is feminine prejudice?

[Mr_Adams]

"Some people assert that feminine forms degrade women. They insist that on an equal footing with men, women are actors, heroes, aviators, executors, and so on; that since there is no reason to distinguish between the sexes in occupations and professions, there is no need for the old fashioned feminine designations."- wiki.answers.com

Does this mean that these people hate proper Spanish, Italian, etc.?
What does this mean for public restrooms? should they all be transgender? how about clothing? (I refuse to wear women's underwear. that's just perverted. They would have to switch to boxers.) So many questions over formality, and, whats more, said people are destroying what we know as the proper English language. (Not that I use proper English anyways )

What do you think?

[PLAYER57832]

It's just an extreme view and yes, is rather idiotic.

The idea that gender should not really exist, was purely a social construct had some believers. Understand that this was largely a rejection of the 1950's and even 1960's stereotypes for women, which were extremely limiting and harmful. Most of those steretypes had little to do with reality. For example, too much emphasis is put on women being the "weaker sex". True, on a broad basis, but many women are stronger than many men and how stronge a woman is, just like how strong a man is has a lot to do with what is asked of them. Traditional farm women would have no problem hefting heavy loads. Yet, suddenly in the suburbs, it was supposed to be "too honerous" to lift a garbage bag or a box. Women's intelligence has always been berated... to the extreme that many women with ideas were given tranquilizers or even, in a few cases, hospitalized for the "insanity" if disagreeing with their husbands.

Anyway, with that backdrop, the realization went from "these stereotypes are just wrong", to "ALL stereotypes are wrong" to "there is no difference between men and women". Of course, once people backed off a bit from the politics and began to realize that individual women should have choices, etc., then it has become OK to accept again that men and women do have differences. HOWEVER, and this is a pretty big point, its also recognized that for any broad characterization, there are many, many exceptions and that the best general course is to see people more as individuals instead of trying to classify them by any particular broad category.

However, biology, bathrooms, etc... most people draw a line. (though in Scandinavia, they tend to have a lot of "gender neutral" restrooms)

[MeDeFe]

"Some people assert that feminine forms degrade women. They insist that on an equal footing with men, women are actors, heroes, aviators, executors, and so on; that since there is no reason to distinguish between the sexes in occupations and professions, there is no need for the old fashioned feminine designations."- wiki.answers.com

Does this mean that these people hate proper Spanish, Italian, etc.?
What does this mean for public restrooms? should they all be transgender? how about clothing? (I refuse to wear women's underwear. that's just perverted. They would have to switch to boxers.) So many questions over formality, and, whats more, said people are destroying what we know as the proper English language. (Not that I use proper English anyways )

What do you think?

I think it's largely an english-language problem and it is probably only relevant in cases like "policeman" or "chairman", that words like "actress" and "heroine" even exist is probably more due to the fact that women began edging into those fields (professional and literary respectively) well before equal rights became a large-scale issue. If, in such a situation, all actors have been male for as long as anyone can remember and women are beginning to join the stage, or all heroes in stories have been male and there are suddenly female characters that fulfill similar functions, it makes sense to make a distinction.

Languages with grammatical genders tend to have the opposite "problem", there's a male and a female form for any profession, but very seldom forms which encompass both.

I think you're an idiot for bringing clothing into this, I don't see what the relevance is since this is about language, but if you really want to wear a dress that badly I couldn't care less.

[Koesen]

As a man, I think this is a non issue, but in my experience women tend to have stronger feelings about it. Most of my former female colleagues insisted on having a 'male' title on their cards, for example.

Personally, I don't think the difference between, say, 'actor' and 'actress' is a difference of quality. They describe the exact same job, and one adds that it is a man and the other that it is a woman. In my experience, the only people who interpret this as 'they have the exact same job, but one is better than the other' are women.

In general, I think changing the vocabulary is pointless if you don't change the underlying issue, and if you do change the underlying issue, there's no need to change the vocabulary anymore.

[BigBallinStalin]

As a man, I think this is a non issue, but in my experience women tend to have stronger feelings about it. Most of my former female colleagues insisted on having a 'male' title on their cards, for example.

Personally, I don't think the difference between, say, 'actor' and 'actress' is a difference of quality. They describe the exact same job, and one adds that it is a man and the other that it is a woman. In my experience, the only people who interpret this as 'they have the exact same job, but one is better than the other' are women.

In general, I think changing the vocabulary is pointless if you don't change the underlying issue, and if you do change the underlying issue, there's no need to change the vocabulary anymore.

Seeing that language is so influential on our everyday thoughts, consciously and subconsciously, many hold the view that a change towards a gender neutral language is necessary.

Personally, I disagree because that's just 90% rubbish. I say 90% because words like "meter maid" are a bit mean but really do have a great ring to it. =P

[Mr_Adams]

I think you're an idiot for bringing clothing into this, I don't see what the relevance is since this is about language, but if you really want to wear a dress that badly I couldn't care less.

