Anti discrimination language

[xxxxxx666666]

I sort of got the idea from this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/lgbt-friends-russia-t186552/index.html?t=186552

Please feel free to post all the anti discrimination language knowledge you know here, thanks:)

[Sea]

Are you suggesting that we create a new language and remove words so that it becomes impossible to express discriminatory things?

[xxxxxx666666]

Are you suggesting that we create a new language and remove words so that it becomes impossible to express discriminatory things?

Er, no why?

Or, maybe we should.

Or maybe there is a way to change language so we don't discriminate either conscientiously or unconscionably............

There is already:

"Gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language, inclusive language, or gender neutrality is a form of linguistic prescriptivism that aims to eliminate (or neutralize) reference to gender in terms that describe people"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language

So is there an all inclusive anti discriminationary language?

[Sea]

Er, no why?

Or, maybe we should.I don't think it would be very good for PR.

Or maybe there is a way to change language so we don't discriminate either conscientiously or unconscionably............

There is already

"Gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language, inclusive language, or gender neutrality is a form of linguistic prescriptivismthat aims to eliminate (or neutralize) reference to gender in terms that describe people"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language

So is there an all anti discriminationary language?Having tact is a big part of it. Also, keep in mind that language only reflects already-existing discrimination. If all your plans come to fruition, we would still have people being beat up and raped and jumped and denied jobs / housing / food, and I don't think it will be much consolation even if no name-calling occurs in the process.

[Devrim]

Or maybe there is a way to change language so we don't discriminate either conscientiously or unconscionably............

There is already:

"Gender-neutral language, gender-inclusive language, inclusive language, or gender neutrality is a form of linguistic prescriptivism that aims to eliminate (or neutralize) reference to gender in terms that describe people"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_language

So is there an all inclusive anti discriminationary language?

The Turkish language has no gender. There is no word for he or she, but rather one word that covers he/she/it.

Do you think that this means that there is no sexism in Turkish society?

Devrim

[Sabot Cat]

Er, no why?

Or, maybe we should.

Or maybe there is a way to change language so we don't discriminate either conscientiously or unconscionably............

Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was disproved years ago, partly because one can always create the expressions necessary to voice one's thoughts. This is why Newspeak would be folly to implement in real life.

[xxxxxx666666]

The Turkish language has no gender. There is no word for he or she, but rather one word that covers he/she/it.

Do you think that this means that there is no sexism in Turkish society?

Devrim

You may have a point.

But how come in the thread I linked to in the opening post there was a user who typed:


Did you really just brush off degrading, sexist language as "semantics"?

How come a user was called out for "degrading sexist language" then? If its just language so shouldn't it just be "semantics" and no should care whether it was sexist or not?

(Or am I misunderstanding something here?)

[Sea]

How come a user was called out for "degrading sexist language" then? If its just language so shouldn't it just be "semantics" and no should care whether it was sexist or not?

(Or am I misunderstanding something here?)Because it's still discriminatory and disrespectful. Just because avoiding discriminatory language won't make discrimination disappear doesn't mean we should all start calling eachother all sorts of nasty epithets, does it?

[xxxxxx666666]

Because it's still discriminatory and disrespectful. Just because avoiding discriminatory language won't make discrimination disappear doesn't mean we should all start calling eachother all sorts of nasty epithets, does it?

Well from my reading of the thread no one was really calling anyone a "nasty epithets" but to quote in context:


Last night I was watching some clips on the current protests in Russia regarding LGBT rights, etc.

I couldn't believe my eyes, girls where being punched in the face.

Cops where assisting in the brutalizing.

It was pretty much out of control madness. Is anyone on revleft in that region or involved in the LGBT rights campaign and can educate us on comradery type actions that we in other countries can do to help out those suffering?

Thanks! :)

The word called out was "girl" and it wasn't used in some intentional nasty name calling, at least how I read it.

And the above user did corrected the use of the word "girl" in later post on the same thread.

Well, ok, that's past.

.................................................. .

Ok, anyway, I'll ask a different question, does anyone know of anti discriminatory language hypothesis, resources, links, search keywords, etc. that I can look up.

Or maybe some all inclusive anti discriminatory language already in existence or have been written about?

[Rosa Partizan]

Ok, anyway, I'll as a different question, does anyone know of anti discriminatory language hypothesis, resources, links, search keywords, etc. that I can look up.

Or maybe some all inclusive anti discriminatory language already in existence or have been written about?

Well, in Germany we have kind of a feminist blogger scene that is very active when it comes to anti discriminatory language. They use the gender gap, but also "*", i.e. "all women*" which means that everyone who identifies as a woman is meant, not only those with a vagina. However, it is kinda difficult to transfer that to spoken language. But this goes further. I will show you an example of what ideas they have.

Look at this:

xier – ein Personalpronomen, statt "sie|er"
dier – ein Artikel und ein Relativpronomen, statt "die|der"
xies – ein Possessivpronomen, statt "ihr|sein"


these are all pronouns, respectively the ones that are crossed out are existing pronouns. The first one is female, the second one is male. They want to change these and replace them with gender neutral terms. Those terms are the bold ones on the left. This is just an excerpt, they have plenty more examples released in an article. It's in German, but if anyone is interested, just tell me, I will drop you a PN (I need 25 Postings to post links).

Edit: I see that the crossing doesn't appear, so I put them in " ".

[PhoenixAsh]

Well...first off all...The assumption is being made that these were adult women or that the correct identification would be young women. This, like in the term boys, would denote adulthood which is a socially defined age stage...so if the women in the clips revered to were 16 or 18 they would be girls. If they were 19 they would be women.

Second of all the left is riddled with overly politically correct people who make an issue about stuff on the basis of false generalizations and an incorrect grasp of word definitions and origins combined with the concept of societal hierarchies. Which is the case when the blatant statement is made that the term girls used by men is sexist (or as was said in the thread you linked: a problem) and whole derived from the presumption that the entirety of interaction between men and women will be grounded in different hierarchical standards and defined by patriarchy.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, in Germany we have kind of a feminist blogger scene that is very active when it comes to anti discriminatory language. They use the gender gap, but also "*", i.e. "all women*" which means that everyone who identifies as a woman is meant, not only those with a vagina. However, it is kinda difficult to transfer that to spoken language. But this goes further. I will show you an example of what ideas they have.

Look at this:

xier – ein Personalpronomen, statt "sie|er"
dier – ein Artikel und ein Relativpronomen, statt "die|der"
xies – ein Possessivpronomen, statt "ihr|sein"


these are all pronouns, respectively the ones that are crossed out are existing pronouns. The first one is female, the second one is male. They want to change these and replace them with gender neutral terms. Those terms are the bold ones on the left. This is just an excerpt, they have plenty more examples released in an article. It's in German, but if anyone is interested, just tell me, I will drop you a PN (I need 25 Postings to post links).

Edit: I see that the crossing doesn't appear, so I put them in " ".

If you PM me the link I will post it for you.

[PhoenixAsh]

The link FeminismWillRuleTheWorld (seriously...get a shorter name :ohmy:) mentioned:

http://maedchenmannschaft.net/pronomen-ohne-geschlecht/

[Sea]

Well from my reading of the thread no one was really calling anyone a "nasty epithets" but to quote in context:



The word called out was "girl" and it wasn't used in some intentional nasty name calling, at least how I read it.

And the above user did corrected the use of the word "girl" in later post on the same thread.

Well, ok, that's past.You're incoherent. You can't just keep flipping back and forth between a single instance (girl) and discriminatory language in general, much less contrast the two (!) in such a context.
Well, in Germany we have kind of a feminist blogger scene that is very active when it comes to anti discriminatory language. They use the gender gap, but also "*", i.e. "all women*" which means that everyone who identifies as a woman is meant, not only those with a vagina. However, it is kinda difficult to transfer that to spoken language. But this goes further. I will show you an example of what ideas they have.Not sure what to think about that. I know it's trying to be inclusive, the very act of putting an asterisk there requires one to make a distinction between "real" women and "other" women where such a distinction might not otherwise have existed.

[xxxxxx666666]

You're incoherent. You can't just keep flipping back and forth between a single instance (girl) and discriminatory language in general, much less contrast the two (!) in such a context.Not sure what to think about that. I know it's trying to be inclusive, the very act of putting an asterisk there requires one to make a distinction between "real" women and "other" women where such a distinction might not otherwise have existed.

What!?!

The (girl) part was called out because it was discriminatory was it not?

And that was corrected...

Ok how about this, let's put this aside and just post about anti discriminatory languages shall we?

Or inclusive languages if that is the term one may prefer.

And thank you FeministWillRuleTheWorld and , I like the examples of inclusive language (And thank PhoenixAsh for posting FeministWillRuleTheWorld's link) and I think its good and thanks for letting us know about it.;)

Please post some more examples!

And to those who know about anti discriminatory language but may not want to post them publicly please feel free to PM me, I always hunger for knowledge!

[PhoenixAsh]

I think maybe the concept of the thread is too broad for general debate or discussion....especially within the context of the forum you chose for the thread...which is learning.

And an added difficulty is the fact that languages differ a lot between regions with their own oriented wording, phrases, connotations and uses which not all users are familiar with.

What would be more useful is to debate this at a conceptual level by which I mean that we should debate in what way language derived from social constructs and how does it contribute in maintaining those social constructs. From there we could then include the question of whether it is necessary to adjust language and to what extend.

There is a huge amount of source material on the reclamation of words, the causality between construct-attitude-meaning/intent of language within that framework....and the explanation why language can be (or is) oppressive (even when it is not meant as such). This also covers attitudes about the relevance of language (with which I mean the American general notion for example among college students that symbolism is more important than words and action is more important than communication which directly influences whether or not we see a specific word as a slur or not)

This would be a very valuable addition to the learning forum because we are all raised within the social constructs and not all of us are even aware that we in fact are racist, sexist or exclusive because of our language...even among people who are very aware of the concept of it and are long term radical or not so radical feminists/anti racists or anti hetero-conformists.

Just posting propositions for non discriminatory adjustment of language is perhaps just collecting, although I admit interesting, bits and pieces without any relevant context rather than a vague notion of political awareness.

What do you think?

[PhoenixAsh]

As a thought provoking piece I am going to post this article which holds a lot of references to different studies and literature.

Now...I do wish to note that I might not necessarily agree with all that is written here and it sure as hell doesn't constitute revolutionary left ideals per se...I purely post it because it is an interesting viewpoint and is food for thought.

I also wish to point out that certain words discussed in the article are banned from non debate technical functional use on this board.

http://www.jmu.edu/socanth/sociology/wm_library/Ezzell.Reclaiming_Critical_Analysis.pdf

[xxxxxx666666]

I think maybe the concept of the thread is too broad for general debate or discussion....especially within the context of the forum you chose for the thread...which is learning.

And an added difficulty is the fact that languages differ a lot between regions with their own oriented wording, phrases, connotations and uses which not all users are familiar with.

What would be more useful is to debate this at a conceptual level by which I mean that we should debate in what way language derived from social constructs and how does it contribute in maintaining those social constructs. From there we could then include the question of whether it is necessary to adjust language and to what extend.

There is a huge amount of source material on the reclamation of words, the causality between construct-attitude-meaning/intent of language within that framework....and the explanation why language can be (or is) oppressive (even when it is not meant as such). This also covers attitudes about the relevance of language (with which I mean the American general notion for example among college students that symbolism is more important than words and action is more important than communication which directly influences whether or not we see a specific word as a slur or not)

This would be a very valuable addition to the learning forum because we are all raised within the social constructs and not all of us are even aware that we in fact are racist, sexist or exclusive because of our language...even among people who are very aware of the concept of it and are long term radical or not so radical feminists/anti racists or anti hetero-conformists.

Just posting propositions for non discriminatory adjustment of language is perhaps just collecting, although I admit interesting, bits and pieces without any relevant context rather than a vague notion of political awareness.

What do you think?

Well I think you know a lot, more that I do :)

How about we focus on things that most people are not aware of for now?

Of course I think "just collecting" is good too.;)

[RedWaves]

This is as dumb as the discrimination idea is in itself.


We're all being oppressed as the working class, as the people. It's not just minorities and certain groups. It all comes back to the class war. Yes it's wrapped in blatant sexism and racism, but the very core of it is class warfare. Rich people hate poor people because they are fucking poor.

