english and sexism

Think outside the square:

That is an interesting take on the subject. Though, since Georgia is using this for an academic paper she should probably avoid subjective understandings of language. Starting out with an assumption that "languages tend towards 'vulgarization'" is hardly a provable point. It may be proved that they tend toward simplification but vulagarization is quite different. Generally, academics try and stay away from basing a hypothesis on quality alone.

<<Since languages tend towards "vulgarization", perhaps by showing preference for the male for they were actually insulting males, implying that males are more vulgar.>>

<<As for English terms, the suffix -man just means "person" (or it should by rights). A fireman or a chairman can be male or female.>>

That is a very good point, but the question is not what should be the meaning or what was the meaning but what is the meaning. As nice as it would be to think that these things maintain their state and nuance, it is not necessarily so. As a condition of the meanings merging into the same word, the two meanings are inextricably linked or at least this is the most common actualization.

Yes, the use of man to refer to all humans has been and to some extent is still common. Yet, one has to ask what the effect of changing the word for male to man has had on the original use and, indeed, why that change occurred in the first place.

Why, for instance, does Hume have to clarify his meaning that he intends his use of men to indicate both females and males in "all men, both male and female"? To me, this indicates that "men", as a reference to males, has overtaken the original meaning. In other words, men or man as a reference to females and males has become secondary and the default meaning is male. This is quite logical since the most common usage of man and men in our time and in Hume’s is to indicate the male of our species.

The fact that the default meaning of man has become male does indeed effect how we perceive the secondary meaning of the word. As a point, I found it interesting that you concluded your post by quoting Emerson. Emerson was quite famous for his use of the word man, specifically in his theory of "the one Man” which he describes in his essay "The American Scholar". Most scholars in Emerson’s time and in our own understand the one Man to be the description of all humans, male and female. Yet, this is not necessarily what would be indicated if we took the meaning of the text at face value. Emerson is not as careful as Hume in his statements. Indeed, he seems to fall back on the default meaning within the secondary meaning. In other words, the male becomes the default of humanity. This is by no means an uncommon occurrence in Emerson’s time or even in our own. Again, this is due to the fact that the two meanings of man have become inextricably linked. Here is an example of this occurrence from "The American Scholar":


""It is one of those fables, which, out of an unknown antiquity, convey an unlooked-for wisdom, that the gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men, that he [mankind] might be more helpful to himself [mankind]; just as the hand was divided into fingers, the better to answer its end.

The old fable covers a doctrine ever new and sublime; that there is One Man, — present to all particular men only partially, or through one faculty; and that you must take the whole society to find the whole man. Man is not a farmer, or a professor, or an engineer, but he[or she] is all. Man is priest, and scholar, and statesman, and producer, and soldier. In the divided or social state, these functions are parcelled out to individuals, each of whom aims to do his [and her] stint of the joint work, whilst each other performs his [and her's]. The fable implies, that the individual, to possess himself [and herself], must sometimes return from his [and her] own labor to embrace all the other laborers. But unfortunately, this original unit, this fountain of power, has been so distributed to multitudes, has been so minutely subdivided and peddled out, that it is spilled into drops, and cannot be gathered. The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters, — a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man."

http://www.emersoncentral.com/amscholar.htm

Nicely enlarged upon, Wintereis (which, I just realised, must be "Winter Ice" and not "Winter's Journey" à la Schubert's Winterreise) ;

& what a good point you made about Hume's perspective ;

however, doesn't your characterising of man-for-male as a "default meaning" itself constitute a phallogofugal "subjective understanding of language" ?

Are those your square brackets interpolating sheness into Emerson's text ?- That is a most unhappy intrusion, Sir. I say, leave well enough alone.

"[T]he gods, in the beginning, divided Man into men, that he might be more helpful to himself" is a statement perfectly understood to mean all men in a neutral personhood - all people. Nobody in his (right) mind is pinning the tail on the donkey and assuming it's guys only. (American girls have started saying "you guys" to their girlfriends.) And the reversion to heness whenever there is mixed company, as it were, is a respectable trait of language that goes back to ancient Rome and Latin (probably even earlier) : Servus, a male slave ; Serva, a female slave ; and then a mixed group of male and female slaves, even if be a group comprising one bloke and seven sheilas, becomes Servi, the masculine plural. (A group of only females : Servae.)

