Discriminatory Language and Gender Neutrality

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't want to step on any toes here. Let it be reminded that terms are banned from these forums. I don't know if I can get away with using them in this context, so I am going to refrain from doing so.

There are certain offensive terms in the English language. These are terms used to refer to women, blacks, homosexuals. I would wager a guess that every social category has a corresponding derogatory term. Let's use a made up example. The race of martians we have found are derogatorily referred to as "pineapple heads." No one else has this term used against them.

Also, we have issues concerning the use of gender in language. If I use he, I should use s/he. Or, I should at least use she and he interchangeably. Mankind should be "humankind."

There are too separate questions here. As a political group that is extremely permissive of offenses, why are people in favor of banning offensive terms? Also, is the site policy different from the policy people would advocate in real life? If so, why is that? I am not criticizing the site policy here. I have no opinion on this issue. If I knew there would be no other consequences from banning racist speech, I would say "go ahead." Of course, all my liberal associates point to slippery slopes, precedent, and hypocrisy. Is this a justified accusation? Why or why not?

***

As for the second issue, I have some opinions. I want to know about the evidence supporting this thesis. France has an incredibly sexist language? Is that reflected in the culture? Where is the causal argument for the relationship between language and culture? And is it the culture influencing the language, not the other way around? But is it right to say someone using sexist terms is sexist? I know ignorant people who use anti-homosexual terms but, personally, have nothing against homosexual people. They never "think of it that way."

What am I motivated by here? Do I secretly want to call women terrible names? Well, not really. I am curious if it's permissible to do so in a sexual context, though (why or why not)? Maybe porn has warped my sensibilities there, but that's another topic altogether.

So back to my motivation. I like writing. I write essays for school. Occasionally, I write for leisure. I post in forums regularly. There are sentences that become ackward, in my aesthetic opinion, by a restriction to gender neutral pronouns.

There are other cases, but here is the #1 culprit of causing unnecessarily awkward sentences. The word "humankind" is much worse than "mankind." Three syllables, and "human" is an unappealing sound as it is by my view. Obviously, I still use political correct language. I have read some arguments that since we know "mankind" refers to everyone, it's alright (not sure).

So we have two obligations for a causal account with respect to this word "mankind." Firstly, does the use of gendered language contribute to sexism in some way? Secondly, how does this account for the fact that the language rule specifically says "mankind" refers to both categories.

If anyone is like me, social conventions annoy them unless they have an explanation. As a kid, I wanted an explanation for every convention, and I wanted a good explanation. Take my hat off? Why? Don't put your elbows on the table? Why? You get the picture.

I use political correct terms for two reasons. One, the social ostracism would not be worth the trouble, I suspect. Two, a lot of people I respect actively encourage using non-gendered terms. However, my intellectual curiosity still doesn't have a clue why this whole issue exists?

[counterblast]

I know ignorant people who use anti-homosexual terms but, personally, have nothing against homosexual people. They never "think of it that way."It is irrelevant what your straight friends "think of" when they are using that term. The thoughts and feelings of your straight friends are dominant in heterosexist society 99% of the time.

For your friends to even hint their "rights" are being infringed upon because for once the "table is turned" (an overstatement in itself) and they have to monitor their language out of respect for queer people who may unknowingly be present, is absolutely ludicrous.

Lets take the spotlight away from your straight friends "free speech" for a minute, and realize that their defense of "free speech" in this specific context is inseparable from a defense of heterosexism, and the utter oppression that is caused by both veiled and blatant homophobia towards queer people on a daily basis.

I'm not saying that there needs to be an official "ban" on any word; but what I am saying, is that as allies (and as oppressed people), we have an obligation to make oppressed people feel welcomed and liberated; even if that involves creating a culture where words that perpetuate racist/transphobic/heterosexist/sexist/ableist hurt are not acceptable both in and out of our community.