Censoring a few words and holding hands and not trying to offend everyone by playing nice isn't going to work. It sounds inane and stupid. I already get called homophobic and called a fascist on here the minute I speak out against the LGBT and how the gay rights movement is a joke that drives the wedge of the sword deeper into class warfare.


We already have to tip toe around the whole discrimination thing, and are not allowed to criticize any of it, so why not add more to it and make it even more un-Communist. Fact is, while all of you freaked on me cause the things I said about the gays, if this was real Communism, you would be banning Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Che, who were all Communist leaders, all of whom were great men and all of whom were homophobic, which is what you get called when you criticize the gay rights community.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have to hold off with a serious reaction till I get home. B

The concept that we are all oppressed because we are working class and that the struggle for equality is an integral part of class struggle is a traditional Marxist position. In the past feminism and other emancipation efforts as an independent goal were often rejected for that same reason.

This same concept is still noticeable in some extreme.form in traditional and often authoritarian revolutionary organisations were even the alleviation of suffering can be rejected because it doesn't serve the end goal of a proletarian revolution.

My position on this is, I admit, double even though I am not a marxist. On the one hand I think emancipatuon goals outside of the class struggle will not further the class structure and will not resolve the underlying basis to which repressive structures are formed and maintained. On the other hand...I do not agree with the logical conclusion that automatically follows that the alleviation of suffering should not be a priority <even when this is done on specific issues>. So emancipatory stuggles outside the confines of the class struggle have definite merrit and should be supported imo.

Let me ask you a question:

Do you acknowledge that eventhough we are all oppressed, some groups are oppressed more than others?

And do you acknowledge that oppression is not a linear top down occurance but rather a complex interwoven structure? (The concept of kyriarchy).

The rest of your post and the implications it has and your, as I see it "confusing" postition on THE (wtf dude? Serious??) Gays...will have to wait.

I do want to leave this for now by stating that some of the names you mentioned are considered class enemies, traitors by some tendencies here on the board.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

This is as dumb as the discrimination idea is in itself.


"Discrimination" is "dumb"? What do you even mean by that?



We're all being oppressed as the working class, as the people. It's not just minorities and certain groups. It all comes back to the class war. Yes it's wrapped in blatant sexism and racism, but the very core of it is class warfare. Rich people hate poor people because they are fucking poor.
That's the most simplistic account of the relation between class, gender and race that I've ever come across.



Censoring a few words and holding hands and not trying to offend everyone by playing nice isn't going to work. It sounds inane and stupid. I already get called homophobic and called a fascist on here the minute I speak out against the LGBT and how the gay rights movement is a joke that drives the wedge of the sword deeper into class warfare.
Uhm if you speak out against "the LGBT" then you are bigoted against homosexuals. And it often is a damn good indicator that you are an asshole. I have no clue what thread you're referring to but I can only imagine how much you're in the wrong.



We already have to tip toe around the whole discrimination thing, and are not allowed to criticize any of it, so why not add more to it and make it even more un-Communist.Oh poor you, you're so persecuted because of your opinion that gay people should be persecuted?


Fact is, while all of you freaked on me cause the things I said about the gays, if this was real Communism, you would be banning Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Che, who were all Communist leaders, all of whom were great men and all of whom were homophobic, which is what you get called when you criticize the gay rights community.First, how do you "ban" people? Is that like exile? It would be kind of hard to exile those folks considering they are dead.

Second, just because someone called themselves a "communist", it doesn't mean they're beyond reproach. Lenin, Marx, Engels, a bunch of interesting leftist thinkers all got a lot wrong.

Third, fuck Stalin and Mao. And Castro fyi came out and said that the Cuban revolution was wrong to ever oppress homosexuals.

[xxxxxx666666]

This is as dumb as the discrimination idea is in itself.


We're all being oppressed as the working class, as the people. It's not just minorities and certain groups. It all comes back to the class war. Yes it's wrapped in blatant sexism and racism, but the very core of it is class warfare. Rich people hate poor people because they are fucking poor.

Censoring a few words and holding hands and not trying to offend everyone by playing nice isn't going to work. It sounds inane and stupid. I already get called homophobic and called a fascist on here the minute I speak out against the LGBT and how the gay rights movement is a joke that drives the wedge of the sword deeper into class warfare.


We already have to tip toe around the whole discrimination thing, and are not allowed to criticize any of it, so why not add more to it and make it even more un-Communist. Fact is, while all of you freaked on me cause the things I said about the gays, if this was real Communism, you would be banning Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Che, who were all Communist leaders, all of whom were great men and all of whom were homophobic, which is what you get called when you criticize the gay rights community.

What the!?! :mad:

Ok, in other areas on Revleft, the "great men" you mentioned are not Communist leaders but capitalists who transfer property from private hands into state hands.

State capitalists if you will.

And no not everyone who criticize the gay rights community gets called a homophobic, unless the criticism is mean spirited or is a "Crime against nature" or some other attack upon gay people.

And if you believe gays are a "crime against nature" there here's a link to a Wikipedia article for you:

"Homosexual behavior in animals"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals


Seriously it sounds like you have problems, and, with all due respect, language do divide us, look at racism for example, do people still go around calling each other racist slurs that were once popular?

Most decent people stopped doing this, in my knowledge,yes it still exists and yes there are people who use racial slurs who are not racist and there are people who don't use racist slurs and are still racist, however, it does work combined with other factors to help divide the working class and makes it easier for capitalism to exploit them.

Oh, and here is the BBC link to :

Fidel Castro takes blame for persecution of Cuban gays

The former president told the Mexican newspaper La Jornada (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/08/31/index.php?section=mundo&article=026e1mun) that there were moments of great injustice against the gay community.
"If someone is responsible, it's me," he said.
In the 1960s and 70s, many homosexuals in Cuba were fired, imprisoned or sent to "re-education camps".
Mr Castro said homosexuals had traditionally been discriminated in Cuba, just as black people and women.
But, nevertheless, he admits he didn't pay enough attention to what was going on against the gay community.
"At the time we were being sabotaged systematically, there were armed attacks against us, we had too many problems," said the 84-year-old Communist leader.
"Keeping one step ahead of the CIA, which was paying so many traitors, was not easy."
In 1979, homosexuality was decriminalised and, more recently, there have been efforts to legalise same-sex unions.
'At death's door' In the interview with La Jornada, Mr Castro also spoke of the economic embargo against the island, which was imposed by the United States in 1961. He said it was just as damaging today as it was then.
"The biggest problem was always medicine and food, which is true even today," he said.
Mr Castro's comments came in the second instalment of a lengthy interview with the journalist Carmen Lira.
On Monday's instalment, he said he had been "at death's door" during the long illness which forced him to step down as Cuba's leader.
Mr Castro fell ill in 2006 and handed power to his brother Raul in 2008.
He underwent several operations for an intestinal illness.
"I asked myself several times if (the doctors) would let me live under these conditions or whether they would allow me to die," he told La Jornada.
Mr Castro led Cuba for almost 50 years after toppling the government of Fulgencio Batista in a revolution.
The Communists remain in power and Fidel Castro remains head of the Communist Party, although his brother Raul is president of the country
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11147157

Please try to focus this thread on anti discriminatory language and not some personal grievances.

[tallguy]

Nice to see people here getting stuck into the far end of a fart nuances of linguistic niceties (and not so niceties), even to the point of citing scholarly articles to support their arguments

Meanwhile, real women and real homosexual people are getting their real faces smashed in (and worse) over in Russia and elsewhere around the world right now.

Remember?

Don't mind me, though, do carry on. I'm sure the expenditure of all of our energies in ensuring the politically correct use of a pronoun will make all the difference.

[PhoenixAsh]

Censoring a few words and holding hands and not trying to offend everyone by playing nice isn't going to work. It sounds inane and stupid.

This is rather more than censoring a few words and offending. It is about the origins of language and the role it plays in advancing and perpetuating certain social structures which are oppressive and which create inequality and exclusion. Not all of these social structures are intrinsically linked to capitalism. Patriarchy, homophobia and racism zb. are not a direct result of capitalism and exist independent of it.

Yes...that sounds scholastic and perhaps it is.




I already get called homophobic and called a fascist on here the minute I speak out against the LGBT and how the gay rights movement is a joke that drives the wedge of the sword deeper into class warfare.

I think there is a lot of legitimate criticism you can have on organisations and tactics used by gay right organisations that doesn't warrant such epithets.

But you seem to have issues with LGBTQ in and of itself. Such positions are hetero-normative and are part of patriarchal gender roles.

Enlighten me as to why the class struggle would be hampered by "the" gay rights movement?


We already have to tip toe around the whole discrimination thing, and are not allowed to criticize any of it, so why not add more to it and make it even more un-Communist.

So in your opinion communism is limited to including excluding views. If you get my meaning? It is perfectly fine in your opinion to discriminate and offend people because it would be uncommunist to be bothered about such trivial things. Because that is the way you communicate...and exactly the reasons why language is so important.



Fact is, while all of you freaked on me cause the things I said about the gays

I have no clue what you said about "the gays" so there is no need for belligerence. However the fact that you use the word "the" means that you are generalizing and stereotyping people with non hetero sexual preferences. You also construct your language in such a way that you seem to set them apart negatively as a different group which has a different status as to "the non gays".

And that is indeed homophobic....whether you like to acknowledge that or not.
Which is ok...because that you have been raised in a hetero normative society and culture..but only because you are ignorant of what you are actually doing and are prepared to acknowledge that you have a lot to learn..

I have no problem with admitting that some of the language I use and some of the ideas and concepts I have are or could be unconsciously sexist even though I do not mean it that way. Simply because they are a result of the society which I grew up in and the influence that had on the development of language. But I realize this and I try to learn and adjust whenever something like that happens. These issues do not have to be serious...they could be as simple as a fleeting though "she knows a lot about soccer....for a girl".

The sooner you realize that all men are to some extend sexist and most men are hetero normative...the sooner you realize what you are actually saying and doing.

That is the point where you start learning and seeing things in a different perspective.


which is what you get called when you criticize the gay rights community.

Really? I have had a lot of criticism towards "the" gay rights movement...but I have never once been called homophobic. The difference I guess is between criticizing the movement and the wording you chose to do so...and chosing your words in such a way you are actually criticizing the sexual preference. The last one is none of your fucking business and you have no right to criticize anybody on the basis of things they do not get to chose on.

[xxxxxx666666]

Seriously, I'm quite surprised at the reaction of some people to this thread, it reminds me of the quote by Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher (1788 - 1860):

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

[PhoenixAsh]

Nice to see people here getting stuck into the far end of a fart nuances of linguistic niceties (and not so niceties), even to the point of citing scholarly articles to support their arguments

Meanwhile, real women and real homosexual people are getting their real faces smashed in (and worse) over in Russia and elsewhere around the world right now.

Remember?

Don't mind me, though, do carry on. I'm sure the expenditure of all of our energies in ensuring the politically correct use of a pronoun will make all the difference.

Well...what the hell are you doing on the internet being member of a forum when you could be out there to do something about the workers who are being murdered or starved to death by capitalism? I am sure they are hugely helped by your time and energy spend here. ;)

Same logic. Same nonsense.

[xxxxxx666666]

However the fact that you use the word "the" means that you are generalizing and stereotyping people with non hetero sexual preferences. You also construct your language in such a way that you seem to set them apart negatively as a different group which has a different status as to "the non gays".

And that is indeed homophobic....whether you like to acknowledge that or not.
Which is ok...because that you have been raised in a hetero normative society and culture..but only because you are ignorant of what you are actually doing and are prepared to acknowledge that you have a lot to learn..

Thanks for pointing this out.;)



I have no problem with admitting that some of the language I use and some of the ideas and concepts I have are or could be unconsciously sexist even though I do not mean it that way.

Could you list those ideas and concepts... that you know of, of course, other facts would be welcomed too:)

And as always, anyone and everyone with ideas, facts, links, resources, etc. on anti discriminatory languages please feel free to post them or PM me, thanks;)

[Sinister Intents]

This is as dumb as the discrimination idea is in itself.

What? Discrimination is utter bullshit no matter how you cut it.


