman," nor is it in "chairwoman." That's the religious aspect of language, and most likely those aren't the origins of the word. Judaism began in the Middle East (or northern Africa, I forget, something like that). English derived from things that are very far from those. Right, so I would call you an "actor," as that is a neutral word. Giving it another word means that there are two words for females and only one for males. Biased much? Biased? I believe that I asked to be called an actress not an actor, which is a word for a man who performs on stage or in movies. That's one word for each. Exactly, furthering the gap between equality. Fighting for distinction makes you more distinct, not more equal. Not at all, see, I was going to use "widow" and "widower," but that doesn't use the -ess suffix. You need these words because they are the same as the distinction between "wife" and "husband." I marry a woman, a woman cheated on me, and a woman died. You marry a man, a man cheats on you, and a man dies. These are words that aren't quite related. Words in other languages are totally different (usually) for those, but there are always more neutral words (such as spouse). Why is it that in language there's a distinct separation between "wife" and "husband?" I don't know, it's how things are. I haven't a problem with saying "chairperson," i just have a problem with the idea. I don't like it when people go and change language like that, getting rid of evolution. It's not natural. It's weird. Slighly related is that I avoid using English-borrowed words in other languages. I don't say "weekends" instead of "fines de semana." It's not natural for women and men to be equal? That's what I read in that sentence. You keep veering from topic and talking about language.   It's not natural for people to change language on their own. Again, I don't use borrowed words in other languages, unless they've been borrowed for a long time. It's not natural to shove things into language because they don't seem "right." Language doesn't care. Language is so ancient, it doesn't care about being "right," it's communication, and that's it. I'm not veering from this topic. This topic is about prejudice and linguistics, moreso linguistics than prejudice.   Responses in bold. I'll be lazy and respond in italics. -- Posted by PetitOiseau at 4:37 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 It's only offensive because you're making it offensive. In the past, it might have meant that "only men can be _____," but today, it doesn't. We clearly see they can. Today it's just words. Past society and religion shows in language, though the culture affects the language, not the other way around. Our days of the week (most, not all) are named after gods. Christians don't complain about that. It's offensive to me because I still see the word 'man.' Right. Then I won't use religion for this one. Bread is called bread, pan, khobs, and again, thousands of other names. It's still bread. You missed my point. My point was that no matter what you call something, it doesn't change. If someone's a waalada, madre, mère, or mother, they are still a mother. They're just called something different. I call my dad dad, father, papa, baba, pa, and daddy, yet he's still the same person. Half of me still came out of his penis. I call my mom mom, mother, mama, ma, and mommy, yet she's still the same person. I still came out of her vagina. I knew you'd say penis sometime soon. So does chairwoman. I would like the word 'chairperson' then. I'm not talking down at all. You are my equal. I called you "deary" because you're my best friend. If you were a male, I'd have called you "bud." We accept language now because it's how nature intended it. You're regressing language, not further evolving it. As time goes on, language tends to lose gender (among other things), so in due time, it will become neutral. It was nearly there, until you make it "chairwoman," which makes it that much harder for it to change. Ok I forgive you for the deary thing because of the best friend thing. But it should be chairperson so it is fair for both genders. You are equal to me, love. Aside from not hitting hard; there I have you beat. Exactly, your gender isn't in "chairman," nor is it in "chairwoman." Why can't both our genders be chairperson? Exactly, furthering the gap between equality. Fighting for distinction makes you more distinct, not more equal. It's making the gap narrower by calling us the same name, the same EQUAL name... It's not natural for people to change language on their own. Again, I don't use borrowed words in other languages, unless they've been borrowed for a long time. It's not natural to shove things into language because they don't seem "right." Language doesn't care. Language is so ancient, it doesn't care about being "right," it's communication, and that's it. I'm not veering from this topic. This topic is about prejudice and linguistics, moreso linguistics than prejudice.    Language doesn't care, but society does. Replies in regular. -- Posted by Spasty at 4:45 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 It's only offensive because you're making it offensive. In the past, it might have meant that "only men can be _____," but today, it doesn't. We clearly see they can. Today it's just words. Past society and religion shows in language, though the culture affects the language, not the other way around. Our days of the week (most, not all) are named after gods. Christians don't complain about that.   It's offensive to me because I still see the word 'man.'   