[9]

...as allies (and as oppressed people), we have an obligation to make oppressed people feel welcomed and liberated; even if that involves creating a culture where words that perpetuate racist/transphobic/heterosexist/sexist/ableist hurt are not acceptable both in and out of our community.

This is exactly correct. I had to rush through my reading of the OP a bit because I've got to leave for work in just a minute, but if I understand the question in the OP, it is largely about the policy on this board of restricting slurs which are deemed discriminatory? In which case, I struggle to elaborate further beyond counterblast's very good explanation.
There is no reason that people should have to put up with the level of bigotry that exists in society as a whole on a discussion board for revolutionary leftists. I don't believe in unconditional free speech beyond all else; I don't value people's "right" to use petty unnecessary slurs which serve no purpose other than to perpetuate various forms of social oppression. I think any suggestion that people's "right" to use such language should take precedence over the discomfort and offense it causes to those targeted (indirectly or otherwise) by such slurs is absurd, and there should be no place for bigoted language on this board.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Ok, you've convinced me on that. Here is a history question. There are some words referring to women that start with "b" and "c." The latter, I know for certain, is banned. I've never been under the impression that the first term was especially negative. However, with respect to the second term, can someone give me the history here. I just remembered my liberal, feminist teach in High School (best teacher ever), was a huge opponent of the "c" word. There a special context/historical precedent here? Wikipedia says it reduces women to their sexual parts. That's a fair enough opposition to it. However, should we consider terms that refer to men similarly? Thanks.

I'm still interested in the manner of s/he and "mankind" and how they are supposed to contribute to sexism in some way. Is there evidence/reasoning to support this?

[h0m0revolutionary]

the "c" word.

I won't try and play devils advocate on this one because I think im a minority on this site regarding this word. I am an active feminist and hold that word in quite high regard. It always makes me curious as to why some words can be reclaimed, but the 'c' word cannot. The 'c' word afterall at one point had a wholly positive denotation.

I imagine the genitalia connotations it has today means that abstract moralism has won over the fight to reclaim the word.


I'm still interested in the manner of s/he and "mankind" and how they are supposed to contribute to sexism in some way. Is there evidence/reasoning to support this?

"s/he" the 's' in this case is a mere prefix to the main article 'he'. On the other side of the coin, take the word 'hostess', the 'ess' is a suffix. Both these words are examples of women being regarded as an additional afterthought, the fact that this is embodied in language is powerful and something we should absolutly seek to remedy, i think.

"mankind", like "history" (read 'his story') is self-explanitory, man and his are gendered words, referring explicity to males. I needn't waste peoples time typing a big evaluation of why history has been male dominated and why humans being referred to as "mankind" is ignoring women.

[narcomprom]

"mankind", like "history" (read 'his story') is self-explanitory, man and his are gendered words, referring explicity to males. I needn't waste peoples time typing a big evaluation of why history has been male dominated and why humans being referred to as "mankind" is ignoring women.
It is not self-explanatory, but absurd. The only thing they acchieve with such rediculous language games is a defacement of the emancipatory movement in the eyes of the public.

[ZeroNowhere]

the "c" word.Do we have to write 'the 'c' word' in this context? Because that wouldn't really seem to make all that much sense given the general aims given for the restrictions.

[mel]

Do we have to write 'the 'c' word' in this context? Because that wouldn't really seem to make all that much sense given the general aims given for the restrictions.

I never interpreted the ban on the word in that way. From the beginning, it was always being banned only in non-academic contexts. It is not okay to say "X is a c--t", it should be okay to say "What are the etymological origins of the word c--t?"

[RedDragon]

"mankind", like "history" (read 'his story') is self-explanitory, man and his are gendered words, referring explicity to males. I needn't waste peoples time typing a big evaluation of why history has been male dominated and why humans being referred to as "mankind" is ignoring women.

The word 'history' has nothing to do with 'his story'. It comes from the Greek 'historia'.

[Aeval]

"s/he" the 's' in this case is a mere prefix to the main article 'he'.

Whilst that may look the case in English, if we actually look at other Germanic languages we find that that it not how the word was derived.