We're all being oppressed as the working class, as the people. It's not just minorities and certain groups. It all comes back to the class war. Yes it's wrapped in blatant sexism and racism, but the very core of it is class warfare. Rich people hate poor people because they are fucking poor.

Yep, we're all being oppressed and it is class warfare. We need to increase class consciousness of the workers and combat the roots of the problem that create discrimination. Capitalism is the core of the problem, the capitalists create and thrive on the disparities, divisions, and other problems they cause the working class.


Censoring a few words and holding hands and not trying to offend everyone by playing nice isn't going to work. It sounds inane and stupid. I already get called homophobic and called a fascist on here the minute I speak out against the LGBT and how the gay rights movement is a joke that drives the wedge of the sword deeper into class warfare.

I think you're a fucking idiot, LGBT and gay rights aren't a joke at all. You do come across as homophobic liberal. Censorship? Fuck censorship, but also fuck using divisive and discriminatory language. Go ahead, use the word 'retard' 'fag' 'b***h' on someone here, I fucking dare you.


We already have to tip toe around the whole discrimination thing, and are not allowed to criticize any of it, so why not add more to it and make it even more un-Communist. Fact is, while all of you freaked on me cause the things I said about the gays, if this was real Communism, you would be banning Mao, Stalin, Castro, and Che, who were all Communist leaders, all of whom were great men and all of whom were homophobic, which is what you get called when you criticize the gay rights community.

You think its 'communist' to be homophobic? Fuck off.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

W
I think you're a fucking idiot, LGBT and gay rights aren't a joke at all. You do come across as homophobic liberal. Censorship? Fuck censorship, but also fuck using divisive and discriminatory language. Go ahead, use the word 'retard' 'fag' 'b***h' on someone here, I fucking dare you.



You think its 'communist' to be homophobic? Fuck off.

He's obviously just a sad, old-fashioned stalinoid. Which makes his complaining about persecution of his pro-discrimination views on an internet forum all the more amusing when you could have gotten sent to a gulag for being a "liberal bourgeois capitalist pervert" if you criticized the Soviet stance on gay rights.

[PhoenixAsh]

Could you list those ideas and concepts... that you know of, of course, other facts would be welcomed too:)

Well...lists would be an overstatement.

But a good example would be that I find it extremely weird when women play soccer while at the same time I find this completely normal with men. I seem to have this issue solely with soccer. I don't like soccer and it is hard to see what people like about it regardless but the notion that women like soccer and like to play it...well...it just doesn't really fit for some reason and I am always surprised by it. (At the same time I find it perfectly normal for women to play rugby or ice hockey or do power lifting or contact sports btw) Conversely I think it really weird when men participate in horseman ship. I don't know why. Same goes for gymnastics.

This stems from some weird residual notion of a socially enforced stereotype what is and what isn't appropriate for men and women...and it requires a conscious effort to adjust my thinking to "well..why not?"

[PhoenixAsh]

A lot of initiatives are taken to create a less dividing use of language through rather simple solutions which do not really alter the language itself but rather the words chosen to describe something...in doing so they change the perception and imagery associated with language.

https://www.uow.edu.au/about/policy/UOW058706.html

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/hr/docs/non_discrim_language.php

http://hr.unimelb.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/87501/Watch_Your_Language.pdf

So creating a less dividing mode of communication doesn't necessarily require the invention of an entirely new language before we can actively work to create a more inclusive atmosphere.

A lot of what is said is widely applicable. Every language has its own challenges however.

Beware...below follows a short examples of what I mean...and is by now way fully accurate in displaying the nuances of the Dutch and English language

The Dutch language is constructed more often around reflecting whether something is done by a man or a woman and it is much more sex oriented as opposed to English. Words designating a man often end in -er and the same word for a woman ends in -ster and these are interchangeable. So the job of presiding over a meeting would either be voorzitter (for a man) and voorzitster (for a woman). A nurse would either be a verpleegster (female) or verpleger (male). Subsequently it is also a more common practice to interchange the sex indicating part in words than in English. The word housewife would not be househusband but an entirely new wordstay at home dad when indicating a man. In Dutch the same word is either huisvrouw or huisman

We also rarely use the word man as a generic. Mankind would be mensheid. Note that we do have words which have no real female variety. But these are relatively uncommon.

A lot of words in Dutch are either indicative of male or female...rather than being gender neutral. Some words can be adopted (the all inclusive term for verpleegster en verpleger is verpleging . But in other instances there either is no gender neutral term and therefore either the addition of words or the usage of an entirely different word is required....or the word needs to be adopted in a way which is not commonly used.

As I understood it from feminists there is less a problem with exclusion in the Dutch language construction but rather with its context, presumptions in usage, specific words chosen, omissions or additions made...or the refusal to use certain words.

For example... the Dutch equivalent of the word master (as in college master) which is hoogleraar and indicative of a man...this title is used for both men and women...EVENTHOUGH...the female variety exists (hooglerares). Instead...when designating a woman in that function...the following construction is used: vrouwelijke hoogleraar which basically would be the same to saying "female doing a mans job".

[PhoenixAsh]

In addition to the above post I have to mention that there is an increasing tendency in Dutch language to do the exact opposite of what we are discussing here.

Instead of creating new words, or using the appropriate neutral term we are increasingly using the male variant of a word as the norm to indicate both genders. So instead of making the language less divisive or using the normal indicative words....we are instead making it more divisive.

Ironically...the debate currently between bourgeoisie feminists and the language institute is whether the male or female variety should be used as the generic standard.

[Sea]

This is as dumb as the discrimination idea is in itself.Discrimination isn't an idea.

[Devrim]

Instead of creating new words, or using the appropriate neutral term we are increasingly using the male variant of a word as the norm to indicate both genders. So instead of making the language less divisive or using the normal indicative words....we are instead making it more divisive.

Does it make any difference though? Does changing these terms do anything to improve the lives of women? I can remember back in the 80s some leftist having a go at some woman at my work on a picket line for referring to herself as a postman. The female postman gave her short shift. It all seemed a bit ridiculous to the rest of us.

Are women in these jobs clamouring to have their titles changed, or is it something that essentially takes place apart from them?

Do you think calling a woman a postman is in anyway demeaning to her, or that in is a cause of sexism in society?

Do you think that societies which speak genderless languages, such as Turkish or Japanese, are less sexist than heavily gendered languages, such as German or French?

Devrim

[xxxxxx666666]

Do you think that societies which speak genderless languages, such as Turkish or Japanese, are less sexist than heavily gendered languages, such as German or French?

Well, I can tell you that Japanese is not a "genderless language" see below:

" Japanese is a sexist language, differentiating between male and female vocabulary, expressions, and accents. The male language is supposed to be coarse, crude, and aggressive, while the female language is expected to be soft, polite, and submissive. Even at the level of self-identification, the male expressions for "I", boku, ore, and washi, differ from their more formal and refined female counterparts, watashi and watakushi (Oatey, 2000). Japanese is also a hierarchy-oriented language ( Yoshio, 2004). There is no doubt that hierarchical differences affect interaction between Japanese people in their every day lives.　　" (underlining mine;))



http://www.immi.se/intercultural/nr10/fengping-gao.htm

And, as for Turkey, there are Turkish common saying although they may not the language itself but the things people say all the time, that the government is trying to "delete", that contributes to sexism see below, from Sunday, July 16, 2006 ok maybe it is not "common sayings" Per se but the hadiths is read and quoted very often in Turkish culture to my knowledge :

"Women are imperfect in intellect and religion." "The best of women are those who are like sheep."
"If a woman doesn't satisfy her husband's desires, she should choose herself a place in hell."
"If a husband's body is covered with pus and his wife licks it clean, she still wouldn't have paid her dues."
"Your prayer will be invalid if a donkey, black dog or a woman passes in front of you."
In a bold but little-noticed step toward reforming Islamic tradition, Turkey's religious authorities recently declared that they will remove these statements, and more like them, from the hadiths -- the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401381.html

And from 2012,

"ISTANBUL, Turkey, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- The Turkish government, in an effort to prevent violence against women, has prohibited sexist military march cadences, officials say.

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/02/28/Turkey-bans-sexist-military-cadences/UPI-68171330440087/#ixzz2sM2X2qj4









And yes I think it does make a difference, to use your example, the postman it implies that the norm is that the postman is male and to specify a female postman one may have to specify by saying the "female postman" instead of, perhaps, the more inclusive"postperson".

[Tenka]

the postman it implies that the norm is that the postman is male and to specify a female postman one may have to specify by saying the "female postman" instead of, perhaps, the more inclusive"postperson".

I don't think the word itself is sexist, but the assumptions people make about the word. "Man" isn't necessarily gender- or sex-specific in such compound words. Woman has "man" in it too...

Changing language does nothing against already existing discrimination which in many cases is reflected by it. As irritated as the next commie am I by such sayings as "male nurse" which reflect the sexist cultural assumption that nurses are female; I'm also irritated by feminised words in Spanish--like a female human cannot be a doctor, but must be a "doctora", but few commies feel the same way about that as I do. The point is, you have to change the environment that shapes the language in order to change the language.

Or you can invent some artificial revolutionary language that five people will speak.

[xxxxxx666666]

I don't think the word itself is sexist, but the assumptions people make about the word. "Man" isn't necessarily gender- or sex-specific in such compound words. Woman has "man" in it too...

Yes, but in a number of cultures, like in places in the United States "Man" usually means "male person" and the very fact that "wo" in front of "man" as opposed to just "man" shows a female inferiority; for some people.


Changing language does nothing against already existing discrimination which in many cases is reflected by it. As irritated as the next commie am I by such sayings as "male nurse" which reflect the sexist cultural assumption that nurses are female; I'm also irritated by feminised words in Spanish--like a female human cannot be a doctor, but must be a "doctora", but few commies feel the same way about that as I do. The point is, you have to change the environment that shapes the language in order to change the language.

You did read the part where I say "combined with other factors" right?

Here it is again, taking about racism:


with all due respect, language do divide us, look at racism for example, do people still go around calling each other racist slurs that were once popular?

Most decent people stopped doing this, in my knowledge,yes it still exists and yes there are people who use racial slurs who are not racist and there are people who don't use racist slurs and are still racist, however, it does work combined with other factors to help divide the working class and makes it easier for capitalism to exploit them.







Or you can invent some artificial revolutionary language that five people will speak.

There has been many attempts at an "Universal Language" that the entire planet was supposed to be able to speak throughout history:

Universal language may refer to a hypothetical or historical language spoken and understood by all or most of the world's population. In some contexts, it refers to a means of communication said to be understood by all living things, beings, and objects alike. It may be the idea of an international auxiliary language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_auxiliary_language) for communication between groups speaking different primary languages. In other conceptions, it may be the primary language of all speakers, or the only existing language. Some mythological or religious traditions state that there was once a single universal language among all people, or shared by humans and supernatural (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) beings; however, this is not supported by historical evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language

The closest "Universal Language" so far is "English" so why not have one when the world Revolution happens? Or fix existing language so they are not discriminatory?

"A world language is a language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language) spoken internationally which is learned by many people as a second language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language). A world language is not only characterized by the number of its speakers (native or second language speakers), but also by its geographical distribution, international organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organizations) and in diplomatic relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_relations).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language#cite_note-weltalmanach.de-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language#cite_note-books.google.com.au-2) In this respect, major world languages are dominated by languages of European (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) origin. The historical reason for this is the period of expansionist European imperialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) and colonialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism).
The world's most widely used language is English which has over 1.8 billion users world wide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language

[Devrim]

Well, I can tell you that Japanese is not a "genderless language"[/QUOTE]

I might be mistaken about Japanese. I thought it was a genderless language. I could be wrong though.


And, as for Turkey, there are Turkish common saying although they may not the language itself

I am not mistaken about Turkish though. The Turkish language is grammatically genderless, not in the way English is in that it doesn't have gendered nouns, but even more so in that it doesn't have gendered pronouns. Now Turkey is, as you pointed out, a very sexist society. This would imply that the fact that the language itself makes no differentiation between sexes is not a vital point in determining this.

The Turkish term for 'postman' is genderless. Does that mean that there are more female postal workers, or that they are better treated than they are in the UK where it is gendered?