As I said elsewhere in these pages anent the American Indians (they call themselves "Indians", not "Native Americans"), it is generally understood that in the absence of genuine understanding and good will, no number of awkwardly coined conceits, no amount of periphrastical knicker-twisting or discardings of old words by association is going to improve matters. So too for perceived genders and common sense in English grammar.

As for your indirect query of "changing the word for male to man...indeed, why that change occurred in the first place", it is possible (only my surmise here) that the Old English word man meaning "person" began to be given some male attribution --in limited contexts, mind you-- because the word wer for "male" was commandeered as the word for "soldier" in an age of strife. But please remember, this transition of usage didn't happen till centuries after the Norman Conquest - and there never was a complete manning of man in our language, was there ?- (Manhole covers seem to rest serenely in the street no matter whose equipment is passing over them.)

In any case, it is the strained and tone-deaf polemical drive for grammar gendering changes that is causing confusion to-day, and not the confident old speech traditions of two millennia (Britannia was Roman too, y'know - pace Boadicea !).

As a wise and witty wyfman has recently enquired herself, why didn't the gender-free Persian language ever create a feminist utopia ? :
http://www.friesian.com/language.htm

Nudge nudge, wink wink ? ~Q~

I must say "thank you" to all of you, for all the answers! It's interesting to read your ideas about this theme. What I ask you now, since I do not know all the authors cited, is to talk about sexism from the point of view of the everyday use of your language (English, in this case), personal experiences, common ideas about the theme.. things like this, without being too specific with references to other authors, philosophers, etc. Thank you!

Well, here's my two cents if you just want opinionm, Giorgia:

While I understand the argument for inclusive language, i.e. neutral terms that do not assume masculinity in the case of unknown gender, I think it's really just a quirk of the language rather than an intentional effort to exclude women from certain realms. As a woman myself, I whole-heartedly embrace the feminist ethic. But I want equality before the law, I want equal pay, and I want the eradication of all the subtle forms of discrimination that block opportunity, assume that you prefer to play this role versus that, and channel you toward choices that are more in keeping with traditional roles whether that is what you want to do or not. I am not interested in abstractions, lip service, or empty gestures. If a hypothetical person is a "he" rather than a "she" or an "it", big deal. If we refer to the human race as "Man", so be it. If the root word of "woman" was "man" 2000 years ago, who cares. If the general possessive form 's was originally a contraction of "his", what difference does it make. These are abstractions. I want to see results in my paycheck and in my choices, not in the fine print.

<<doesn't your characterising of man-for-male as a "default meaning" itself constitute a phallogofugal "subjective understanding of language" ?>>

No, point in fact, it does not (or at least it is not subjective. I'm not entirely certain how stating that the male meaning is more common is an attempt to flee masculine (phallic) thinking as your phallogofugal would suggest. Indeed, I should think that fleeing a masculine centered thinking would move me toward objectivity rather than toward subjectivity. Of course, true objectivity as well as yonilogocentricism is an epistemic impossibility). No, the use of man used for male over human is quite testable. All one need do in order to show that the primary meaning of man is male is to count the number of times man occurs to signify male rather than humanity as a whole. This, as well as anyone can readily deduce, will show that the word man is used far more frequently with the intended meaning of male than otherwise. Thus, it is natural that one take the meaning as male rather than human in most situations unless there is something within the context to suggest otherwise. Consequently, male is the default of man.

<<Are those your square brackets interpolating sheness into Emerson's text ?- That is a most unhappy intrusion, Sir. I say, leave well enough alone.>>

Obviously, the bracketed sections are my own. And obviously this was done to demonstrate that the male is the default of humanity. And I thank you for so adequately demonstrating this of your own accord.

<<And the reversion to heness whenever there is mixed company, as it were, is a respectable [not sure how "respectable" it is] trait of language that goes back to ancient Rome and Latin (probably even earlier) : Servus, a male slave ; Serva, a female slave ; and then a mixed group of male and female slaves, even if be a group comprising one bloke and seven sheilas, becomes Servi, the masculine plural.>>

I would not have changed the text except to provide the demonstration. Indeed, I think it is far more imperative that such historical documents retain their original effects. Such effects have a tendency to show how societies change over time.