It comes from Old English (Sīe/Hé) which in turn probably came from Old High German: "Siu", which later became "Sī", and "Er". In the German speaking areas inhabited by the Franks "he" was also "Her" and "He" - this is presumably where our "he", as well as the Dutch "hij", came from, as the Franks lived roughly across where Belgium/the Netherlands and the middle/west section of Germany is.

In our neighbouring languages this pattern is perhaps easier to see:

Old High German: Siu (later "Sī")/Er (also "Her" and "He" to the north west)

Middle High German: Sie/Ër

Modern German: Sie/Er
Modern English: She/He
Modern Dutch (whose direct ancestor language was Frankish): Zij/Hij (incidentally: Old Dutch used "he", then Middle Dutch "hi", then Modern Dutch "hij")


But that's how we got to She/He, we just softened the "s" sound to "sh", it's not a prefix. Sorry to be pedantic, but I hate it when people start accusing words of meaning this or that when they actually come from something else :)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

"s/he" the 's' in this case is a mere prefix to the main article 'he'. On the other side of the coin, take the word 'hostess', the 'ess' is a suffix. Both these words are examples of women being regarded as an additional afterthought, the fact that this is embodied in language is powerful and something we should absolutly seek to remedy, i think.

"mankind", like "history" (read 'his story') is self-explanitory, man and his are gendered words, referring explicity to males. I needn't waste peoples time typing a big evaluation of why history has been male dominated and why humans being referred to as "mankind" is ignoring women.I'm quite skeptical of your assertions, both from an etymological standpoint and a historical one. Others have already touched on your ignorance of inheritance, but in regards to history - while gender distinctions made the appearance of females in most governorship and war traditions rare - it's not as if the Romans and Greeks excluded women from their oral and aural traditions.

I doubt anyone here has been influenced to think that history is more a man's "game" by the prefix "hi-." (I don't think "girls" when I hear "shenanigans," heh) There's a huge difference between not calling someone a "dick" or "****" and typing "womyn."

[9]

Having been on my way out the door the first time I responded to this, I've come back and read the OP more carefully and will respond to some other points.



Also, we have issues concerning the use of gender in language. If I use he, I should use s/he. Or, I should at least use she and he interchangeably. Mankind should be "humankind."

I don't care about this. Some people write "humyn", some people write "womankind" or whatever, I don't, I don't really think it's necessary. I just don't think it's an issue. But I don't think it's necessary to ridicule people who do it, either.



There are too separate questions here. As a political group that is extremely permissive of offenses, why are people in favor of banning offensive terms? Also, is the site policy different from the policy people would advocate in real life? If so, why is that? I am not criticizing the site policy here. I have no opinion on this issue. If I don't know what is meant by this. I came to Marxism from a predominantly-male group of syndicalists who were very sexist and had no problem with sexist epithets. I think responsible political organizations should not permit sexism and the use of sexist or otherwise discriminatory epithets within their ranks - too many of them do. I don't know if that's what you're asking when you refer to "the policy people would advocate in real life", though. You'll have to clarify what you're asking for me to provide a more thorough response.



As for the second issue, I have some opinions. I want to know about the evidence supporting this thesis. France has an incredibly sexist language? Is that reflected in the culture? Where is the causal argument for the relationship between language and culture? And is it the culture influencing the language, not the other way around? But is it right to say someone using sexist terms is sexist? I know ignorant people who use anti-homosexual terms but, personally, have nothing against homosexual people. They never "think of it that way."Language is very much influenced by culture. But I think it isn't only a one-way street, either. I've talked about this elsewhere on the forum, but all throughout my time in school, "gay", "Jew", "nigger", and "Russian" were the choice insults for anyone or anything considered "unappealing" (e.g. "that's so gay", "the substitute English teacher is being so Jewish", "you Russian!" etc); young people exposed to these insults regularly (whether being subject to them or simply witnessing their use) can, I suspect, simply start to associate the words (gay, Jew, Russian, etc.) with negative people or situations. And even if the association doesn't occur, simply the fact that such terms are used disparagingly certainly reinforces social privilege and oppression.
Does it necessarily mean that anyone who calls some unpleasant situation "gay" or "Jewish" is automatically a homophobe or anti-Semite? No, not necessarily, it is more a reflection of the culture to which they're exposed. That doesn't translate into an argument for the acceptance of such terms of abuse among leftists, though; people who should undoubtedly know better.