Devrim

[Tenka]

Yes, but in culture, like in places like such as the United States "Man" usually means "male person" and the very fact that "wo" in front of "man" as opposed to just "man" shows a female inferiority for some people.

Yes, the wo- in woman, I read, comes from a word meaning "wife"; "wife-man". But it is not sexist for the -man part.




You did read the part where I say "combined with other factors" right?

Here it is again, taking about racism:

Actually I did not read that or most of this thread. Sorry. However, racial slurs are only on the decline because, for one example, white people are being brought up with less racist ideas ingrained in the U.S. these days. Individuals choosing not to use them has not done much, I think.


There has been many attempts at an "Universal Language" that the entire planet speaks throughout history:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language

The closest "Universal Language" so far is "English" so why not have one when the world Revolution happens? Or fix existing language so they are not discriminatory?

"A world language is a language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_language) spoken internationally which is learned by many people as a second language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_language). A world language is not only characterized by the number of its speakers (native or second language speakers), but also by its geographical distribution, international organizations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organizations) and in diplomatic relations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_relations).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language#cite_note-weltalmanach.de-1)[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language#cite_note-books.google.com.au-2) In this respect, major world languages are dominated by languages of European (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) origin. The historical reason for this is the period of expansionist European imperialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism) and colonialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism).
The world's most widely used language is English which has over 1.8 billion users world wide."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_language

I am aware of Esperanto and such things, of course. Naturally these attempts tend to be grossly eurocentric, and I am not sure if a global constructed language would be free from having sexist distinctions--it really depends on the consciousness of the promoters; and since you need a lot of people to promote a global language, the prospects for one without sexism, in the present context, are grim.

[xxxxxx666666]

I am not mistaken about Turkish though. The Turkish language is grammatically genderless, not in the way English is in that it doesn't have gendered nouns, but even more so in that it doesn't have gendered pronouns. Now Turkey is, as you pointed out, a very sexist society. This would imply that the fact that the language itself makes no differentiation between sexes is not a vital point in determining this.

The Turkish term for 'postman' is genderless. Does that mean that there are more female postal workers, or that they are better treated than they are in the UK where it is gendered?

Yes, but as I've said there are "common sayings" that are gendered and, thankfully, the Turkish government is trying to outlaw, see the link to the Turkish government removing sexist sayings from the hadiths

"In a bold but little-noticed step toward reforming Islamic tradition, Turkey's religious authorities recently declared that they will remove these statements, and more like them, from the hadiths -- the non-Koranic commentary on the words and deeds of the prophet Muhammad."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/14/AR2006071401381.html


And,

"ISTANBUL, Turkey, Feb. 28 (UPI) -- The Turkish government, in an effort to prevent violence against women, has prohibited sexist military march cadences, officials say.
Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-Ne...#ixzz2sM2X2qj4 (http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/02/28/Turkey-bans-sexist-military-cadences/UPI-68171330440087/#ixzz2sM2X2qj4)

Yes, I've posted those links before, but I've post them again, for your convenience of course. :)

And I should add that also in the UK there is a much stronger feminist presence than in Turkey and UK is more secular whereas Turkey is still more or less bound by Islamic laws, which is why the removal of sexist and discriminatory statments in the official Turkish version of the hadiths is a step toward equality for them.


Actually I did not read that or most of this thread. Sorry.


That's ok ;)


However, racial slurs are only on the decline because, for one example, white people are being brought up with less racist ideas ingrained in the U.S. these days. Individuals choosing not to use them has not done much, I think.


Maybe, but perhaps you may have heard of the controversies of "racist language"?

Well, here's something from Ethics Daily (a Christian website, or more specifically a "Baptist Center for Ethics"
I know, and apologies to anyone who may be offended and/or are not Christians [I'm currently an atheist myself;)], but still relevant, I think):

"Slavery in America has been illegal since the Civil War, but racist language was publicly, openly heard until the late 20th century and still persists in too many circles. People of color long ago recognized that they would never achieve equal status with Caucasians as long as common, derogatory terminology about their race remained unchallenged. After the era of Martin Luther King Jr., anyone using racist language risks becoming a target of scorn and possible legal action.

The problem with racist language is bigger than derogatory terminology, however. It's just as devastating to be "invisible" – ignored, unseen, not thought of."

- See more at: http://www.ethicsdaily.com/using-racist-sexist-language-to-ignore-others-cms-16234#sthash.Fy3ulW2n.dpufSlavery

Although as Tenka said, they not are the only thing that brought about a decline in racism, but they may be part of it.

[Reticential]

...for one example, white people are being brought up with less racist ideas ingrained in the U.S. these days. Individuals choosing not to use them has not done much, I think.

I would have to disagree, sure racism might not be as overt as it was in the past but it's just become deeper engrained in the system which makes it far more sinister. It's like having conversations with women who say that men and women are equal nowadays, we're just deeper into a system that has institutionalised its oppressions. Things like avoiding eye-contact, visible shifts in demeanor and complimenting peoples' English (either without knowing, or having just heard they had grown up in the same country) are all racist, but since they're either unknowingly so or subconscious people seem to be 'less racist'. Black people are still more likely to be below the poverty line, and from what I've seen a high proportion of the deaths in police custody are of black people. And like has been mentioned previously, just because you don't use racial slurs doesn't mean you're not racist.


There was also a sign language equivalent of Esperanto called Gestuno...it had about the same success...jsyk ;)

[Tenka]

I would have to disagree, sure racism might not be as overt as it was in the past but it's just become deeper engrained in the system which makes it far more sinister. It's like having conversations with women who say that men and women are equal nowadays, we're just deeper into a system that has institutionalised its oppressions. Things like avoiding eye-contact, visible shifts in demeanor and complimenting peoples' English (either without knowing, or having just heard they had grown up in the same country) are all racist, but since they're either unknowingly so or subconscious people seem to be 'less racist'. Black people are still more likely to be below the poverty line, and from what I've seen a high proportion of the deaths in police custody are of black people. And like has been mentioned previously, just because you don't use racial slurs doesn't mean you're not racist.


I have not really said that our society was less racist, but was trying to explain why slurs are less common in a brief and lazy manner. :)

edit: it's rather that racists are being raised to watch out for the "PC Police" and finding replacement words for usage outside of their close circles.

[Rosa Partizan]

just chiming in for a short question: Does anyone of you use womyn instead of woman? 'cause I've seen this on some feminist blogs.

[tallguy]

I don't think the word itself is sexist, but the assumptions people make about the word. "Man" isn't necessarily gender- or sex-specific in such compound words. Woman has "man" in it too...

Changing language does nothing against already existing discrimination which in many cases is reflected by it. As irritated as the next commie am I by such sayings as "male nurse" which reflect the sexist cultural assumption that nurses are female; I'm also irritated by feminised words in Spanish--like a female human cannot be a doctor, but must be a "doctora", but few commies feel the same way about that as I do. The point is, you have to change the environment that shapes the language in order to change the language.

Or you can invent some artificial revolutionary language that five people will speak.
Yes, oppression starts out with economics and power and ends up with language and culture. That causal arrow does not run backwards.

[Tenka]

just chiming in for a short question: Does anyone of you use womyn instead of woman? 'cause I've seen this on some feminist blogs.

Don't see the appeal of such replacement, personally. As user Zim has suggested before, it is kind of dehumanising to remove the -man from woman. Though I want to destroy maleness, I don't think calling females of the human species womyn does anything to this effect. Just looks silly.

[PhoenixAsh]

Does it make any difference though? Does changing these terms do anything to improve the lives of women?

I think that is a very difficult question to answer because obviously patriarchy isn't caused by language nor is perpetuating patriarchy merely a factor of language. So the answer ultimately depends on what you perceive as improvement.

However there is a huge interaction and interconnection between social institutions and language (interestingly enough...this includes body language but that falls outside the scope of this debate) and the perception of reality. Language is an expression of social reality that enables us to communicate more effectively but language is also a powerful tool through which we perceive social reality and through which social reality itself is shaped.


I can remember back in the 80s some leftist having a go at some woman at my work on a picket line for referring to herself as a postman. The female postman gave her short shift. It all seemed a bit ridiculous to the rest of us.

I think it is bloody stupid and pretentious to attack an individual on how they want to call themselves (within reason). I have a friend who tells everybody he is "harry twinkletoes" to convey that he is gay. That is non of my business and it would be extremely pretentious of me to say that he isn't allowed to. But when my (at that time) six year old surrogate daughter (for lack of a better description) started to use that very same expression to describe men who are attracted to men...well...that is a different issue.

So I think it does matter how society as a whole uses language.

I also think that the fact that it seems ridiculous is an exponent of patriarchical traditionalist conditioning. Most men do not understand how language creates division simply because they never encounter is in the negative and I think a lot of women are used to it being a reality.


Are women in these jobs clamouring to have their titles changed, or is it something that essentially takes place apart from them?

I haven't asked them ;) So it is taking place in a wider context as an exponent of how language is thoroughly shaped to reflect how society is in fact a hetero-normative mans world.



Do you think calling a woman a postman is in anyway demeaning to her, or that in is a cause of sexism in society?

I rather think it is strange that there is no female equivalent...and I think that that is demeaning. I also think that it is both a consequence of sexism and an obstacle to equality.


Do you think that societies which speak genderless languages, such as Turkish or Japanese, are less sexist than heavily gendered languages, such as German or French?

Devrim

Language is more complex than just the words. It is also the choice, context, omissions, tone and combinations that have meaning. This is why it is so hard to learn to speak new languages as a native speaker.

For example...the German "das ist ganz nett von dir" (sp?) literally means "that's nice of you" but change the tone and it suddenly means "that was really shitty of you".

Japanese is a gendered language through word choices and uses. I am not familiar with Turkish so I can not really comment. But I do know there is a movement in Turkey that occupies itself with sexism in grammar and descriptive choices in the Turkish language. For example....when a woman is divorced her status in her documents is changed to "widow" and for men it will be "single".

Are these societies more or less sexist? No. As I said...language itself is not a cause of sexism in and of itself and reinventing/changing/adapting will not eradicate sexism. But it does create a different consciousness and perception of reality that would be more conductive towards equality and inclusive towards people.

[PhoenixAsh]

just chiming in for a short question: Does anyone of you use womyn instead of woman? 'cause I've seen this on some feminist blogs.


Don't see the appeal of such replacement, personally. As user Zim has suggested before, it is kind of dehumanising to remove the -man from woman. Though I want to destroy maleness, I don't think calling females of the human species womyn does anything to this effect. Just looks silly.

I agree with Tenka here...although I have heard and read the same thing.

But then again I also have read some men find it instinctively uneasy to use the word "woman" because it feels like they are saying "not man"...which is caused (as I have read) it by the fact that English is a more natural instinctive and sound based language and is completely centered around the use of the word man.

[Luís Henrique]

some leftist having a go at some woman at my work on a picket line for referring to herself as a postman.

I find it interesting how English speaking female actors distaste the word "actress" and demand being called "actors", while Portuguese speaking Presidents distaste the word "presidente" and demand being called "presidenta"...

Luís Henrique

[Devrim]

Yes, but as I've said there are "common sayings" that are gendered and, thankfully, the Turkish government is trying to outlaw, see the link to the Turkish government removing sexist sayings from the hadiths

I think that you completely misunderstand the point here. Of course there are lots of sexist saying in the Turkish language. It is, after al, a very sexist society. The point is that the language itself isn't gendered. For example there is a very common Turkish saying which we could roughly translate as "She is my wife and I will beat her if I want". Everybody Turkish would recognise this phrase. It is a obviously a shocking thing to say. However, the language that it is said in is not gendered in any way. I once heard a woman who was beating her husband at the time say exactly this sentence*, and in Turkish it is the same. The pronouns (she, and her) are not gendered, and the word I would have translated as wife in the case of this sentence actually is more equivalent to the English word 'spouse'.

The Turkish language is gender neutral. That means that their are no male or female nouns, but also there are no gendered pronouns (i.e. he/she/it is all the same word). This doesn't mean that Turkey is not an extremely sexist society. Far from it, it is. What it may suggest though is that adopting 'non-sexist language' is not really a determinedly cause of the level of sexism in society.