<< it is generally understood that in the absence of genuine understanding and good will, no number of awkwardly coined conceits, no amount of periphrastical knicker-twisting or discardings of old words by association is going to improve matters.>>

I don't recall stating that anything, in specific or general terms, should be changed about English or any other language. That is a conclusion you jumped to of your own accord. The question of this forum is not whether language should be changed, but whether sexism is embodied within the English language. And, as I have demonstrated and you have demonstrated, an inherent inequality which privileges the patriarchal perspective exists in English and many other languages as well: <<And the reversion to heness whenever there is mixed company, as it were, is a . . . trait of language that goes back to ancient Rome and Latin . . . even if be a group comprising one bloke and seven sheilas, becomes Servi, the masculine plural.>>

By the way, you do the character and style of your writing a disservice in pretending that it is not unique in characteristic. Now, I wish you a good night from America, Damian.

<<The question of this forum is not whether language should be changed, but whether sexism is embodied within the English language. And, as I have demonstrated and you have demonstrated, an inherent inequality which privileges the patriarchal perspective exists in English and many other languages as well:>>


Why is it a "privilege" that the male form is used as a default? Could it not be that the more "privileged" is the one that is NOT default? Could it not be that the female form is not default because it's not supposed to be used in vain? Could it not be that Womankind doesn't refer to all humanity because it would be an insult to equate females with the baseness of males? Perhaps, in the sense that Females are a class above males, in the same way that "animals" doesn't usually refer to people because we assume that people are somehow above animals?

So, can we not conclude that English is sexist against males?

Giorgia,

Were you not able to click on the link to read the essay ?- It does cover everyday usage, as well as touch upon grammatical gender in the Romance languages with which I assume you are intimately familiar ; it also addresses the problems of illogic and coercion in the critiques of language regarding supposed "sexism".

Here are a few crucial passages from this essay-- written by a woman, incidentally. (I'm giving you the link again below the quoted paragraphs.)

Her comments on gender "marking" in language are very revealing. I am not quoting them here, but you can read the good lady's analysis in the full essay on the link.

---
Modern Persian is a language completely without gender. There are not even different words for "he" and "she," just the unisex un. (There are not even different titles for married and unmarried women: Persian khânum can be translated as "Ms.") Nevertheless, after some progress under Western influence, the Revolutionary Iran of the Ayatollah Khomeini retreated from the modern world into a vigorous reëstablishment of mediaevalism, putting everyone, especially women, back into their traditional places. So the advice could be: If someone wants "non-sexist language," move to Iran. But that probably would not be quite what they have in mind.

Why didn't the "gender free" Persian language create a feminist utopia? This goes to show us that gender in language is completely irrelevant to the sexual openness of society. And one of the greatest ironies for us is that a feminist attempt to produce a gender free "non-sexist language" in English could only be contemplated in the first place because grammatical gender has already all but disappeared from English. Feminist complaints must focus on the meaning of words like "man," even though words can mean anything by convention, because the pronouns "he," "she", and "it" are all that remain grammatically of the three Indo-European genders. Getting gender to disappear in German or French or Spanish (etc.), on the other hand, would be a hopeless project without completely altering the structure of the languages [note]. Occasionally feminists say that they are personally offended by people referring to ships or aircraft as "she"; and manuals of "non-sexist" language usually require that inanimate objects be "it" without exception. Good luck in French. Since every noun is either masculine or feminine, not only would this feature have to be abolished, but an entirely new gender, the neuter, presumably with new pronouns, would have to be created. Then there would have to be decisions about words like livre, which is differentiated into two words by gender alone: le livre is "book," from Latin liber, while la livre is "pound," from Latin libra. French doesn't even have English's happy refuge from inclusive "he" in "they," since you still have to decide in the third person plural between ils and elles. Only on ("one") allows for a gender free (or common gender) pronoun, just as "one" does in English.