So back to my motivation. I like writing. I write essays for school. Occasionally, I write for leisure. I post in forums regularly. There are sentences that become ackward, in my aesthetic opinion, by a restriction to gender neutral pronouns.

There are other cases, but here is the #1 culprit of causing unnecessarily awkward sentences. The word "humankind" is much worse than "mankind." Three syllables, and "human" is an unappealing sound as it is by my view. Obviously, I still use political correct language. I have read some arguments that since we know "mankind" refers to everyone, it's alright (not sure).

So we have two obligations for a causal account with respect to this word "mankind." Firstly, does the use of gendered language contribute to sexism in some way? Secondly, how does this account for the fact that the language rule specifically says "mankind" refers to both categories.
I think I've already addressed this part of the post, get back to me if you'd like me to elaborate further.

Just as a general statement, the discussion about the word "****" has been had to death, really. It's been established that the word has different, more severe (sexist) connotations in North America than it does in the UK, some other parts of Europe, and Australia. Some users, like Comrade Joe, insist on continuing to use the word on this board in spite of the fact that the CC has voted to list it as"discriminatory language" and that a large chunk of users here - including several female members - find the word to be sexist; at a certain point, it just becomes a matter of maturity and common courtesy to not use it here, and I don't see the necessity of continuing to discuss it beyond that.

[Chambered Word]

I started wondering why it's awful to call someone a **** but no one has a problem with calling someone a dick. Both refer to genitalia.

Seems like a victim complex to me, but maybe it's just because I'm Australian. We call everyone '****' here.

[9]

I started wondering why it's awful to call someone a **** but no one has a problem with calling someone a dick. Both refer to genitalia.

Seems like a victim complex to me, but maybe it's just because I'm Australian. We call everyone '****' here.

Vey iz mir, it is really a shame that the answer to this question is not self-evident. It is because "****" can be used as a sexist epithet, and unless I am frighteningly out of touch with reality, men are not oppressed on the basis of their gender, so calling someone a "dick" could not have the same connotation. In the same way that a black person calling a white person a "cracker" is not in any way comparable to a white person calling a black person a "nigger".
There have been several discussions on this already, in which I'm sure any issue you may have with the word being banned has been raised and addressed at least twenty times; the most recent one is available here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/uk-comrades-mind-t118468/index.html

Generally, if a word has the potential to target/offend people on the basis of social oppression - regardless of whether that is how you mean it when you say it, it is really a simple basic courtesy to avoid using the word around them. This is an international forum, the word has different connotations in different regions, it is really not asking much to avoid a simple profanity on a single internet forum for political discussion. It shouldn't have to be this big of a deal.

[ComradeMan]

I am against banning words in general. Words mean whatever we want them to mean and this is something that Wittgenstein pointed out in a sense. When an Afro-American uses the word "nigger" he is not using it in the same way a member of the KuKluxKlan is using it, when Tottenham football fans call themselves the "Yids" they are not using the word in the same way that perhaps a Nazi-skin would use it and so on. Or take the confusion about the word "liberal" and its different associations. Or the fact that practically every treatise on "anarchy" has a disclaimer explaining that the word does not imply "chaos" etc as it is commonly held. It's a tricky subject but I think we need to look more at the intent behind the word that merely stop at the word itself. If someone, perhaps a non-native English speaker, uses the word "mankind" it does not mean that they are de facto some kind of male chauvinist. Another example is the word "peasant" which in English has pejorative connotations whereas in the South of Italy, especially Naples, "paesano" can be used as a term of endearment like "mate or buddy" in dialact "paisan'".