And I should add that also in the UK there is a much stronger feminist presence than in Turkey and UK is more secular whereas Turkey is still more or less bound by Islamic laws, which is why the removal of sexist and discriminatory statments in the official Turkish version of the hadiths is a step toward equality for them.

I think that this paragraph shows that you don't know what you are really talking about in this case. Turkey is not bound by Islamic law, and hasn't been since the 1920s. In fact until very recently, it was illegal for women to enter a public building in Turkey wearing a headscarf. The removal of certain hadiths is of very little relevance in Turkey, and I would imagine that only an extremely small minority of people could recite one, let alone the particular ones you mention.


Maybe, but perhaps you may have heard of the controversies of "racist language"?

Well, here's something from Ethics Daily (a Christian website, or more specifically a "Baptist Center for Ethics"
I know, and apologies to anyone who may be offended and/or are not Christians [I'm currently an atheist myself;)], but still relevant, I think):

"Slavery in America has been illegal since the Civil War, but racist language was publicly, openly heard until the late 20th century and still persists in too many circles. People of color long ago recognized that they would never achieve equal status with Caucasians as long as common, derogatory terminology about their race remained unchallenged. After the era of Martin Luther King Jr., anyone using racist language risks becoming a target of scorn and possible legal action.

The problem with racist language is bigger than derogatory terminology, however. It's just as devastating to be "invisible" – ignored, unseen, not thought of."

- See more at: http://www.ethicsdaily.com/using-rac...2n.dpufSlavery (http://www.ethicsdaily.com/using-racist-sexist-language-to-ignore-others-cms-16234#sthash.Fy3ulW2n.dpufSlavery)

Although as Tenka said, they not are the only thing that brought about a decline in racism, but they may be part of it.

But this proves nothing. While it is a good thing in itself that people no longer use such abusive words that does not mean that the outlawing of these words meant a decrease in racism. Indeed it is equally probably, and in my opinion much more likely, that a decrease in racism led to the outlawing of these words.

Devrim

*Of course I don't want to compare the massive amount violence committed against women in Turkey with the violence that a tiny number of women use against a tiny number of men. It is obviously incomparable. I am merely making a linguistic point.

[Devrim]

Japanese is a gendered language through word choices and uses. I am not familiar with Turkish so I can not really comment. But I do know there is a movement in Turkey that occupies itself with sexism in grammar and descriptive choices in the Turkish language. For example....when a woman is divorced her status in her documents is changed to "widow" and for men it will be "single".

I have never heard of this, and I don't believe it to be true. My documents (I am a divorced man) say 'dul', as do my ex-wife's, which could translate into English as 'widow', 'widower', or 'divorcee'. That does not mean that women who are divorced do not face much prejudice that men don't, though even this is decreasing in the bigger cities. However, this is not something inherent in the language.


Are these societies more or less sexist? No. As I said...language itself is not a cause of sexism in and of itself and reinventing/changing/adapting will not eradicate sexism. But it does create a different consciousness and perception of reality that would be more conductive towards equality and inclusive towards people.

I don't believe that language creates consciousness. In fact I think it is quite the opposite.


I rather think it is strange that there is no female equivalent...and I think that that is demeaning. I also think that it is both a consequence of sexism and an obstacle to equality.

I think, but I am not sure, that in the US today they use the word mail-carrier. I don't see how the word could be demeaning, but I am not a woman. I never heard a woman in the Post Office say it was demeaning. If I had, I would have stopped using it.

We are talking about a job though where there was very little institutional sexism. Both men and women were paid the same amount for the same job. There were set pay rates. There are lots of places, which may have gender neutral terms, where men are paid more than women.

Devrim

[Alexios]

just chiming in for a short question: Does anyone of you use womyn instead of woman? 'cause I've seen this on some feminist blogs.

it's just silly psuedo-radicalism with no basis in truth, same goes for "persyn"

[PhoenixAsh]

I have never heard of this, and I don't believe it to be true. My documents (I am a divorced man) say 'dul', as do my ex-wife's, which could translate into English as 'widow', 'widower', or 'divorcee'. That does not mean that women who are divorced do not face much prejudice that men don't, though even this is decreasing in the bigger cities. However, this is not something inherent in the language.

Ok well I have to look in to it to find a reverence to what I mentioned. However...the point is that even without being gendered a language can still be divisive by constructs and context.




I don't believe that language creates consciousness. In fact I think it is quite the opposite.

It entirely depends on which field you ask this question. All the main fields in sociology and psychology and philosophy state language creates consciousness. There are some fields which state that consciousness is nature and language is developed through consciousness. But even these fields state that language ultimately changes perception (which is an expression of consciousness).




I think, but I am not sure, that in the US today they use the word mail-carrier. I don't see how the word could be demeaning, but I am not a woman. I never heard a woman in the Post Office say it was demeaning. If I had, I would have stopped using it.

We are talking about a job though where there was very little institutional sexism. Both men and women were paid the same amount for the same job. There were set pay rates. There are lots of places, which may have gender neutral terms, where men are paid more than women.

There is a difference between demeaning and sexism in the sense that sexism isn't always perceived as demeaning.

Also note that patriarchy has conditioned us all to a very large extend. The majority of women do not believe in traditional gender roles for example.

Devrim[/QUOTE]

[Devrim]

Ok well I have to look in to it to find a reverence to what I mentioned.

Research what you like. It won't change the words on my ID card.

However...the point is that even without being gendered a language can still be divisive by constructs and context.

The language itself is not divisive. Of course it can be used to express reactionary sexist ideas. All languages can. My point here is the fact that the language itself doesn't have these gendered forms does not make the speakers of this language less sexist, and this in turn implies that adopting 'non-sexist language' would therefore not make society less sexist.


It entirely depends on which field you ask this question. All the main fields in sociology and psychology and philosophy state language creates consciousness. I don't know much about those fields, but I do know that in linguistics this idea, which is commonly called the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is completely discredited.

It is pretty obvious when you think about it. Steven Pinkner tells a story in his book 'The Language Instinct' about a deaf-mute Mexican agricultural labourer in the US who had never been taught to sign. He somehow encountered a sign-language teacher upon which he quickly learned to sign, and proceeded to tell her his life story.

Now this may be actually true, or it may be a made up parable. That is not the point though. We all understand that it could have happened, and equally understand that a human can have consciousness without having language.

Now you could quite easily argue that the relationship between language and consciousness involves some sort of feedback mechanism, but to claim that "language creates consciousness is blatant absurd.

Devrim

[A Psychological Symphony]

Don't see the appeal of such replacement, personally. As user Zim has suggested before, it is kind of dehumanising to remove the -man from woman. Though I want to destroy maleness, I don't think calling females of the human species womyn does anything to this effect. Just looks silly.

Out of genuine curiosity, what does this mean?

[xxxxxx666666]

I don't know much about those fields, but I do know that in linguistics this idea, which is commonly called the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis is completely discredited.

Oh really?

Actually parts of it was discredited in the 1969 so that much is true, however, according to princeton.edu there was support for "weak versions" found in the 1980's.

So no it has not been "completely discredited".

From the princeton page on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis

" A 1969 study by Brent Berlin (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Berlin) and Paul Kay (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kay) showed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited. From the late 1980s a new school of linguistic relativity scholars have examined the effects of differences in linguistic categorization on cognition, finding broad support for weak versions of the hypothesis in experimental contexts.Effects of linguistic relativity have been shown particularly in the domain of spatial cognition and in the social use of language, but also in the field of color perception. Recent studies have shown that color perception is particularly prone to linguistic relativity effects when processed in the left brain hemisphere, suggesting that this brain half relies more on language than the right one.Currently a balanced view of linguistic relativity is espoused by most linguists holding that language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways but that other processes are better seen as subject to universal factors. Current research is focused on exploring the ways in which language influences thought and determining to what extent."

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Sapir%E2%80%93Whorf_hypothesis.html

(the bolding and underlining is done by me, of course)

So actually parts of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been, to use your term, "proven" or "credited".;)

[xxxxxx666666]

Also, about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, far from begin "completely discredited", is still supported, even today look at this from very recently, 1/30/2014:

Starting Indian Kids on English Is Like Inviting Custer Into Your Home by Amy More & Mike Taylor on 1/30/14

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/30/starting-indian-kids-english-inviting-custer-your-home

I'll quote a passage from it:


" What Lian said would have likely brought a broad smile to the posthumous lips of Benjamin Lee Whorf, the Yale researcher who worked with Hopi Indians. Which brings us to the Whorfian hypothesis, sometimes known as the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or Whorfianism, a theory that continues to attract researchers to this day. Whorf said that English speakers could probably understand how Hopis think but they are not actually able to think like the Hopis even if they try. Researchers who favor the stronger version of the Whorfian hypothesis (linguistic determinism) hypothesize that our language determines our thoughts and prevents us from being able to understand certain concepts or think certain thoughts. Language is a prison that constrains our minds, limits our capacity to reason and determines our behaviors. The implication of this is: if an Indian does not know his language, he is unlikely to think or act like an Indian. If we speak in an Indian language, we start thinking like an Indian; likewise, if we speak in a European language like English, we think like a European and eventually become one. Some researchers disagree and favor the weaker version of the Whorfian hypothesis (linguistic relativity) that language very profoundly influences and affects our thinking, our view of the world, our perceptions of reality, cognitive processes, decision making, thought patterns and behaviors. So while the strong version of the Whorfian hypothesis maintains that language determines thought, the weak version asserts that language profoundly influences thought. "

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2014/01/30/starting-indian-kids-english-inviting-custer-your-home

[Alexios]

Out of genuine curiosity, what does this mean?

Doing away with gender

[A Psychological Symphony]

Doing away with gender

As in you want everyone to be the same gender, pretend that they don't notice a difference in gender, or what? I don't understand what Tenka meant and this didnt make it much more clear

[xxxxxx666666]

I think that you completely misunderstand the point here. Of course there are lots of sexist saying in the Turkish language. It is, after al, a very sexist society. The point is that the language itself isn't gendered. For example there is a very common Turkish saying which we could roughly translate as "She is my wife and I will beat her if I want". Everybody Turkish would recognise this phrase. It is a obviously a shocking thing to say. However, the language that it is said in is not gendered in any way. I once heard a woman who was beating her husband at the time say exactly this sentence*, and in Turkish it is the same. The pronouns (she, and her) are not gendered, and the word I would have translated as wife in the case of this sentence actually is more equivalent to the English word 'spouse'.

The Turkish language is gender neutral. That means that their are no male or female nouns, but also there are no gendered pronouns (i.e. he/she/it is all the same word). This doesn't mean that Turkey is not an extremely sexist society. Far from it, it is. What it may suggest though is that adopting 'non-sexist language' is not really a determinedly cause of the level of sexism in society.

Nor have I said that language is everything, but language does make it easier for sexism to exist, as do common sayings. Haven't you read what I typed, why did you think I more or less said "language and other factors" before?


I think that this paragraph shows that you don't know what you are really talking about in this case. Turkey is not bound by Islamic law, and hasn't been since the 1920s. In fact until very recently, it was illegal for women to enter a public building in Turkey wearing a headscarf. The removal of certain hadiths is of very little relevance in Turkey, and I would imagine that only an extremely small minority of people could recite one, let alone the particular ones you mention.

No, according to wikipedia religion remained a strong force:

"Although Turkey was secularized at the official level, religion remained a strong force at the popular level. After 1950 some political leaders tried to benefit from popular attachment to religion by espousing support for programs and policies that appealed to the religiously inclined. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_Turkey

"Islam is the main religion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion) of the Turkish people (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_people) in Turkey, where the CIA World factbook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_World_factbook) states that 100% of the country's population are nominally Muslims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslims)."

..................

"By 1994 slogans promising that a return to Islam would cure economic ills and solve the problems of bureaucratic inefficiencies had enough general appeal to enable avowed religious candidates to win mayoral elections in Istanbul (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul) and Ankara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ankara), the country's two largest cities."


Maybe it is Devrim who don't know what Devrim is really taking about, to use Dervim's own words against Devrim:laugh:


But this proves nothing. While it is a good thing in itself that people no longer use such abusive words that does not mean that the outlawing of these words meant a decrease in racism. Indeed it is equally probably, and in my opinion much more likely, that a decrease in racism led to the outlawing of these words.


Well, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis says otherwise and it hasn't been completely discredited.

