What's in a word?

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I was going to post this in the Feminist group but thought I'd throw it out in the general forum.

I'm interested in opinions on the use of words 'womon, womyn, womin' amongst feminist or leftist circles.

I can see the arguments for the use of the word:


Symbolically showing that women are not a subsidiary of men.
An issue of self identification - womyn have chosen to call themselves such, rather than accept a word which patriarchal society has named them. An emancipatory or empowering role I suppose.
It has an active role in raising sexism in day-to-day speech (or writing :P)

Arguments against:


Political correctness gone too far? Some argue that the word in and of itself is not sexist or implies sexist connotations.
Does nothing to actually combat the causes and issues of sexism. Rather, attempts to change the name of the thing (a peculiar American thing, in my opinion)
Etymologically correct?

Personally, I don't really have a 'problem' with the usage of the words. I do have a problem with male leftists mockingly saying 'You spelt woman wrong' and becoming defensive (or aggressive) about it.

Thoughts?

[apathy maybe]

Personally, I don't really have a 'problem' with the usage of the words. I do have a problem with male leftists mockingly saying 'You spelt woman wrong' and becoming defensive (or aggressive) about it.
This.
Well actually, I do feel slightly queasy sometimes when I see "womyn", but only sometimes. And it happens less and less as time goes on. The reason is the same reason I sometimes feel slightly queasy when I see "their" and "there" misused. People should be able to use English correctly, especially if they are native speakers. But in this case, it is deliberate, not ignorance. So yeah.

Anyway, those who argue that it is "political correctness gone too far", generally don't know what the fuck they are talking about. And yes, it doesn't do anything in particular to address the causes and issues of sexism. But only ignorant fuckers get upset and defensive about the word. They don't want to think about sexism.

[Jazzratt]

I must admit I feel the use of an alternate spelling of woman (or person, or human or whatever) looks silly and is likely to cause those who are sceptical of or new to feminist ideas to be put off (especially as it's associated (like or not) with the 'massive toughwoman feminist who will wants to cut off men's balls' strawman). Maybe that's because I'm one of those infamously arrogant, holier-than-thou male feminists, I really don't know.

I will say that you should add to the "cons" that the etymological assumptions it's made on are incredibly dodgy and that can make someone seem less intelligent in some circles.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I generally don't see the point in it, just like I generally don't see the point in changing the spelling of "America" to "AmeriKKKa". Or (the lamest, in my opinion) changing the spelling of "history" to "herstory".

But people can change the spelling of any word they like to make a political statement. I don't really care, one way or another.

[mykittyhasaboner]

interesting post, IMO its not important whatsoever how you spell a word. If feminists find 'woman' or 'women' to be sexist, then they can use womyn or whatever they want. If i want to spell 'their', as 'there' when referring to someones possesion, then who cares? as long as the spelling of the word, enables the reader to understand what word is being said, then it shouldnt matter.

[Kami]

I will say that you should add to the "cons" that the etymological assumptions it's made on are incredibly dodgy and that can make someone seem less intelligent in some circles.I admit, this is my biggest problem with the word; I can't help but feel that if one really looked into it, you'd more likely have a problem with men exclusively referring to males than the word women being used.

[Jazzratt]

Or (the lamest, in my opinion) changing the spelling of "history" to "herstory".

I've actually done that one :blushing:

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The etymological (sp?) roots of the word woman simply mean "female human being", from back in the time when the word man was gender neutral and man and woman were werman and wifman respectively.

There's absolutely no reason to change the spelling of the word, anymore than there is reason to change the spelling of the word spade.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

Yes, back in the time when 'man' was gender neutral.

The meaning of the word 'man' today means a male; we cannot use that word as a gender neutral term regardless of it etymological background.

I think that some languages (Turkish?) continues to employ such non-gendered terms.

Of course, that is not to say that Turkey is not a sexist society. But that does not refute the arguments for using the words, nonetheless.

[razboz]

The etymological (sp?) roots of the word woman simply mean "female human being", from back in the time when the word man was gender neutral and man and woman were werman and wifman respectively.

There's absolutely no reason to change the spelling of the word, anymore than there is reason to change the spelling of the word spade.

this sounds very reasonable to me. words hold a lot of power in the minds of humans. they're what we use to communicate with one another and language is one of the few things that can objectively bind people together to form an identity. once poeple begin to redefine words to fit their particular idea of what words should look like and mean, then they begin to separate themselves as a group from society. This might or might not be the intention of the counterculture kids when they write amerika, but i dont think this is the intention of feminists. Feminists do not (on the whole) want to break away from society and form their own commuinities, they want to change the society they already live in through (amongst other thing) changing the way we speak about women (or womyn, whatever). as such i think changing the way it's spelt simply alienates people and breaks the language continuity that holds communities together.