It is now hard for people to quote Aristotle's famous dictum, "Man is a rational animal," without gratuitously adding that this is a "sexist" remark because, presumably, Aristotle didn't say "human beings" (e.g. p.109 of the otherwise good Against Relativism, by James E. Harris [Open Court, 1992]). This goes to show the silliness of this whole kind of exercise and the willful know-nothing-ism of many writers when it comes to linguistic history. Even if we think that English "man" is "sexist," Aristotle was, of course, not speaking English. And in contrast with English, Greek and Latin both "mark" the male as well as the female in their vocabulary: anér in Greek and vir in Latin both mean "man=male"; gyné in Greek and femina in Latin both mean "woman"; and ánthrôpos in Greek and homo in Latin both mean "man=person." Aristotle said "ánthrôpos," not "anér; and Classics scholars are usually happy to point out the inclusiveness of the former term. Curiously, Old English made distinctions like Greek and Latin. "Man=male" was wer (cognate of Latin vir and Irish fear, preserved in "werewolf"), while "woman" was wif (preserved as "wife" and in "fishwife" and "midwife" -- "woman" itself is from wifman). Old English man was "one," "someone," or "man=person" (a usage preserved in German man, "one," "they," "people," "we," "you," "a person," "someone," etc.). However, ánthrôpos, homo, and man are all in the masculine gender. Since Greek and Latin are languages where every noun has gender, like French, Hebrew, etc., there is actually no grammatically "gender neutral" expression possible, as there is in Modern English. So was Aristotle sexist after all? If so, then we are still using a sexist expression in "human beings" because "human" is from homo, which had masculine gender to start with.

I often notice this kind of tangle over languages with much more complete gender systems than English since the politically correct term for people of Hispanic derivation or identity these days is "Latino," which is of the masculine grammatical gender but of course embraces both men and women. The feminine term "Latina" is never used unless only women are referred to. That sounds like it should make for a cause célèbre in the non-sexist language world, but of course no feminist would want to be labeled ethnocentric or culturally imperialist by applying their critique of English to Spanish. And then, unlike French, where gender specific word endings have been lost, Spanish still has a lot of nouns whose gender can be predicted from this o/a alternation of endings. A non-sexist Spanish presumably would have to pick some other vowel, or none, to replace these fossil Latin endings. And while some activists seem to have lately begun using the expression "Latino/Latina" more carefully, they are unlikely to be amenable to "reforming" the morphology of Spanish so that it would be as gender free as, of all things, English.

To reform a natural language like that, we would have to set up some political authority to decide what changes to make and then spend many decades coercing people into following the preferred forms: all to produce something that often happens spontaneously anyway, has progressed almost completely to the loss of gender in English already, and never in the past with the slightest effect on the structure of society. So why bother with all the grief and recriminations of trying to impose a feminist New Speak? But perhaps that is the point. All the grief gives ideologues something else with which to browbeat people and a completely phony issue through which to claim political authority over how people speak, in all innocence and good will, in natural languages. It can even translate into the introduction of virtual political commissars, often with punitive powers, into schools, workplaces, churches, etc. to monitor incorrect speech. And that is the kind of power that ideologues like.

But the conceptual error underlying this kind of thing didn't originate with feminism; it is the heritage of once popular but now discreditable theories about the nature of language -- that how we talk determines how we think (to paraphrase something the semanticist S.I. Hayakawa actually said -- a kind of linguistic behaviorism) and that the structure of language creates the structure of the world (promoted by the philosopher Wittgenstein and his recent followers). If we talk with grammatical gender, so this goes, then this determines not only that we think in exactly the same way but that the grammatical structure is projected into the world....

Those who traditionally have wanted to control linguistic usage for one reason or another, and who believe that it can be controlled, are always ultimately frustrated. Literary or sacred languages can preserve ancient or elevated usages -- as with ancient Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Arabic, Sanskrit, Chinese, etc. -- but real spoken language goes off on its own merry way, exuberantly evolving new meanings, words, usages, and even new languages, always to the chagrin of the priests, scholars, and traditionalists. Nobody ever plans that. As feminism has wanted to control, mainly to abolish, the use of gender, it thus puts itself into the pinched shoes of the traditional grammatical martinet -- leaving us with the image of a fussy schoolmarm swatting knuckles with a ruler rather than of the heroic revolutionary woman leading the way to a better future.

http://www.friesian.com/language.htm

>>I don't recall stating that anything, in specific or general terms, should be changed about English or any other language. That is a conclusion you jumped to of your own accord.>>

Did I imply that you yourself wanted change, Wintereis ?- I don't believe so. Apologies to you if I gave that impression. No, what I was conveying is that there are people do want change in the English language predicated on perceived "sexist" ills in grammar ; they have even presumed to enact such change, however ill-conceived.