Now I like facts but I don't like personal attacks and the fact you said:


I think that this paragraph shows that you don't know what you are really talking about in this case.

Might be taken as a personal attack, please don't do this again to anyone.

And to ram something home, here's an quote from "Call to prayer points out key role of Islam in modern-day Turkey" originally published Saturday, June 7, 2008:

"We uniformly agreed that the Islamic faith in Turkey was vital, liberating and integral to modern Turkey."

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2004463462_howell07m.html

And here's a wikipedia article on the headscarf thing, yes Devrim is (somewhat) correct on it :

"Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) has been a secular state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state) since it was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk) in 1923. He introduced the secularization of the state in the Turkish Constitution of 1924 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Constitution_of_1924), alongside Atatürk's Reforms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_Reforms). These were in accordance with the Kemalist Ideology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalist_Ideology), with a strict appliance of laicite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicite) in the constitution. Atatürk saw headscarves as backward-looking and an obstacle to his campaign to secularize and modernize the new Turkish Republic. The issue of the headscarf debate has been very intense and controversial since it was banned.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey#cite_note-1) Turkey is a secular country and over 95% of its people are Muslims.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey#cite_note-2) It has resulted in a clash between those favouring the secular principles of the state, such as the Turkish Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Armed_Forces),[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey#cite_note-Turkey.27s_Mrs_Gul_given_makeover-3) and those who are more conservative with their religious beliefs."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headscarf_controversy_in_Turkey

And thus whether the state wants to or not, Islam plays a large role in the life of the people of Turkey because 95% of its people are Muslim (or 100% according to some). So yes, the hadiths, and other Muslim texts and sayings for that matter, is of very much relevance in Turkey.

[xxxxxx666666]

As in you want everyone to be the same gender, pretend that they don't notice a difference in gender, or what? I don't understand what Tenka meant and this didnt make it much more clear

Gender is a social construct and yes, I think we should do away with it.

"The distinction between sex and gender differentiates sex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex), the biological makeup of an individual's reproductive anatomy or secondary sex characteristics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sex_characteristic), from gender (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender), an individual's lifestyle (often culturally learned) or personal identification of one's own gender (gender identity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity))"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction

[xxxxxx666666]

Yes, oppression starts out with economics and power and ends up with language and culture. That causal arrow does not run backwards.

Well that's debatable and it may in fact run backwards (or may not, but let's not debate that shall we, we should be discussing about anti discriminatory languages)

"Language plays a part in sexism, though it is disputed whether certain language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language"

http://neohumanism.org/s/se/sexism.html

And despite what Devrim typed, language can be divisive, here's from a guide on small businesses.

"Still, women are the target of sexist words and treatment in the workplace. If left unchecked, sexism has a negative impact not on just female employees but their male coworkers and the overall organization as well."


http://smallbusiness.chron.com/sexist-words-affect-attitudes-behavior-workplace-18256.html

[Luís Henrique]

And despite what Devrim typed, language can be divisive

There is obviously a confusion between two different acceptions of the word "language". Language as in "watch your language" can obviously be divisive and discriminatory. Language as in "the Turkish language" obviously can't, because all languages have linguistic mechanisms for negation, so if an idea can be expressed in a given language, its exact negation also can.

Sapir-Whorf is not only a completely discredited hypothesis, but also one with quite obvious reactionary implications, as it quite evidently implies the superiority of the English language over all others.

A nice read on the relations between language and worldview is Through the Language Glass (http://www.google.com.br/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CEcQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daftarche.com%2Fattachments%2 F%25D8%25A7%25D8%25AF%25D8%25A8%25D8%25B3%25D8%25A 7%25D8%25B1-14%2F969d1351986618-%25DA%25A9%25D8%25A7%25D8%25B1%25DA%25A9%25D8%25B1 %25D8%25AF-%25D8%25B2%25D8%25A8%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586-%25D8%25AF%25D8%25B1-%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586%25D8%25AF%25DB%258C%25D8%25B4 %25D9%2587-deutscher-through-language-glass.pdf&ei=WF3yUt6SHs3okAeU8ICgCQ&usg=AFQjCNF61sS3EYYzhfKB0nP8w9OaRHBwPg&bvm=bv.60799247,d.eW0) by Guy Deutscher.

More on topic, an actual attempt to build an anti-discriminatory (anti-sexist, in the case) language is Láadan (http://www.sfwa.org/members/elgin/LaadanLessons/Laadan01.html) by Suzette Haden Elgin (SHE). Unhappily it rests, at least partially, on false assumptions (namely the mistaken idea that if a language has not a word for a given idea, it cannot express such idea) and on a quite naïve idealisation of both language and women (in Láadan it should be impossible to lie, which is something that would make it useless for oppressed people).

Luís Henrique

[Remus Bleys]

As in you want everyone to be the same gender, pretend that they don't notice a difference in gender, or what? I don't understand what Tenka meant and this didnt make it much more clear

Doing away with gender. Free people from the shackles of gender roles or norms. The idea that a certain gender acts and talks and walks and dresses will be done away with. All sexist prejudices removed, that one can act walk and talk in whatever manner, it wouldn't necessarily have a pattern in except individually (like people who wear dresses are assumed to be feminine and therefore associated with other feminine characteristics - this would no longer occur, and applied to masculinity as well).
clearly this cannot be accomplished now. I highly doubt Tenka is telling us to close our eyes cover our ears and say nanana gender isn't real.

[Sea]

Don't see the appeal of such replacement, personally. As user Zim has suggested before, it is kind of dehumanising to remove the -man from woman. Though I want to destroy maleness, I don't think calling females of the human species womyn does anything to this effect. Just looks silly.It pisses Rush Limbaugh the fuck off and that's all that matters.
"Still, women are the target of sexist words and treatment in the workplace. If left unchecked, sexism has a negative impact not on just female employees but their male coworkers and the overall organization as well."


http://smallbusiness.chron.com/sexist-words-affect-attitudes-behavior-workplace-18256.htmlThat source already assumes that you're correct in your opinion that language can be an agent itself. Wait a minute.. isn't there a Latin name for that fallacy? It's extremely dumbed down and is literally written for a petit-bourgois audience that wants to pretend they care about equality. Unless kindergarten sociology is a thing now. I implore you to start reading some more advanced stuff than this. I'm not going to call you stupid (well, not in the learning forum) but if this is the sort of stuff you read I can't help but think that it explains a thing or two. I'm not saying your opinion are wrong, but you're arguing wrong.

[xxxxxx666666]

It pisses Rush Limbaugh the fuck off and that's all that matters.That source already assumes that you're correct in your opinion that language can be an agent itself. Wait a minute.. isn't there a Latin name for that fallacy? It's extremely dumbed down and is literally written for a petit-bourgois audience that wants to pretend they care about equality. Unless kindergarten sociology is a thing now. I implore you to start reading some more advanced stuff than this.

Post hoc ?

Why don't you list the advanced stuff you've mentioned?

[A Psychological Symphony]

Doing away with gender. Free people from the shackles of gender roles or norms. The idea that a certain gender acts and talks and walks and dresses will be done away with. All sexist prejudices removed, that one can act walk and talk in whatever manner, it wouldn't necessarily have a pattern in except individually (like people who wear dresses are assumed to be feminine and therefore associated with other feminine characteristics - this would no longer occur, and applied to masculinity as well).

ok, thank you for clearing that up.



clearly this cannot be accomplished now. I highly doubt Tenka is telling us to close our eyes cover our ears and say nanana gender isn't real.

Hey man, I've seen some wacky ideas on here and closing our eyes and making gender unreal would hardly even touch the list.

[xxxxxx666666]

Hey man, I've seen some wacky ideas on here and closing our eyes and making gender unreal would hardly even touch the list.

Well, I wouldn't consider making gender unreal "wacky."

Gender is only social concept after all.

[Devrim]

XX66, I said that you don't know what you are talking about because you so obviously don't. To take an example:

You said that Turkey was bound by religious law:


And I should add that also in the UK there is a much stronger feminist presence than in Turkey and UK is more secular whereas Turkey is still more or less bound by Islamic laws, which is why the removal of sexist and discriminatory statments in the official Turkish version of the hadiths is a step toward equality for them.

I explained that actually it wasn't and hadn't been since the 1920s:


Turkey is not bound by Islamic law, and hasn't been since the 1920s.

At which point you quoted from Wikipedia, which seemed to me to back up my point not yours:


Turkey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey) has been a secular state (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state) since it was founded by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustafa_Kemal_Atat%C3%BCrk) in 1923. He introduced the secularization of the state in the Turkish Constitution of 1924 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Constitution_of_1924), alongside Atatürk's Reforms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atat%C3%BCrk%27s_Reforms). These were in accordance with the Kemalist Ideology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemalist_Ideology), with a strict appliance of laicite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laicite) in the constitution.

You also tried to qualify this by stating that Islam remained a strong force:


No, according to wikipedia religion remained a strong force

There is, however, a difference between religion being a strong force and a state being "bound by Islamic laws". Would you say the United States, also a secular country, could be described as being 'bound by Christian law'. I wouldn't think so.

You then go on to talk about the importance of the hadiths, and again show that you have very little idea what you are talking about:


And thus whether the state wants to or not, Islam plays a large role in the life of the people of Turkey because 95% of its people are Muslim (or 100% according to some). So yes, the hadiths, and other Muslim texts and sayings for that matter, is of very much relevance in Turkey.

I presume that you don't know much about Islam and the relevance of the hadiths to ordinary Muslims, nor that you have any comprehension of the very obvious reasons why they have less resonance in the life of everyday Muslims in Turkey then they do in a country such as Egypt.

You the went on to talk about the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which I said had been completely discredited. To refure this idea you again quoted from sources, which, once again, seemed to agree with me:


A 1969 study by Brent Berlin (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brent_Berlin) and Paul Kay (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Kay) showed that color terminology is subject to universal semantic constraints, and the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis was seen as completely discredited.

The text then went on to say that a 'weak version' exists which suggests that:


language influences certain kinds of cognitive processes in non-trivial ways

But this is not the so-called Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which was that language determines thought. It is a reassessment and watering down of those ideas. You next quotation made the difference very clear:


So while the strong version of the Whorfian hypothesis maintains that language determines thought, the weak version asserts that language profoundly influences thought.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis was that language determines thought. It has been completely discredited. Following this people have claimed that it influences thought in certain ways in certain cases. This though is not the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, which is even accepted by people who label it a week version.

To then return to the point, you stated that:


Nor have I said that language is everything, but language does make it easier for sexism to exist, as do common sayings. Haven't you read what I typed, why did you think I more or less said "language and other factors" before?

But language is not 'common sayings' or 'other factors'. When people talk about 'anti-discrimination language', they is not what they are referring to. You can still say shockingly sexist things in Turkish, and unsurprisingly people do. The language itself though is gender neutral.

The point of the question is this; If "language profoundly influences thought" on question such as gender, one would expect that a language such as Turkish, which is really strongly non-gendered to influence people to be less sexist, and a language such as German, which is heavily gendered to profoundly influence people to be more sexist.

My contention is that having non-gendered language does not lead to less sexism, and I presented Turkey as a example of this*. Nobody has even attempted to refute this actually argument.

Somebody else then put forward a more materialist understanding to you:


Yes, oppression starts out with economics and power and ends up with language and culture. That causal arrow does not run backwards.

To which you replied:


Well that's debatable and it may in fact run backwards (or may not, but let's not debate that shall we, we should be discussing about anti discriminatory languages)

"Language plays a part in sexism, though it is disputed whether certain language causes sexism or sexism causes certain language"

Surely what you don't want to debate though is actually a crucial question. If the casual arrow does not run in that direction, it leaves you running around like a headless chicken, which I confess you do seem to be doing very successfully, laying out plans which are completely pointless.

Devrim

*I also offered Japanese as another example to which you replied:


Well, I can tell you that Japanese is not a "genderless language" see below:

" Japanese is a sexist language, differentiating between male and female vocabulary, expressions, and accents. The male language is supposed to be coarse, crude, and aggressive, while the female language is expected to be soft, polite, and submissive. Even at the level of self-identification, the male expressions for "I", boku, ore, and washi, differ from their more formal and refined female counterparts, watashi and watakushi (Oatey, 2000). Japanese is also a hierarchy-oriented language ( Yoshio, 2004). There is no doubt that hierarchical differences affect interaction between Japanese people in their every day lives.　

