Pronouns and Triviality

@Thomas,

Oh, lord, their in love.

@Thomas,

I struggle to see the relevance for a basis in science when dealing with a purely social problem. Some people (arguably a majority) are made uncomfortable by this sexist pronoun use, it is a minor inconvenience (and sometimes not an inconvenience at all) to change it to a truly inclusive term, why not admit this is true and say it would indeed be better if this was accepted by most if not all?

What after all is wrong with the statement "using "he" when you mean "she" or "they" is sexist and exclusive"?

I'm afraid I cannot at all speak to your comments about pronouns in German. I'm a monolinguist, unfortunately. Not by choice or vocation you understand. Quite by accident.

Quote:

why are you insisting that English writers who refer to "an author" as a "he" must be asserting that women cannot be authors?

I'm not insisting that. I'm saying that when people do that it reinforces the stereotype that only men are authors, or artists, or whatever the example may be.

The lady-dicks joke was coarse and that made it difficult to parse between some unthinking misogynists and yourself, who clearly is not that way inclined.

3 Replies

@ossobuco,

ossobuco wrote:

Oh, lord, their in love.

Not only that, I spelled it wrong.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

Yes, but it was a gender neutral mistake.

0 Replies

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

The lady-dicks joke was coarse and that made it difficult to parse between some unthinking misogynists and yourself, who clearly is not that way inclined.

oh please, it was a joke, nothing more, sometimes a cigar, as they say (actually as he said)

0 Replies

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

I struggle to see the relevance for a basis in science when dealing with a purely social problem. Some people (arguably a majority) are made uncomfortable by this sexist pronoun [...]

By calling it a sexist pronoun, you are claiming that its usage used to carry a sexist message from writer to reader. That's an empirical claim which may be true or false. Either way, it can be confirmed or refuted by evidence. Linguistics, sociology, and political science are all fields that will likely provide such evidence. That's the relevance of a basis in science. Can you see it now?

medium-density wrote:

it is a minor inconvenience (and sometimes not an inconvenience at all) to change it to a truly inclusive term

... which is exactly what I do, and I told you so in my very first response to your thread. So what's your problem?

medium-density wrote:

The lady-dicks joke was coarse and that made it difficult to parse between some unthinking misogynists and yourself, who clearly is not that way inclined.

I'm a multi-faceted curmudgeon. Misogyny is but one of my many talents.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

We're perhaps getting a little sidetracked here, but I have another fundamental disagreement to air.

Of course it is true to say that science can and does impinge on everything. I'm a good materialist and I don't believe anything escapes cause and effect. However all I'm (repeatedly) saying in this instance is that to use "he" when you mean anything other than "a man" is derived from a sexist culture which ignores women in the very language it employs.

Now, when you say

Quote:

you are claiming that its usage carried a sexist message from writer to reader.

I think that's very much the implication of what I said and say, but it would be quite a thing for me to claim that this kind of message is carried in every instance. It's obviously no more than a general rule, and I would argue that it follows from what I say in my previous paragraph. I admit that I can imagine no evidence which could possibly refute that.

I understand that you're saying that you avoid these pronouns wherever possible. I'm glad of that, naturally. But you began by saying that the correspondence between the words is not as I (and 60s feminists) imagine it, and I've been saying that my point is this goes beyond semantics. It's a political and cultural concern.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

Of course it is true to say that science can and does impinge on everything. I'm a good materialist and I don't believe anything escapes cause and effect. However all I'm (repeatedly) saying in this instance is that to use "he" when you mean anything other than "a man" is derived from a sexist culture which ignores women in the very language it employs.

But repeating what you say does not make it true. The only thing that does make it true (or at least, more likely to be true) is evidence. What is your evidence that using "he" when you mean anything other than "a man" indicates a sexist culture?

I have presented you the evidence that causes me to disagree: Germans use "he" when they refer to "a pot". But German attitudes about proper gender roles for pots are the same as American attitudes. Also, Germans use "it" when they refer to "a girl". And yet their attitudes about proper gender roles for girls are the same as in the US, too. I could list several hundred more examples like this.

That's a problem for your position, which implies a theory of how language interacts with society. German usage around gendered pronouns is wildly different from English usage. So if your theory was correct, social attitudes about gender should differ wildly between Germany and America. That attitudes are the same, instead, is evidence refuting your theory. So what's your evidence? On what evidence are you claiming that your theory about language and society is correct?

3 Replies

@Thomas,

Are you really saying that I would have to survey X number of people to establish whether or not "he" is commonly thought of as referring to men, and whether this fact is indicative of a cultural sexism? Discussions on forums like this would be most tedious and convoluted if we all demanded such rigors of each other.

Quote:

Your position implies a theory of yours about how language interacts with social attitudes. If this theory was correct, German attitudes should be wildly different from American attitudes, because German usage around gendered pronouns is wildly different, too. The fact that they're not, then, is evidence refuting your theory. So what's your evidence? On what evidence are you claiming that your theory is correct?

Whether or not the origin of these sexist pronouns is an artefact of sexist cultures is perhaps open to debate. I'm inclined to believe that they are for reasons I've outlined. I don't think your point about pronouns in other language necessarily refutes what I say since there may be very good reasons which have nothing to do with sexism for the development of pronouns in other languages -there probably are very good and separate reasons for the difference since a difference exists in the first place, and it would be foolish to believe or contend that languages all develop in the same ways or for the same reasons -which is why I never have.

However, whether or not they are, in effect, sexist artefacts which exclude women is less debatable. Let's move through this methodically, since we're rightly concerned with truth and science here.