Then should we change all names of days? I don't like how Sunday is referring to a pagan holiday. I don't like how Monday refers to the goddess of the moon. I don't like how Tuesday is named after the Norse god, Tyr. I don't like how Wednesday is named to honour Odin. I don't like how Thursday is named after Thor. I don't like how Friday is named after the Norse goddess Frigg. I don't like how Saturday is honouring Saturn. The days offend me because I'm Christian. Right. Then I won't use religion for this one. Bread is called bread, pan, khobs, and again, thousands of other names. It's still bread. You missed my point. My point was that no matter what you call something, it doesn't change. If someone's a waalada, madre, mère, or mother, they are still a mother. They're just called something different. I call my dad dad, father, papa, baba, pa, and daddy, yet he's still the same person. Half of me still came out of his penis. I call my mom mom, mother, mama, ma, and mommy, yet she's still the same person. I still came out of her vagina.   I knew you'd say penis sometime soon.   So does chairwoman.   I would like the word 'chairperson' then. This is about English Gender DISTINCTION. *points to topic name*  I'm not talking down at all. You are my equal. I called you "deary" because you're my best friend. If you were a male, I'd have called you "bud." We accept language now because it's how nature intended it. You're regressing language, not further evolving it. As time goes on, language tends to lose gender (among other things), so in due time, it will become neutral. It was nearly there, until you make it "chairwoman," which makes it that much harder for it to change.   Ok I forgive you for the deary thing because of the best friend thing. But it should be chairperson so it is fair for both genders. See title name. You are equal to me, love. Aside from not hitting hard; there I have you beat. Exactly, your gender isn't in "chairman," nor is it in "chairwoman."   Why can't both our genders be chairperson?   Because it didn't happen naturally. It's just feminists changing language, which I don't like. Exactly, furthering the gap between equality. Fighting for distinction makes you more distinct, not more equal.   It's making the gap narrower by calling us the same name, the same EQUAL name... Not if we have gender distinction. It's not natural for people to change language on their own. Again, I don't use borrowed words in other languages, unless they've been borrowed for a long time. It's not natural to shove things into language because they don't seem "right." Language doesn't care. Language is so ancient, it doesn't care about being "right," it's communication, and that's it. I'm not veering from this topic. This topic is about prejudice and linguistics, moreso linguistics than prejudice.         Language doesn't care, but society does. Society can care, but they have no true control over language. Replies bold. -- Posted by PetitOiseau at 4:50 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Feminists just change words because they already belong to MAN. And gender distiction would bring us closer by showing equal respect for both genders. Seeing both as equals... -- Posted by Spasty at 4:55 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Quote: from PetitOiseau at 7:50 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Feminists just change words because they already belong to MAN.   And gender distiction would bring us closer by showing equal respect for both genders. Seeing both as equals... Distinction doesn't make equality. It shows difference. -- Posted by PetitOiseau at 6:12 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 It makes it equality if both have something. Men and women both have something, so they are equal. -- Posted by throwthisaway at 6:58 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 To change the language just because a gender wants to feel equal isn't very logical. Feeling and being equal are different. Women have a lot better rights in some cases, and a lot worse in others. Maybe women should start holding open doors for men, opening car doors for men, and men should start screaming 'Rape!' and 'Harrassment!' as soon as they're touched. Because, of course, we want to be 'equal'. The fact is, no gender will ever be equal. We weren't made equally. We have different centres of gravity, and therefore are different. We have different reproductive organs, different chemicals, and different ideas. You can't change language just because you're insecure. Without man, woman is nothing. Without male, female is just the same. Notice how they essentially have the same meaning? It's a word. Not a symbol, just a word. -- Posted by PetitOiseau at 7:28 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Quote: from throwthisaway at 9:58 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 To change the language just because a gender wants to feel equal isn't very logical. Feeling and being equal are different. Women have a lot better rights in some cases, and a lot worse in others. Maybe women should start holding open doors for men, opening car doors for men, and men should start screaming 'Rape!' and 'Harrassment!' as soon as they're touched. Because, of course, we want to be 'equal'. The fact is, no gender will ever be equal. We weren't made equally. We have different centres of gravity, and therefore are different. We have different reproductive organs, different chemicals, and different ideas. You can't change language just because you're insecure. Without man, woman is nothing. Without male, female is just the same. Notice how they essentially have the same meaning? It's a word. Not a symbol, just a word. It's what stands behind the word - I'm not insecure. And not all women scream rape. Stereotypist? -- Posted by throwthisaway at 7:32 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Quote: from PetitOiseau at 10:28 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Quote: from throwthisaway at 9:58 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 To change the language just because a gender wants to feel equal isn't very logical.    