A friend of mine, however, who is a linguist and whose partner is Japanese (I think he can also speak it) wrote this to me:


i saw your post on the 100th thread about language being sexist. Japanese is a genderless language as a grammatical category, though certain pronouns are gendered or are considered gendered in specific contexts. Certain uses of grammatical features are associated with one gender or another, but you are still correct over all

I don't know for sure, but I suspect you have very little idea what you are talking about here either.

[PhoenixAsh]

I have said this...and I am going to say it again.

Language consists of words but is not limited to just words (if it at all uses words). Language is the whole of communication....so besides the morphemes, syntaxis, tone and pitch...it relies on social learning for it to get meaning and for it to be able to convey meaning.

So a language can be gender neutral in the sense that it doesn't make a distinction between male and female. Which is by and large true of Turkish...but not entirely because in Turkish it is common to indicate whether or not a word means a woman or a man....and this happens more often for women than for men.

Now...this is relevant to sexism in language...but it does not mean a language can not be sexist even if it is "gender neutral". Since language conveys meaning not only the words themselves matter...but what words are chosen, what words are not chosen, what connotation words have, and even how they are spoken matters.

To argue that since the Turkish language has no distinction between male and female words and all words are neutral and therefore is a non sexist language is extremely shortsighted because it leaves out an entire spectrum of language.

In Turkish the standard lexicon has 1300 commonly used words which are either linked to males or females from which rigid verbal stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are created. As it turns out men are often associated with words that tend to focus on social status and women often with words that focus on appearance. So to clarify...these are words exclusively used for the one or the other gender. The same goes for professional associated words. In which there are twice as much negative descriptors with a female connotation than a male one. When it comes to sexuality related terms...almost all words in the standard lexicon to describe women have negative connotations in comparison to 50% for men.

So no..Turkish is not a gender neutral language. It simply has no words that naturally indicate male or female. These are either constructed or through association. So eventhough Turkish seems gender neutral it is far from equal.

<god my English is awful in this post. :( >

[blake 3:17]

@phoenix -- language without words?

[Sea]

Post hoc ?Yes. Please do not engage in such shenanigans.
Why don't you list the advanced stuff you've mentioned?That would be cheating.

[PhoenixAsh]

@phoenix -- language without words?

Non verbal communication...or more popularly known as body language.

[Luís Henrique]

Language consists of words but is not limited to just words (if it at all uses words). Language is the whole of communication....so besides the morphemes, syntaxis, tone and pitch...it relies on social learning for it to get meaning and for it to be able to convey meaning.

Well, no. Language is not the whole of communication, it is verbal communication. Besides, when we say that "the Turkish language is genderless", we mean a specific grammatical characteristic of the Turkish language: its nouns have no gender, and its adjectives and verbs do not inflect according to the gender of nouns.


So a language can be gender neutral in the sense that it doesn't make a distinction between male and female. Which is by and large true of Turkish...but not entirely because in Turkish it is common to indicate whether or not a word means a woman or a man....and this happens more often for women than for men.

Of course, the Turkish society is quite sexist (a trait it shares with most other societies, including those in the First World, btw), and this is reflected in language. For instance, it may well be that there are words that women are not supposed to say. To give an example in Portuguese, a language about which I know much more than about Turkish, a few decades ago women were not supposed to use the word "merda" (=shit). And in fact men were supposed to not use it when in the presence of women. But this is an extra-linguistic fact; when a woman said "merda", no grammatical rules were broken, only etiquette ones.


Now...this is relevant to sexism in language...but it does not mean a language can not be sexist even if it is "gender neutral".

Language is not sexist or anti-sexist; it can express either set of opinions. Whether the speakers of a given language do express sexist or anti-sexist opinions, it is a different subject; but in no way language - any given language - is an actual obstacle to doing it. This is the reason that we can't invent an "anti-sexist language": if a person does want to express sexist ideas in it, the she will be perfectly able to do it.


Since language conveys meaning not only the words themselves matter...but what words are chosen, what words are not chosen, what connotation words have, and even how they are spoken matters.

But "language" does not dictate what words are or are not chosen, nor how the speakers use words to imply connotations, nor the way they are spoken. A radical feminist (as in, both radical and feminist, not as in "radfem", which is neither) discourse is as possible in Japanese or Turkish as it is in German or French, or in English for what it matters.


To argue that since the Turkish language has no distinction between male and female words and all words are neutral and therefore is a non sexist language is extremely shortsighted because it leaves out an entire spectrum of language.

It is not a sexist language, because no language is sexist, not because it is genderless. On the contrary, the argument is exactly this: removing from English its vestiges of gender won't make it a non-sexist language, nor it will help making English-speaking societies less sexist.


In Turkish the standard lexicon has 1300 commonly used words which are either linked to males or females from which rigid verbal stereotypes of masculinity and femininity are created.

It would interesting to see how this is even possible.


As it turns out men are often associated with words that tend to focus on social status and women often with words that focus on appearance. So to clarify...these are words exclusively used for the one or the other gender.

Er... they are "more often associated" with that words, or are these words used "exclusively" for one or the other gender?

It doesn't work like that, even in overtly gendered languages such as Portuguese. In which it is perfectly possible to even call a man "woman" or a woman "man". Etiquette rules restrict the circumstances in which that is appropriate, of course, but if one decides to be purposefully inappropriate, language and its grammar are going to be no obstacle at all.


The same goes for professional associated words. In which there are twice as much negative descriptors with a female connotation than a male one. When it comes to sexuality related terms...almost all words in the standard lexicon to describe women have negative connotations in comparison to 50% for men.

Here I start to see what you mean - but you are still wrong. To go back to English, "slut" is a word usually used to refer to women. But this is not because the language associates it with women; it is because English-speaking societies are sexist societies, in which women who sleep with many men (or that behave in a way that for some reason makes other people think that they do) are considered "bad people", while men who sleep with many women are considered normal, or even commendable people. Invert the social rules for each biological sex, and "slut" will be mainly used to refer to men, without the grammar of the language changing a iota.


So no..Turkish is not a gender neutral language.

You are conflating two very different uses of the word "gender". Traditionally, this is a word that refers to a grammatical feature of words, which is commonly associated, in a semantic sense, to biological sex (but not always: there is nothing feminine in a table, or masculine in a car, albeit the Portuguese words for these things belonging to these respective genders). Modernly, it has been used as an awkward way to say "sexual roles" or "sexual sterotypes". Of course, Turkish is "gender neutral" in the sense that it has no grammatical gender at all. It is also "gender neutral" in the sense that any male supremacist shpeal can be articulated in it, as well as any radically anti-sexist discourse. You can translate Rush Limbaugh into Turkish. But you can also translate Betty Friedan or Valerie Solanas or Roswitha Scholz with the same ease.


It simply has no words that naturally indicate male or female. These are either constructed or through association. So eventhough Turkish seems gender neutral it is far from equal.

Which only proves that a completely genderless language can be used to express sexist ideas just like French or Arabic. Not that Turkish is a sexist language in and of itself.

Luís Henrique

[PhoenixAsh]

snip

I indeed did not express myself clearly in the post you quote so your comments are very valid. My knowledge of the English language is extensive but I often have problems finding the right way to translate what I want to say in Dutch...especially when I am tired :D So my apologies for the miscommunication.
But...it does underline my point a bit.

What I meant to say is that language is more than just words and grammar and that there is a whole set of rules and principles that guide language and give it its meaning.

You are not correct that language is only spoken. We have sign language, written language, sound language, binary (programmed) language. But I accept that for the purpose of this thread we are focusing on all forms of meaningful common use human language composed of comprehensible words or symbols.

I completely agree that language is completely constructed and rooted in culture and society. We are not in disagreement here. And I am in agreement that all languages depend hugely on intent. However...social structures influence language, give it meaning and in turn language reinforces the social structures.

But here is where it gets interesting.

We know for a fact social structures influence language. So if you change the social structures of society then language will change and eventually reinforce the new structures. In that sense sexist intent will create sexist language.

We also know that language influences behaviour and attitudes. But we have not yet fully researched the reverse influence of language on society. So if we change language...does this affect changes in social structures.

That is a hugely complex question....with conflicting research that discredits this or substantiates it.

Here is why:

In gendered languages the predominant tendency is to use the male indicatives as both revering to a man or to a generalized group (I am sorry I don't know how to say this in English.... but I mean the difference between:
He walks to school. and If the student wants to go to school, he...
Here is what research indicates happens: Men and women will imagine a man in both these cases. When we change the second one to a gender neutral option...this has NO change in what men imagine. But women will tend to imagine a woman. Which means that neutralizing gender will create a more women friendly perception which enforces the identity of women.

There is also study done into how male and female words are perceived. Spanish and German have words which are male in one language and female in the other and vice versa. Here is where it gets interesting. In both languages...the MALE variety was perceived as being stronger...clearer...more positive than the female variety (I believe the examples mentioned were: fork and spoon).

In non-gendered languages...such as Finish & Turkish...children are one year later in correctly assigning gender to themselves than in gendered languages.

In languages where there is no distinction between the color orange and yellow...the speakers of this language are not very good in distinguishing between the two. When a word is introduced to designated both colours....they suddenly become way better in distinguishing between these colours. If you prohibit the use of a word...people who previously had no problem distinguishing between colours will get worse at it.

This is extremely fascinating...and seems to indicate that language can in fact change social constructs. To what extend remains to be seen.

And yes...I do agree with you that even when we create an entire different language...sexist and divisive concept can be introduced through intent.











snip

I indeed did not express myself clearly in the post you quote so your comments are very valid. My knowledge of the English language is extensive but I often have problems finding the right way to translate what I want to say in Dutch...especially when I am tired :D So my apologies for the miscommunication.
But...it does underline my point a bit.

What I meant to say is that language is more than just words and grammar and that there is a whole set of rules and principles that guide language and give it its meaning.

You are not correct that language is only spoken. We have sign language, written language, sound language, binary (programmed) language. But I accept that for the purpose of this thread we are focusing on all forms of meaningful common use human language composed of comprehensible words or symbols.

I completely agree that language is completely constructed and rooted in culture and society. We are not in disagreement here. And I am in agreement that all languages depend hugely on intent. However...social structures influence language, give it meaning and in turn language reinforces the social structures.

But here is where it gets interesting.

We know for a fact social structures influence language. So if you change the social structures of society then language will change and eventually reinforce the new structures. In that sense sexist intent will create sexist language.

We also know that language influences behaviour and attitudes. But we have not yet fully researched the reverse influence of language on society. So if we change language...does this affect changes in social structures.

That is a hugely complex question....with conflicting research that discredits this or substantiates it.

Here is why:

In gendered languages the predominant tendency is to use the male indicatives as both revering to a man or to a generalized group (I am sorry I don't know how to say this in English.... but I mean the difference between:
He walks to school. and If the student wants to go to school, he...
Here is what research indicates happens: Men and women will imagine a man in both these cases. When we change the second one to a gender neutral option...this has NO change in what men imagine. But women will tend to imagine a woman. Which means that neutralizing gender will create a more women friendly perception which enforces the identity of women.

There is also study done into how male and female words are perceived. Spanish and German have words which are male in one language and female in the other and vice versa. Here is where it gets interesting. In both languages...the MALE variety was perceived as being stronger...clearer...more positive than the female variety (I believe the examples mentioned were: fork and spoon).

In non-gendered languages...such as Finish & Turkish...children are one year later in correctly assigning gender to themselves than in gendered languages.

In languages where there is no distinction between the color orange and yellow...the speakers of this language are not very good in distinguishing between the two. When a word is introduced to designated both colours....they suddenly become way better in distinguishing between these colours. If you prohibit the use of a word...people who previously had no problem distinguishing between colours will get worse at it.

This is extremely fascinating...and seems to indicate that language can in fact change social constructs. To what extend remains to be seen.

And yes...I do agree with you that even when we create an entire different language...sexist and divisive concept can be introduced through intent.











snip

I indeed did not express myself clearly in the post you quote so your comments are very valid. My knowledge of the English language is extensive but I often have problems finding the right way to translate what I want to say in Dutch...especially when I am tired :D So my apologies for the miscommunication.
But...it does underline my point a bit.