[Jazzratt]

The meaning of the word 'man' today means a male; we cannot use that word as a gender neutral term regardless of it etymological background.

I always thought that the entire objection to the word "woman" was etymology?


I think that some languages (Turkish?) continues to employ such non-gendered terms.

Of course, that is not to say that Turkey is not a sexist society. But that does not refute the arguments for using the words, nonetheless.

I don't see how that follows, if the aim of the change in language is to help facilitate a change to more progressive attitudes and it has been shown that even in places where the language works in the desired way the attitudes are no different then surely it shows that language has a minor to non-existent effect on sexism.

[Demogorgon]

I think people can get much too hung up on the exact meaning of certain words. It is true that the word woman does not have sexist origins, but even if it did, it would not matter now as the word is obviously not sexist now. The offence or otherwise of any given word comes from its context and the way it is used. Language constantly evolves, what was once a sexist, racist or homophobic word may no longer be so and what was once an unacceptable word can become offensive. And of course it can have different levels of offence in different places. The word **** for instance is extremely sexist in America, but here it is merely profanity and is not considered sexist in general, only in certain circumstances.

In short, the misspelling of the word woman will not achieve anything because the word is not one of oppression.

[professorchaos]

Ridiculous, pretentious, and unnecessary.

[Jazzratt]

I think people can get much too hung up on the exact meaning of certain words. It is true that the word woman does not have sexist origins, but even if it did, it would not matter now as the word is obviously not sexist now. The offence or otherwise of any given word comes from its context and the way it is used. Language constantly evolves, what was once a sexist, racist or homophobic word may no longer be so and what was once an unacceptable word can become offensive. And of course it can have different levels of offence in different places. The word **** for instance is extremely sexist in America, but here it is merely profanity and is not considered sexist in general, only in certain circumstances.

In short, the misspelling of the word woman will not achieve anything because the word is not one of oppression.

That's a fairly good post (did I really say that?! To you?!) but I have a slight issue with calling it a "misspelling", yes it's a silly spelling but I think it's perfectly legitimate for people to use their own politicised spellings, even if that doesn't do anything useful and possibly makes them look pretentious and/or nuts.

[ManyAntsDefeatSpiders]

I always thought that the entire objection to the word "woman" was etymology?

Well etymology is something different isn't it?

It has more to do with the original meaning/history of the word.

I think the objection to the word, is that it includes the term 'man' in it, and hence (symbolically or otherwise) suggests the idea that women are subsidiary or 'abnormal' from men.


I don't see how that follows, if the aim of the change in language is to help facilitate a change to more progressive attitudes and it has been shown that even in places where the language works in the desired way the attitudes are no different then surely it shows that language has a minor to non-existent effect on sexism.

No, there is a distinct difference.

The terms in Turkish (I am not even sure what they are exactly, perhaps Devrim will expand) are non-gendered.

The term we are discussing have the specific intent at raising the objections I have outlined above.

So, the first category the use of the word is incidental, the second category it is quite planned to counter patriarchy.

Sorry if I could not put it more clearer.

***

What of the term 'girl?'

Now, I think that word is far more offensive to women when applied in the wrong context (i.e. you are not actually a pre-pubescent female).

But I understand that its sometimes used in a 'sisterly' manner in America to express solidarity 'You go girl!' etc.

[Jazzratt]

Well etymology is something different isn't it?

It has more to do with the original meaning/history of the word.

I think the objection to the word, is that it includes the term 'man' in it, and hence (symbolically or otherwise) suggests the idea that women are subsidiary or 'abnormal' from men.

Ah right, I see. It makes slightly more sense when put like that but I still don't see a need for it.



No, there is a distinct difference.

The terms in Turkish (I am not even sure what they are exactly, perhaps Devrim will expand) are non-gendered.

The term we are discussing have the specific intent at raising the objections I have outlined above.

So, the first category the use of the word is incidental, the second category it is quite planned to counter patriarchy.

Sorry if I could not put it more clearer.No that's quite clear enough. There is little we can look at empirically to validate or invalidate the claims made about alternate spellings of "woman" but it has thus far seemed not to have achieved much. I would venture that this is because for the most part (although not always) the idea that words, especially the everyday, have that kind of power over people is idealist, there are of course a number of exceptions (a lot of uses of "*****", "pussy", "girl" and the like can certainly be seen as [EDIT: Should be ARE] sexist).