>>By the way, you do the character and style of your writing a disservice in pretending that it is not unique in characteristic. Now, I wish you a good night from America, Damian.>>

I don't understand this part you wrote, because I don't know what the "it" is that you mention as not being unique. I'm puzzled by your last line as well : Are you signing off as "Damian" or did you mistakenly believe that I was Damian ?- I will always sign as Quintus.

In any case, as to Giorgia's questions, much of the essence of my position is stated in the lady's essay which I quoted and linked to Giorgia.

~Q presently in Seattle~

Damien has sort of become the representative of sexism around here, so his name is now used as a synonym for "sexist". That's why he called you that.

I think one interesting change in the English language over the last few years, and some people sort of touched on it already, is the creation of a genderless pronoun, "They." During the political correctness drive, generic "he" got changed to "he/her" and "his" to "his/her," etc.

This is awkward to read and say, so I don't think anyone really bought into it except English teachers and other people who speak a language from a rule book. In general use, though, genderless pronouns went from 'he' to 'they,' and in almost all cases, context indicates whether 'they' should be plural or singular. Of course, it also opened the door for people to be deliberately vague about describing a person, but I only notice that around shy gay friends. :P

I hate "he or she" almost as mush as "they." It's useless and makes English ugly.

I also don't think that women and men were created equal. They're not. But it's important that both have the same rights in areas where they need to use such skills that are not tied to any gender, such as the workplace. It's also important to give both men and women the freedom to choose "unmanly" or "not lady-like" lifestyles.

***Ignore Damian. He is still clinging to male entitlement and thinks feminists are trying to take over the world. Still, the best thing he has come up with to justify his narrow perspective is that <a friend of his got in trouble for raping a woman>***

Here we have a blatant example of typical twisted feminist type ideological misinterpretation.......I suggest that Wintereis takes herself back to that posting of mine and read my words very, very carefully this time, and remind herself of all the circumstances.

All I will say here is this - if Wintereis had made that statement of hers as quoted above in that court of law she would have found herself charged with perverting the course of law before she blinked an eyelid, and that is an offence which usually ends with incarceration here in the UK.

<she would have found herself charged with perverting the course of law >

Such an offence does not exist.

If it did exist, Wintereis would not be guilty of it.

At best, you could say that Wintereis's testimony would be discredited, if it turned out that he had misrepresented your earlier statements. That would not lead to prosecution, however, unless it involved perjury.

A misrepresentation indeed and clearly so.

I have just re-read my last post and now realise I should have said "perverting the course of justice" - not law as I mistakenly said....a different matter altogether.

The official wording is indeed "perverting the course of justice" in any court of law here in the UK.

To falsely claim rape, as that evil vindictively vengeful female most certainly did in the case of my now deceased acquaintance - more of an acquaintance than a friend really not that matters at all - amounted to a form of rape in itself....that of the falsely accused by the false accuser. I could well add the charge of homicide too in the light of what subsequently occurred, but it's all in the past now and too late for that poor lad whose life was ruined.

I will never forget what happened to him just because he ended a relationship due to circumstances.

I only wish Wintereis had worded her post in such a way as to reflect what really happened and not in the way she did.

Enough of this now - I'm done with this thread except to say that "sexism" will always exist in the English Language - it's completely unavoidable and it would be insane to even attempt to redress the matter in any kind of bizarre "politically correct" gobbledegook way, which is something the super mega feminist Harriet "Harperson" Harman truly believes she can bring about in her weird form of PC neutral-speak....mankind will exist no more in her dictionary.

Even the derogatorily mocking title "Harperson" attributed to this woman by the majority of the British public is hardly suitable...I mean, just look at the last three letters of both "Harman" and "Harperson"!

Anyway, her days in Government and those of her Labour henchpersons (most of whom secretly deride her and rehard her as some kind of nutter "in extremis") are now very much numbered....114 at the very most as of tomorrow 09/02/10!

I believe Wintereis is of the female gender, but again - I may be wrong, not that I am bothered too much either way. I once worked in the same office as an individual called Hilary, and he was a really nice bloke, one who shares his first name with GMTV's male resident doctor and adviser on medical matters.