why is it that, after so many years of working to have gender-neutral language..

[asdf2231]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3859915

niyad  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:13 PM
Original message
why is it that, after so many years of working to have gender-neutral language, we STILL
 Advertisements [?]have to see "Speaker Pelosi, Permanent chairMAN of DNC

and other such similar patriarchal usages that we worked so hard to be rid of? is it annoying anybody besides me?

Because "Speaker Pelosi, Permanent chairTWAT of DNC" while being accurate might raise hackles? 

ben_meyers (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
4. And what about them MANhole covers? n/t

Marr  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
21. They're all over Manhattan. Coincidence?
 I don't think so. We need personhole covers in Personhattan.

 

niyad  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. heaven forfend that we should notice such sexist things, eh? after all, since, according to so many
 on these boards alone, there really is no such thing as sexism. how silly of me.

Lance_Boyle (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
24. Refering to the chairman as the chairman is sexist?
 Get over yourself.

 
 

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 niyad  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Speaker Pelosi is NOT a man, in case you hadn't noticed.

We have to take that on faith...

Boojatta  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
8. Everybody knows that Speaker Pelosi isn't a man, so not much confusion arises.
 Aren't you more concerned about the expression "Chinaman Mao"? Taken literally, it suggests that Mao was Chinese and/or an adult male.

Again... 

mainegreen  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
9. Did you know in french, everything has a gender?
 That must make your head explode.

niyad  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. you know, people can be concerned about more than one thing at a time (well, some of us, anyway)
 and patriarchy is at the root of all the other things we are concerned about, so, no, gender-neutral language is NOT an insignificant factor.

 

 


 

[JohnnyReb]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3859915

niyad 
13. you know, people can be concerned about more than one thing at a time (well, some of us, anyway)
 and patriarchy is at the root of all the other things we are concerned about, so, no, gender-neutral language is NOT an insignificant factor.

It is at my house. We slide more important stuff into that time slot.

[GOBUCKS]

niyad  (1000+ posts)      Tue Aug-26-08 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
15. heaven forfend that we should notice such sexist things, eh? after all, since, according to so many
 on these boards alone, there really is no such thing as sexism. how silly of me.

Dummy niyad gets all hostile at the realization that even in the DU loonybin, she (he?, it?) is considered a wacko.

[rich_t]

Penis envy AGAIN?

Do we have to do away with the word human too?

I gotta tell ya... the word huperson just looks stupid to me.

 

[franksolich]

That one primitive is correct, about how things in languages other than English have genders (the moon being feminine, the sun being masculine, for example), and so it's sort of silly to try to emasculate the English language when it's not possible to emasculate other languages.

It's just really stupid.

[franksolich]

Penis envy AGAIN?

Do we have to do away with the word human too?

I gotta tell ya... the word huperson just looks stupid to me.

 

The problem with "huperson" is that it still has "son," masculine, at the end.

[Lord Undies]

Actually, Little Goons, "man" covers us all, as in "mankind".  To have a special prefix (wo) before 'man' to denote the extraordinary and perfect difference between the sexes is a denotation of speciality and respect for the lifegivers.  Look it up.

To do away with any and all reference to the differences in the sexes does women a grand disservice.  As for "chairman" and the like, it is all-encompassing.  To let such a silly childish thing bother you means you are mentally ill.

[rich_t]

Actually, Little Goons, "man" covers us all, as in "mankind".  To have a special prefix (wo) before 'man' to denote the extraordinary and perfect difference between the sexes is a denotation of speciality and respect for the lifegivers.  Look it up.

To do away with any and all reference to the differences in the sexes does women a grand disservice.  As for "chairman" and the like, it is all-encompassing.  To let such a silly childish thing bother you means you are mentally ill.

I enjoy the wonderful differences in sex as often as possible. 

[rich_t]

I suppose we must also do away with the word "manager"?

[Duke Nukum]

Penis envy AGAIN?

Do we have to do away with the word human too?

I gotta tell ya... the word huperson just looks stupid to me.

 

The problem with "huperson" is that it still has "son," masculine, at the end.

Way back in the dark ages of the 1970's my aunt brought home one of those things that used to get passed around the office like certain emails are now.  The conclusion was we had to say "peroffspring" because "perSON" was sexist.