What of the term 'girl?'

Now, I think that word is far more offensive to women when applied in the wrong context (i.e. you are not actually a pre-pubescent female).
My guess is that it's offensive so I tend to use "woman" to refer to any female human being that isn't a girl.


But I understand that its sometimes used in a 'sisterly' manner in America to express solidarity 'You go girl!' etc.Well, that just shows how differing contexts lend differing meanings to words - I imagine that if I were to refer to you as a "girl" (presuming you are female as your profile indicates, and I have no good reason not to) you would be, rightly, offended but you wouldn't (perhaps) be so offended by the American 'sisterly' use?

[apathy maybe]

Now, I think that word is far more offensive to women when applied in the wrong context (i.e. you are not actually a pre-pubescent female).

But I understand that its sometimes used in a 'sisterly' manner in America to express solidarity 'You go girl!' etc.
There have actually been a few discussions about this (but not in threads dedicated to that purpose).

In my opinion, "girl" applied to a women, is offensive. As is "boy" applied to a man. And where I see/hear a male talk about "girls" when referring to adult women I invariably (now anyway, I never used to), refer to them as a boy.

Why should anyone get upset by being called "girl" or "boy"? It is the implied immaturity and 'helplessness'. Among other things.

[BobKKKindle$]

Using an alternative spelling of "women" can be useful as it draws attention to the prevalence of sexist assumptions in our use of language - for example, the tendency to automatically use "he" when the gender of a person is unclear instead of using a neutral pronoun such as they, or the use of the term "mankind" to refer to the human species.

[Module]

Using an alternative spelling of "women" can be useful as it draws attention to the prevalence of sexist assumptions in our use of language - for example, the tendency to automatically use "he" when the gender of a person is unclear instead of using a neutral pronoun such as they, or the use of the term "mankind" to refer to the human species.
I agree with this to an extent, although I definitely think it depends on who you're talking to.
Some people will make that connection, I imagine those who are conscious of... patriarchal social attitudes, or at least those who care to admit it, and so on while others with whom this sort of consideration is completely alien would just see you as being pretentious, or extreme.


I was going to post this in the Feminist group but thought I'd throw it out in the general forum.But it's so empty! :(:p

[Kami]

or the use of the term "mankind" to refer to the human species.
You've just ignored what was said about "Man" being etymilogically gender-neutral, haven't you? Reading the above posts I can understand the symbollic value (although
I believe, still, the objections should go towards "man" for male, if anywhere), but attacking "Man" in reference to both just seems like you haven't done your research.

[Module]

You've just ignored what was said about "Man" being etymilogically gender-neutral, haven't you? Reading the above posts I can understand the symbollic value (although
I believe, still, the objections should go towards "man" for male, if anywhere), but attacking "Man" in reference to both just seems like you haven't done your research.
Well I don't see how the 'etymology' of the word man is relevant considering what it does mean nowadays.

[Kami]

Well I don't see how the 'etymology' of the word man is relevant considering what it does mean nowadays.In that case, what's the problem? Woman means female and Mankind means everyone. If we're just looking at meanings today, that is.

Edit; Similarly, Man in reference to male and Man in reference to humankind are two distinct words that simply happen to be spelt the same

[Module]

In that case, what's the problem? Woman means female and Mankind means everyone. If we're just looking at meanings today, that is.

Edit; Similarly, Man in reference to male and Man in reference to humankind are two distinct words that simply happen to be spelt the same
The problems with 'woman' would be for reasons mentioned;

I think the objection to the word, is that it includes the term 'man' in it, and hence (symbolically or otherwise) suggests the idea that women are subsidiary or 'abnormal' from men.
The problems for 'mankind' is the same, because man means male, and 'mankind' therefore seems to refer to either just men, or human beings including women as, as mentioned, 'subsidiary'.

[Awful Reality]

I don't think the word "woman" has sexist implications. "Man" comes from the Proto-Germanic root "Mannaz," which means Human. Women are a subdivision of humans. So in that regard 1) It is etymologically incorrect and 2) I don't think it's sexist.

And assuming (although I have proven it wrong) that "Woman" came from "Man" in a gender-specific sense, I don't think it's sexist. Words develop over time from their original meanings. And what a word meant when it was first spoken has nothing to do with its connotations or denotations now. I don't think any serious person would contend that women are a subdivision of men in this day and age.