The purpose of the clothing comment was purely a dramatic (perhaps to dramatic, I will admit) hyperbole. What I really wanted to know is what peoples opinion on the issue is, or, as Koesen put it, is it a non-issue? It doesn't bother me in life so much, I just find the idea fascinating, and am looking for more opinions. Whenever I think about this issue, i always come back to That 70's Show, when Donna is upset with her boss for being sexually prejudice, but when Eric asks her if that means she wants people to stop calling her "Hot Donna", she says "NO! It makes me feel pretty. " Always worth a

[PLAYER57832]

Personally, I don't think the difference between, say, 'actor' and 'actress' is a difference of quality. They describe the exact same job, and one adds that it is a man and the other that it is a woman. In my experience, the only people who interpret this as 'they have the exact same job, but one is better than the other' are women.

As a woman, I prefer not to be labeled a man. Also, in a professional capacity, gender should not matter. I would not advertise that I am a woman, but don't want to be automatically labeled a man, either. I prefer a gender nuetral term.

In general, I think changing the vocabulary is pointless if you don't change the underlying issue, and if you do change the underlying issue, there's no need to change the vocabulary anymore.

Gotta disagree. The terms actually go a long way towards changing opinions. A full discussion of this would be too involved for me right now, but just look at preschoolers, if all you see are pictures of fireMEN and the term firemen, then they quickly start to say things like "but women can't be firemen!".

[Koesen]

Gotta disagree. The terms actually go a long way towards changing opinions. A full discussion of this would be too involved for me right now, but just look at preschoolers, if all you see are pictures of fireMEN and the term firemen, then they quickly start to say things like "but women can't be firemen!".

In the case of fireman I see your point, because I have never heard of a firewoman (the word, I mean, not the concept). However, do you believe that a preschooler would be inclined to think that an actress is less than an actor? I don't.

Consider what happened in a similar situation: calling somebody 'black' instead of 'African American' (even if said person isn't from Africa at all) would nowadays cause all kinds of outrage. In this case, the vocabulary has to a large degree been changed. It still doesn't change that African Americans are vastly more likely to be unemployed, underpaid and imprisoned than white Americans.

The vocabulary has been changed but the underlying problem has not.

Again, this is a non issue for me and if women insist on being given the male label (in my native language this happens more often than in English), it's fine with me. I am not against saying a woman is an actor instead of an actress if she herself insists on it. But I do not kid myself into believing I have just made a contribution to the battle against inequality.

[PLAYER57832]

Gotta disagree. The terms actually go a long way towards changing opinions. A full discussion of this would be too involved for me right now, but just look at preschoolers, if all you see are pictures of fireMEN and the term firemen, then they quickly start to say things like "but women can't be firemen!".

In the case of fireman I see your point, because I have never heard of a firewoman (the word, I mean, not the concept). However, do you believe that a preschooler would be inclined to think that an actress is less than an actor? I don't.

Acting is a bad example, because there IS a difference between a male actor and an actress. Granted, there have been "cross-overs, but it is one area where men do have an advantage in playing men and women an advantage in playing women... and
Blacks an advantage in most black roles, even and englishman has an advantage in playing some English roles over an American, but part of the actor or actress's skill there is in duplicating the effect "artificially" if you will.


Anyway, for most things, the answer is "yes"... they do note a difference.

Consider what happened in a similar situation: calling somebody 'black' instead of 'African American' (even if said person isn't from Africa at all) would nowadays cause all kinds of outrage. In this case, the vocabulary has to a large degree been changed. It still doesn't change that African Americans are vastly more likely to be unemployed, underpaid and imprisoned than white Americans.

This is sort of a disengenuous example. Black versus "African American" came about because of culture. Blacks, more than any other group (though not solely) have been stripped of their prior identities. For other cultures, it was largely voluntary. (not wholly, but largely .. at least for the adults) when this happened. For blacks, it was absolutely not. The transition was from Nigger to an "academic" term of Negro. Negro, however, was tied too much with the negativity, so many blacks rebelled. You had large groups saying "hey I am BLACK" and "BLACK is beautiful" (speaking of kids, I have a funny story about that.. later).. Others wanted to more firmly dissassociate themselves from what they saw as a wholly prejudicial white population, as opposed to what they sawa as a non-prejudiced (or less prejudiced) black population and embraced "Africanism", often rejected Christianity (embracing a new, "black moslem" faith that began as little more than "anti-Christianity", but since has evolved to be a true Moslem faith, though still sometimes differing from the Arabic version).

Anyway, when you see the debate over "Black" verses "African American" it is about that cultural debate. Are they more "African" or should the emphasis be on "American". With racism not gone, but definitely diminished a LOT, AND with more education over true Africanism, (as opposed to the old -- it ain't white, its gotta be better type mentality of some in the 60's and 70's), ALONG WITH a recognition of varied European cultures and you see more and more people saying "black is OK" and even seeing "African American" as almost "racists" unless it refers to someone who really is from Africa. ALL of this is touchy and various people have their own opinions, but again, its, if anything, more a case in my point than a case against it.. IF you look at the whole history of the matters.