What I meant to say is that language is more than just words and grammar and that there is a whole set of rules and principles that guide language and give it its meaning.

You are not correct that language is only spoken. We have sign language, written language, sound language, binary (programmed) language. But I accept that for the purpose of this thread we are focusing on all forms of meaningful common use human language composed of comprehensible words or symbols.

I completely agree that language is completely constructed and rooted in culture and society. We are not in disagreement here. And I am in agreement that all languages depend hugely on intent. However...social structures influence language, give it meaning and in turn language reinforces the social structures.

But here is where it gets interesting.

We know for a fact social structures influence language. So if you change the social structures of society then language will change and eventually reinforce the new structures. In that sense sexist intent will create sexist language.

We also know that language influences behaviour and attitudes. But we have not yet fully researched the reverse influence of language on society. So if we change language...does this affect changes in social structures.

That is a hugely complex question....with conflicting research that discredits this or substantiates it.

Here is why:

In gendered languages the predominant tendency is to use the male indicatives as both revering to a man or to a generalized group (I am sorry I don't know how to say this in English.... but I mean the difference between:
He walks to school. and If the student wants to go to school, he...
Here is what research indicates happens: Men and women will imagine a man in both these cases. When we change the second one to a gender neutral option...this has NO change in what men imagine. But women will tend to imagine a woman. Which means that neutralizing gender will create a more women friendly perception which enforces the identity of women.

There is also study done into how male and female words are perceived. Spanish and German have words which are male in one language and female in the other and vice versa. Here is where it gets interesting. In both languages...the MALE variety was perceived as being stronger...clearer...more positive than the female variety (I believe the examples mentioned were: fork and spoon).

In non-gendered languages...such as Finish & Turkish...children are one year later in correctly assigning gender to themselves than in gendered languages.

In languages where there is no distinction between the color orange and yellow...the speakers of this language are not very good in distinguishing between the two. When a word is introduced to designated both colours....they suddenly become way better in distinguishing between these colours. If you prohibit the use of a word...people who previously had no problem distinguishing between colours will get worse at it.

This is extremely fascinating...and seems to indicate that language can in fact change social constructs. To what extend remains to be seen.

And yes...I do agree with you that even when we create an entire different language...sexist and divisive concept can be introduced through intent.











snip

I indeed did not express myself clearly in the post you quote so your comments are very valid. My knowledge of the English language is extensive but I often have problems finding the right way to translate what I want to say in Dutch...especially when I am tired :D So my apologies for the miscommunication.
But...it does underline my point a bit.

What I meant to say is that language is more than just words and grammar and that there is a whole set of rules and principles that guide language and give it its meaning.

You are not correct that language is only spoken. We have sign language, written language, sound language, binary (programmed) language. But I accept that for the purpose of this thread we are focusing on all forms of meaningful common use human language composed of comprehensible words or symbols.

I completely agree that language is completely constructed and rooted in culture and society. We are not in disagreement here. And I am in agreement that all languages depend hugely on intent. However...social structures influence language, give it meaning and in turn language reinforces the social structures.

But here is where it gets interesting.

We know for a fact social structures influence language. So if you change the social structures of society then language will change and eventually reinforce the new structures. In that sense sexist intent will create sexist language.

We also know that language influences behaviour and attitudes. But we have not yet fully researched the reverse influence of language on society. So if we change language...does this affect changes in social structures.

That is a hugely complex question....with conflicting research that discredits this or substantiates it.

Here is why:

In gendered languages the predominant tendency is to use the male indicatives as both revering to a man or to a generalized group (I am sorry I don't know how to say this in English.... but I mean the difference between:
He walks to school. and If the student wants to go to school, he...
Here is what research indicates happens: Men and women will imagine a man in both these cases. When we change the second one to a gender neutral option...this has NO change in what men imagine. But women will tend to imagine a woman. Which means that neutralizing gender will create a more women friendly perception which enforces the identity of women.

There is also study done into how male and female words are perceived. Spanish and German have words which are male in one language and female in the other and vice versa. Here is where it gets interesting. In both languages...the MALE variety was perceived as being stronger...clearer...more positive than the female variety (I believe the examples mentioned were: fork and spoon).

In non-gendered languages...such as Finish & Turkish...children are one year later in correctly assigning gender to themselves than in gendered languages.

In languages where there is no distinction between the color orange and yellow...the speakers of this language are not very good in distinguishing between the two. When a word is introduced to designated both colours....they suddenly become way better in distinguishing between these colours. If you prohibit the use of a word...people who previously had no problem distinguishing between colours will get worse at it.

This is extremely fascinating...and seems to indicate that language can in fact change social constructs. To what extend remains to be seen.

And yes...I do agree with you that even when we create an entire different language...sexist and divisive concept can be introduced through intent.

[Luís Henrique]

What I meant to say is that language is more than just words and grammar and that there is a whole set of rules and principles that guide language and give it its meaning.

You are not correct that language is only spoken. We have sign language, written language, sound language, binary (programmed) language. But I accept that for the purpose of this thread we are focusing on all forms of meaningful common use human language composed of comprehensible words or symbols.

"Verbal communication" is not equal to "spoken communication"; it includes written communication also.

When we say "the English language" or the "Turkish language", we certainly don't mean anything non-verbal. And there is a misunderstanding or confusion about "sign language", too. Libras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brazilian_Sign_Language) is a sign language; the many gestures Brazilians make when verbally communicating, or even the isolated gestures they make to convey meaning, are not, for they have no grammar, no syntax.


However...social structures influence language, give it meaning and in turn language reinforces the social structures.

This may well be true, but it is still to be proven. I fear there is again a confusion between "language" as a structure, and "language" as a set of linguistic habits (or, again betwen "language" as in "the Turkish language" and "language" as in "John's language").


We know for a fact social structures influence language. So if you change the social structures of society then language will change and eventually reinforce the new structures. In that sense sexist intent will create sexist language.

Well, I don't think so. Sexism remains on intent. Of course, linguistic habits (such as referring to non-monogamic women as "whores", or - to quote a favourite one in revleft - to adult women as "girls") may stem directly from this. But this is "language" as in "John's language", not as in "English language". True, grammatical rules of any language can be interpreted through the lenses of sexism. One might think, for instance, that the use of the masculine plural form in Portuguese in instances where we are talking about both masculine and feminine subjects is due to masculinity being dominant over feminility. But I doubt such interpretation has any linguistic merit. If Portuguese speakers lived in a matriarcal society, they could for instance interpret this fact as being a consequence of feminility being "pure", as oposed to masculinity. We could even think of the feminine grammatical gender as the "pure gender", and of the masculine gender as "mixed gender". If we look at the history of Portuguese genders, we see that in the transition from lower Latin to Iberic romance, the masculine and the neutral genders collided and fused (as if "men where things", if we were going to apply sexual fantasies to linguistic facts). This is what actually explains the use of masculine plurals to collections of objects represented by both masculine and feminine words: Portuguese "masculine" includes what was neutral in Latin.


We also know that language influences behaviour and attitudes. But we have not yet fully researched the reverse influence of language on society. So if we change language...does this affect changes in social structures.

I have given elsewhere an actual example that undermines this point. In English, female actors ressent the word "actress", and demand being called "actors". They feel that the use of a feminine form sounds like if they were not actual actors, but somehow a kind of second class actors. The same goes for the word "poetess". In Portuguese, while our female poets (at least the good ones) also reject the ridiculous feminine form "poetisa", the inverse happens, too: our President demands being called the unambiguously feminine "Presidenta" instead of the more usual, and gender ambiguous "Presidente". So which way is sexist, and which is non-sexist, the use of distinct and unambiguous feminine and masculine forms, as our Presidenta seems to think, or the use of neutral or ambiguous forms, as Portuguese speaking female poets, or English speaking female actors say?

Is it possible that calling our President "presidenta" will have differenct effects on society than calling her "presidente"? Or that calling Meryl Streep an "actor" instead of an "actress" will change the United States, or Britain, or Australian, in the direction of being less sexist societies? Or more sexist societies, as our Presidenta (and hordes of her supporters, both male and female) apparently believe?

I doubt it very much.


In gendered languages the predominant tendency is to use the male indicatives as both revering to a man or to a generalized group (I am sorry I don't know how to say this in English.... but I mean the difference between:
He walks to school. and If the student wants to go to school, he...

This is only partially true. And to the extent it is, I doubt it is a linguistic phenomenon. If I say, in Portuguese, "alguém quer ir ao cabeleireiro?" ("does someone want to go to the hairdresser?") I am pretty sure that most people won't interpret this "alguém"-"someone" as meaning men. Women go to hairdressers, not men. And probably most listeners will figure the "cabeleireiro"-"hairdresser" as a woman or a gay man. Straight men are not hairdressers (albeit, evidently, the fact that a lot of them are, in spite of the stereotype). All those things are pretty much extra-linguistic.


Here is what research indicates happens: Men and women will imagine a man in both these cases. When we change the second one to a gender neutral option...this has NO change in what men imagine. But women will tend to imagine a woman. Which means that neutralizing gender will create a more women friendly perception which enforces the identity of women.

Well, there is no way that we can do such a thing in Portuguese, that has no neutral gender. Conversely, there is no way to do such thing in Finnish or Hungarian or Turkish, because all things are already neutral (which should create a more women friendly perception which should in turn enforce [reinforce?] the identity of women. Which it doesn't, as we perfectly know that Turkish or Finnish women don't have stronger identities than Brazilian or American or German ones).


There is also study done into how male and female words are perceived. Spanish and German have words which are male in one language and female in the other and vice versa. Here is where it gets interesting. In both languages...the MALE variety was perceived as being stronger...clearer...more positive than the female variety (I believe the examples mentioned were: fork and spoon).

Whic evidently is an extra-linguistic phenomenon. Indeed, neither German nor Spanish languages have grammatical features for strenght, or clarity, or positiveness, much less associate that with gender. It is the social fact that Spanish-speaking women and German-speaking women have been, for centuries, perceived as weaker, and negative, and confuse, that creates such association.

Now this has mostly to do with words that represent inanimated objects. May be Spanish speakers think of bridges as martial, powerful, precise, positive things, while Portuguese speakers think of bridges as ladylike, weak, befuddled little things dressed in pink. But I am pretty sure that Portuguese speakers do not think of penises as ladylike things just because they can be refered to by feminine ("pica", "piroca", "rola", "benga") words, or of vaginas as powerful or martial just because they can be referred to by masculine words like "xibiu".

And I am pretty certain we don't think all human beings are female, just because our word for "person" ("pessoa") is unvariably feminine (yes - while, being a male, I would have to say "eu sou simpático" (I am sympathetic), if I decide to refer to myself as a person, I would have to use the appropriate feminine articles and adjectives...: "eu sou uma pessoa simpática" (I am a sympathetic person). Which wouldn't make anyone doubt my masculinity. And which doesn't make Portuguese the language of people particularly immune to sexism, homophobia our transphobia either.


In non-gendered languages...such as Finish & Turkish...children are one year later in correctly assigning gender to themselves than in gendered languages.

Well, compared to whom?

Because while English does have vestigial gender, it is nothing like Portuguese or German, where gender is omnipresent, all substantives being gendered. Do Portuguese- and German-speaking children assign themselves the "correct" gender earlier than English-speaking children? And if children learn those things later, is this reflected in a higher number of adults being unable to do it? In other words, is there any indication that Turkish speakers are more prone to transexuality than German speakers? I certainly don't believe it.


In languages where there is no distinction between the color orange and yellow...the speakers of this language are not very good in distinguishing between the two.

This is quite certainly false. For all I have been reading about the subject, speakers of languages that do not have different words, for instance, for "grey" and "blue" won't mistake one colour for the other; they will just just consider each a different shade of the same colour. Just like Portuguese or English speakers can distinguish "sky blue" from "navy blue" as much as we can distinguish "pink" from "red". Whether we need one or two words to make the distinction seems to be actually immaterial.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

... but perhaps Whorf was correct, and all that confusion results from an ignorant language that doesn't make the obvious distinction between língua and linguagem...

[/sarcasm]

Luís Henrique