There has to be some reason with all of this. By creating some kind of Orwellian "Newspeak" it is tantamount to thought control and I am not convinced it will work anyway. Banning words does not solve anything in particular, it just makes people even more cunning in their "unspeak". Just because a KuKluxKlan member does not overtly use the word "nigger" for example does not stop him from being a racist does it?

As for some of the more radical etymologies, well in my honest opinion they are complete rubbish. The "history" his-story etymology for example is completely ridiculous as the word derives from Latin historia and in Italian the word is istoria (arch.) and storia (modern)- there is no sexism involved whatsoever.

The efforts of the politically correct thought police, well meant no doubt, often backfire. Take a word I saw coined recently "house-husband" in analogy to "housewife". The problem is that the word "husband" derives from Anglo-Saxon "house-bond", i.e. a man tied to the "house" and thus it could be argued that the new term is a tautology.

Another example is with ethnonyns. The Bushmen of Southern Africa were known as bushmen for years, i.e. the men of the bush. Some well meaning academic decided that this was a colonialist epithet and decided to call them the "san" people, the problem being that in the Khoe-San languages (formerly Hottentot, Bushman) the word "san" was in itself a derogatory term sort of like saying "scavenger" and used by the semi-nomadic herding Khoe peoples for their hunter-gatherer cousins. No one actually bothered to ask the Bushmen/San what they call themselves however. In Europe, the word "Welsh" could be seen as a racist term, it derives from the Anglo-Saxon "wealhas" and means "foreigner, stranger or slave" as applied by the Germanic speaking groups to the British peoples, the "Welsh" and the Cornish/ West "Welsh".

As for swear words, whatever they may be- well it hardly needs a rule to tell people that they are offensive and in any kind of serious debate should not be used. It reminds me of when Mr Berlusconi described the opposition in Italy as "the bollocks (coglioni) who vote for the left".

[Revy]

"mankind", like "history" (read 'his story') is self-explanitory, man and his are gendered words, referring explicity to males. I needn't waste peoples time typing a big evaluation of why history has been male dominated and why humans being referred to as "mankind" is ignoring women.

I agree about using humanity or humankind instead of mankind.

But it's ridiculous to object to "history" because the "his" in that word has nothing at all to do with the "his" in English.

Etymology:
1350–1400; Middle English historie < Latin historia < Greek historía learning or knowing by inquiry, history; derivation of hístōr one who knows or sees.

[New Tet]

Vey iz mir, it is really a shame that the answer to this question is not self-evident. It is because "****" can be used as a sexist epithet, and unless I am frighteningly out of touch with reality, men are not oppressed on the basis of their gender, so calling someone a "dick" could not have the same connotation. In the same way that a black person calling a white person a "cracker" is not in any way comparable to a white person calling a black person a "nigger".

And yet, all working people, whether "cracker" or "nigger", "dick" or "****" are being oppressed on the basis of their economic disadvantage with the capitalist class.

I think feminism isn't just about liberating women from the cruel oppression of big hairy macho-men and their bigotry any more than I think that anti-racism is exclusively about liberating only "people of color" from the oppression of white people in general.

Feminism, as I understand it, is about liberating all people from their preconceived and often mistaken assumptions about each other on the basis of gender.

A movement that liberates women from the oppression of men must liberate men as well.

It was from The Wretched of the Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wretched_of_the_Earth) that this idea took hold of my mind: The oppressor is also oppressed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frantz_Fanon


[..]


Generally, if a word has the potential to target/offend people on the basis of social oppression - regardless of whether that is how you mean it when you say it, it is really a simple basic courtesy to avoid using the word around them. This is an international forum, the word has different connotations in different regions,

In some places, none at all.


it is really not asking much to avoid a simple profanity on a single internet forum for political discussion[?]. It shouldn't have to be this big of a deal.

And it really isn't, compared to the bigger issues and discussions taking place around us.