Feeling and being equal are different. Women have a lot better rights in some cases, and a lot worse in others.    Maybe women should start holding open doors for men, opening car doors for men, and men should start screaming 'Rape!' and 'Harrassment!' as soon as they're touched. Because, of course, we want to be 'equal'.    The fact is, no gender will ever be equal. We weren't made equally. We have different centres of gravity, and therefore are different. We have different reproductive organs, different chemicals, and different ideas.    You can't change language just because you're insecure. Without man, woman is nothing. Without male, female is just the same. Notice how they essentially have the same meaning? It's a word. Not a symbol, just a word. It's what stands behind the word - I'm not insecure. And not all women scream rape. Stereotypist? The majority do. I'm working with the numbers here. If a female was to fight with a male, even though the female instigated the fight, the male would still get in trouble for hitting the woman. Even if it was in self defense. There are countless topics in the Rants section about this happening to people, and it's because women are not equal to men. However, it works in the favor of the women, does it not? Things can't stand behind words. It's the meaning that counts; one cannot exist without the other. -- Posted by haggardgirl at 8:34 pm on Nov. 16, 2006 Just an interesting little tidbit for you: The word "female" does not, etymologically, refer the opposite sex of a male, but rather stems from the Vulgar Latin term "femina". This term was derived from the Classical Latin word "felare" or, literally, "to suckle" in English. So, basically, "female" does not intrinsically have any sexism attached to it; it originates in the motherly action of feeding our young. -- Posted by BrAysian at 10:20 am on Nov. 26, 2006 I believe the point that is trying to be made here is that we shouldn't be further distinguishing words into it's male and female counterparts.  As haggardgirl said, the word female comes from a latin root, not the opposite sex of a male.  So, why can't we just say words like chairman refer to both a male and a female?  Why bother making the English language more complicated by adding more words to it that don't really make a difference?  So, we should just take that lovely little razor of Occam's and cut the wrists of words like chairperson or chairwoman, because everyone has to relearn words.  Not to mention it's an extra syllable, and we're too lazy to deal with that. -- Posted by katJa at 1:58 pm on Nov. 26, 2006 Because the English language is 70% Latin derivitive via French, the language is bound to have some irregularities.  If any of you have ever seen Old English (no, not Middle English, which is partially comprehensible to native speakers and some secondary speakers, but the Old English which is extremely inflected, structurally different with not nearly as much outside influence, et cetera), you will notice that as with other languages of the Germanic family, there are pronouns which deal with masculine (proper) nouns, pronouns which deal with feminine (proper) nouns, and then the neutral pronouns, which are used when the subject is unknown, or there is a mix of feminine and masculine subjects.   Note that the only thing we have close to this today is the commonly misused subject pronoun 'they'. Because English has become such a widely observed and spoken language, it is rather difficult to decide what should, or should not be done with it.  The influences on the English language are innumerable in source and area, and again, because it is spoken all over the world, there isn't a way to find the source of the influence. However, what would you all say if I told you that the real source of the gender neutrality struggle is politician vs. historian?   -- Posted by born to be king at 4:32 am on Dec. 11, 2006 I have a problem with feminists changing words like history to herstory if we do that i'd appreciate if we changed it to hispes when a man has it.   -- Posted by rchaneberg at 5:21 am on Dec. 11, 2006 Words are merely symbols representing commonly understood subjects. Both the words and the subjects described change gradually, following long-term social trends.  If our society is becoming more equal, then a gender distinction would logically disappear, given time, and this has been happening with the subjects represented, rather than with the symbols themselves.  To artificially force the subjects, supposedly equal, into two separate groups merely highlights their differences. Also, Ms. PetitOiseau, why do you like the word chairperson? It has the masculine word son in it and should, by your view, be just as unacceptable as chairman. -- Posted by exparrot at 5:09 pm on Dec. 11, 2006 These gender names have been assimilated so well into our speech that it is just custom.  I think that "fireperson" or "[insert profession/title here]person" can get a little ridiculous, but waitress isn't so bad. -- Posted by bex101 at 11:46 am on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from exparrot at 1:09 am on Dec. 12, 2006 These gender names have been assimilated so well into our speech that it is just custom.  