The vocabulary has been changed but the underlying problem has not.

As for the "blacks are still underpaid, etc."... true, BUT look at how far we have come! In the 1960's south, segregation was the RULE, not a racist anomoly. The entire idea of a black even TRYING for many positions was just not done. Now, we have advanced to where no one questions that blacks are capable, we have among the most highly paid and highly recognized people black individuals and no one really thinks twice about seeing a black police officer, businessperson, professor or doctor. Again, the fact that you say "we have not solved this problem" is really a factor of the advances. You were raised in a world where you just take for granted that blacks should have all that and only ask "why not". When I was young, people were not always even willing to acknowledge that it could be different. That IS progress!

Or, to paraphrase. Remember Dr King's words... "Someday, little black boys and black girls will walk hand in hand". You look at not just preschools, but schools around the country and that is exactly what you see. That day is HERE! No, the battle is not "won", but it is to the point of "some people are just jerks".. but the rest of us at least try not to go along.

Again, this is a non issue for me and if women insist on being given the male label (in my native language this happens more often than in English), it's fine with me. I am not against saying a woman is an actor instead of an actress if she herself insists on it. But I do not kid myself into believing I have just made a contribution to the battle against inequality.

OK, did not realize you were not a native English speaker. In French, EVERYTHING has a male or female connotation and, maybe I am wrong, but I think that sort of has its own nuetralizing effect.

However, as I pointed out again, actor/actress is rather a special case. It actually does matter.

However, as you admitted... a fireman or policeMAN or mailMAN.. are something different. As for kids.... Parents used to sort of "panic" if boys picked up dolls or cooking stuff. Some, mostly fathers, still do. I always ask, "but don't YOU hold babies.. or cook?" or "haven't they seen men doing these things?" I always say "oh, what a good daddy you will be" and not "eh.. look at the little mommy" or similar such nonsense. And, if you pay attention, it usually happens that while boys will hold dolls, they will often hold them differently than girls.

A lot of the problem has to do not with men and women being "the same", it has to do with models that are just plain backwards and wrong. Language is very, very powerful in ways we are only beginning to understand.

If you want a real and clear example of how important language change is, look at the shift in language in the conservative movement in America. I can call up a link on this, though it will go off an a tangent (so should probably be in another thread if you want to see it). However, listen to how often conservatives refer to themselves as "representing the majority" or "the common morality", etc... as opposed to those "strange, over-educated, elitist, liberals". It is by no means unintentional. And, sadly look at how many people actually believe that those views really DO represent the majority. If you take a poll, on a number of issues most people actually disagree. Yet, they are made to feel that they do agree, mostly... and the "few exceptions" are just "anomolies". When, if you really looked at the data, more people are really and truly liberal on the biggest hot button issues for conservatives. Even, when it comes to the realities of fiscal conservativism. HOwever, because the language has been so tainted, most people don't even know what a true liberal really represents.. or what they used to represent anyway.

PS.. the story. When I was about 6-7, "black is beautiful" was all over. I remember telling my babysitter that I thought that was "dumb". Being our minister's daughter, she carefully asked me (I could see she was bothered, but did not understand why) what was wrong with being black? "Black, I declared was ugly!". She then asked me, but what is wrong with being negro? I was puzzled and answered, "but they aren't black! They are brown!". "Negro" was the accepted term. I really did not connect those T-shirts with people. Partly it was some innocence (people are all OK) and partly that I was in an area with few blacks, so just did not know there was any kind of debate about this. Anyway, I nver made that mistake again. I think I probably remember it more clearly now because of the misunderstanding.

[Koesen]

That's such a long reply it would be rude for me not to say anything back.

Let me, in light of your input, rephrase my position a bit: the vocabulary is not entirely a non issue and it does have some merit, but in my experience many people talk too much about the word and not enough about the real problem.

I concede that actor/actress is not the best example, but neither is anything with the word 'man' in it. What I was thinking of, given my personal experience, are the Dutch words for editor and journalist. These have two different forms in Dutch depending on whether it's a woman or a man, but neither word ever has 'man' or 'woman' in it.

Just for the sake of being complete, the words are journalist (man) and journaliste (woman) for journalist and redacteur (man) and redactrice (woman) for editor.

I understand that women wouldn't like to be called, say, a 'writer man', but that is not the case here. These are just two different endings that indicate gender. Unlike the acting example, which you correctly pointed out, there are very few assignments in journalism that can't be carried out by both men and women.

I was surprised to see most of my female colleagues insisted on the male form of the word. Again, I didn't have any particular objections, but I basically failed to see the point. In fact, I felt that by refusing the female form of the word, it was they who gave the impression that a female label is an insult.

Funny story, by the way.