1. The pronoun "he" is used to refer to men
2. The pronoun "she is used to refer to women
3. Despite this, the pronoun "he" is often used to refer to women too.

Why is #3 the case? What, other than the view that women are less important, can have been the impetus for such a usage? If you'd like to take a punt at this I'd be very interested to hear it, because I think it very likely that the overarching sexism endemic to all cultures probably had something to do with it. And even if this isn't true, the practice nonetheless props up the sexist narratives which pervade society even today.

1 Reply

@medium-density,

medium-density wrote:

Are you really saying that I would have to survey X number of people to establish whether or not "he" is commonly thought of as referring to men, and whether this fact is indicative of a cultural sexism?

Yes, I'm really saying that. Barring this, you can cite peer-reviewed papers from scientists who have done the survey for you.

medium-density wrote:

Discussions on forums like this would be most tedious and convoluted if we all demanded such rigors of each other.

Just because you're on the internet, that doesn't mean you can make stuff up on the spot. Especially not when you get indignant with people who disagree with you, and when those people have presented their evidence.

medium-density wrote:

Why is #3 the case? What, other than the view that women are less important, can have been the impetus for such a usage?

I hold no strong opinion on what the reason is. But your failure to imagine any reason other than sexism certainly does not prove that sexism is the reason.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

medium-density wrote:
Are you really saying that I would have to survey X number of people to establish whether or not "he" is commonly thought of as referring to men, and whether this fact is indicative of a cultural sexism?

Yes, I'm really saying that. Barring this, you can cite peer-reviewed papers from scientists who have done the survey for you.

luckily for medium density, this is a very popular area of study and there are many studies to reference (perhaps too many)

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

So if your theory was correct, social attitudes about gender should differ wildly between Germany and America.

you perceive them as being the same, or even similar?

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I think that would depend on what generation you're talking with. The 30-ish set seems so much more PC than my generation, and the generation before me, of course.

The OP has indicated he's youngish, so he's one of the PC set, earnestly concerned with eradicating all the ills that went before him.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

you perceive them as being the same, or even similar?

I perceive them as similar. To the extent that they're different, I generally perceive German women as more confident and assertive in their interactions with men, and German men as more respectful of interests that women assert. (And that's not just me. I have heard a good number of American males complain that German females are "too bossy". I've never heard Americans complain they're too submissive.) So the differences, such as they are, seem to run in the opposite direction to what medium-dense's theory predicts.

1 Reply

@Mame,

Mame wrote:

The OP has indicated he's youngish, so he's one of the PC set, earnestly concerned with eradicating all the ills that went before him.

Mame. Please! It's "he or she", and "him or her".

1 Reply

Here is the real problem. You are trying to impose your beliefs about what is "sexist" or "unfair" on other people. You obviously believe that these words are sexist. Obviously many of us don't share your opinion.

So what is the problem with you just not using these words yourself since you don't like them, but letting the rest of us use English the way we believe is correct?

It isn't your opinion that is the problem, The problem is the way you are trying to force the rest of us to accept your opinion even when it doesn't make sense to us.

You don't have the ability to change the way English works, and you certainly don't have the ability (or authority) to dictate how I use the language. Language belongs to all of us. Censoring language is far worse than the cost of just letting people express themselves as they see fit. If you don't like certain pronouns, then it is your right to not use them. Just leave the rest of us alone.

And it is my opinion that this issue is silly. There are lots of real problems to be addressing that make the issue of whether someone is using the wrong pronoun a ridiculous waste of time.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

0 Replies

@Thomas,

I understand your dedication or interest in science and establishing rigors that need to be met before words like "fact" or "truth" can be invoked. However, wouldn't this forum be quite a stultified place if every proposition, or every discussion, was simply a collection of statements which came with attendant studies backing them up?

In order to prove anything at all you need an exhaustive amount of data- almost nothing (even in the hard sciences) is proven eternally true. Obviously we need to show deference to scientific methods, and if someone wanted to introduce an actual study for the purposes of discussion that would be very interesting. I just think that, in a debate, to demand that a person produces hard evidence for their claims is somewhat anti-conversational. That doesn't mean anyone has to accept what I'm saying without evidence, of course. I'm just making an argument based on my views and how I interpret logic/language. I expect no more in return.

What I'm more interested in is argument. I believe mine was well-founded. Sexism is endemic in culture, and a sexist practice has emerged from that culture. It seems logical to assume these facts would be at least related.

If I've appeared indignant I apologise -it wasn't my intention to. In any argument animosity grows quite naturally. I thought this thread had reasonably well-behaved participants, including me.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

I apologise, too, if it came across that I was trying to impose beliefs on anyone. I was only arguing for my opinion, albeit quite insistently.

I have no ultimate problem with going on using language in the way I see fit and never pointing out what I think is wrong with the other way again (at least here).

Censorship I agree is almost never excused, but I think there can be exceptions. We frown upon racial slurs, and arguably the social opprobrium which they are met with these days has contributed to improvements in race-relations. I don't think this example is so different from the pronouns discussion we're having.

And I didn't say this before because I think it patronising, but you're free to disagree!

0 Replies

@medium-density,

Thank you medium-density for championing the cause of appropriate language.

Quote:

I took your "Feminist lady-dicks" comment to be indicative of a wider disdain for feminist activism, a disdain I've come to distrust as misogynist in many cases (though I don't presume as much in your case). At the very least you'd have to admit it was coarse.

The ineluctable obloquy inherent in such a statement is indicative of a person who could never quite get their tongue around clitoris.

0 Replies

Pronouns and Triviality

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know