I think that "fireperson" or "[insert profession/title here]person" can get a little ridiculous, but waitress isn't so bad. I agree. There has to ba a line, and all this political correctness is crossing it. -- Posted by LALALALA at 2:02 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from born to be king at 12:32 pm on Dec. 11, 2006 I have a problem with feminists changing words like history to herstory if we do that i'd appreciate if we changed it to hispes when a man has it.   LOL, nice!   -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 2:08 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from bex101 at 7:46 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 There has to ba a line, and all this political correctness is crossing it. It's not PC, it's common sense. You don't call your mother a man, do you? So why do you call a female police officer a "policeman"? The only problem with it is that a lot of people, mostly Americans, have some sort of strange deep-wiring that causes nausia and stomach cramps at the mention of something thats sounds like it might be connected to "political correctness". -- Posted by Spasty at 4:38 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 5:08 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from bex101 at 7:46 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 There has to ba a line, and all this political correctness is crossing it. It's not PC, it's common sense. You don't call your mother a man, do you? So why do you call a female police officer a "policeman"? The only problem with it is that a lot of people, mostly Americans, have some sort of strange deep-wiring that causes nausia and stomach cramps at the mention of something thats sounds like it might be connected to "political correctness". So... my mother is a "perdaughter," not a "person?" I wouldn't want to imply that my mother is a man. -- Posted by old american century at 5:02 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from Spasty at 4:38 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 5:08 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from bex101 at 7:46 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 There has to ba a line, and all this political correctness is crossing it.    It's not PC, it's common sense.    You don't call your mother a man, do you? So why do you call a female police officer a "policeman"?    The only problem with it is that a lot of people, mostly Americans, have some sort of strange deep-wiring that causes nausia and stomach cramps at the mention of something thats sounds like it might be connected to "political correctness". So... my mother is a "perdaughter," not a "person?" I wouldn't want to imply that my mother is a man. She's a lady. -- Posted by Spasty at 5:03 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from old american century at 8:02 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from Spasty at 4:38 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 5:08 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 Quote: from bex101 at 7:46 pm on Dec. 13, 2006 There has to ba a line, and all this political correctness is crossing it.     It's not PC, it's common sense.     You don't call your mother a man, do you? So why do you call a female police officer a "policeman"?     The only problem with it is that a lot of people, mostly Americans, have some sort of strange deep-wiring that causes nausia and stomach cramps at the mention of something thats sounds like it might be connected to "political correctness".    So... my mother is a "perdaughter," not a "person?" I wouldn't want to imply that my mother is a man. She's a lady. Yeah, but calling her a person means she's a son, not a daughter! -- Posted by The Samsoniteman at 10:13 am on Dec. 14, 2006 Quote: from Spasty at 12:38 am on Dec. 14, 2006 So... my mother is a "perdaughter," not a "person?" I wouldn't want to imply that my mother is a man. Either you're an idiot or you're joking. Either way you're an idiot. -- Posted by katJa at 2:36 pm on Dec. 14, 2006 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 10:13 am on Dec. 14, 2006 Quote: from Spasty at 12:38 am on Dec. 14, 2006 So... my mother is a "perdaughter," not a "person?" I wouldn't want to imply that my mother is a man. Either you're an idiot or you're joking. Either way you're an idiot. I would like to point out that the argument they're having is completely valid, that he is joking, and also, for the general knowledge of all of you, all of these words do not have any connotation with the things we're calling "masculine" and "feminine" in the English language.  They are two different concepts. -- Posted by schoon at 11:42 am on Dec. 15, 2006 Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 1:13 pm on Dec. 14, 2006 Quote: from Spasty at 12:38 am on Dec. 14, 2006 So... my mother is a "perdaughter," not a "person?" I wouldn't want to imply that my mother is a man. Either you're an idiot or you're joking. Either way you're an idiot. Samsoniteman, you passed the intellectual test to insult someone and call them an idiot when we should be here actually arguing about the issue at hand? Please, at least be respectful when you disagree with someone's opinion about it. I also think she brings up a valid point. 'person' may be much more adjusted to by our culture, and 'policeman' may very well reach that level someday,but most likely it won't with the current PC fad. -- Posted by medjai at 1:14 pm on Dec. 15, 2006 Language is actually the most significant factor when it comes to determining rights. Why women would want to be seperated further from men in language, opening up new avenues for discrimination, I do not know. If I were female I would rather actors be called actors regardless of sex, because have two seperate names indicates separation, which indicates different rights, or at least the potential for seperate treatment. Pages: 1 2  Next