Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...........I think it's interesting how the prejudices of our ancestors are reflected in modern language...my personal favorite example from Russian is that the word for German person comes from the word for "mute" (as they don't speak a civilized language, obviously).
Now, you have to admit German is a weird language. Don't get me started. But, it might be helpful to the Germans to understand how the Russians viewed them. And then forgive and forget.
One thing I did learn from Rush, is that words matter. And maybe we need to start being more careful about words. Trying to communicate instead blame.
I was talking to my mother years ago about a Christian Catholic friend. Her comment was " they are not Christian, but Catholic".
Ok, so the Catholics made a real bad decision in 1054. Yes, a lot of beliefs are rather strange compared to the "original and true Christian Church". But they have apologized for the role and mistake in 1054.
In a few years, they will probably be welcomed back into the Christian brotherhood. I think those GERMANS and their Protestant beliefs might take a bit longer.
I have watched the changing of names on maps, etc. The Bureau of Land Management in Oregon actually changed the name of a meadow from ***** House Meadow to Naughty Girl Meadow!! Really, the original name was descriptive, the new name is meaningless. And in the end rather demeaning to woman..."naughty girl"??
Words are part of our history and for humans it was a very brutal history.
It is a fine line, between understanding our past and erasing it by changing the words.
Originally Posted by Rachel NewYork;62461255
[FONT="
I don't understand why any request for addressing others the way they wish to be addressed has to immediately trigger imaginings of the apocalyptic end of the world. As for the word "woke" -- I think it's used way too often as a scare-word by those who get easily upset by new words and concepts. For such people, I suggest that they simply substitute the word "woke" (meaning "alert to injustice in society") with a familiar phrase that was taught to many of us in years past by our parents: "Treat others the way that you would want to be treated." [/font]
Maybe its because I was married to someone who refused to call me by the nickname that everyone else in my life always called me by, instead always using my proper name even when I repeatedly asked him to stop, but I call people what they want to be called. What some people derogatorily refer to as "woke," I call "being respectful of people's wishes about how you refer to them."
I don't understand why any request for addressing others the way they wish to be addressed has to immediately trigger imaginings of the apocalyptic end of the world. [/font]
When you address someone, you say "you". That's not what the pronoun thing is about. It's about dictating what you say when the pronoun person is not around, and that is unreasonable and abusive.
Language is useful only insofar as it enables people to communicate with others. If a person cannot, owing to education, dialect, age difference, that can be excused. But if a person refuses to out of an exaggerated sense if his own cultural currency and admonishes others with accusations of "hate speech", that is malice.
When you address someone, you say "you". That's not what the pronoun thing is about. It's about dictating what you say when the pronoun person is not around, and that is unreasonable and abusive.
I will admit that any newly created pronouns will have their moments of awkwardness in applied use. But for me, personally, I would prefer that kind of awkwardness over the awkwardness that results from ignorance as to how to speak to or about someone in accordance with that individual's gender (or unspecified gender) preference.
I understand a person's resistance to a perception of being "dictated to," but if reasonable accommodation is requested, I see no call for what may result in an unreasonable lack of courtesy. It's a simple accommodation that in no way inconveniences me and certainly does not "abuse" me (or anyone else that I can imagine). I know what genuine abuse is.
I mentioned previously a time when the nation had a similar blow-up when women began requesting the use of the honorific "Ms." for themselves instead of "Miss" or Mrs." I'm sure there were some people back then, as well, who probably felt that they were being "abused" or "dictated to" when asked to adopt this new honorific for use.
Bottom line is this: You don't have to call anyone "Ms." if you don't want to. You don't even have to use any of the newfangled, non-gender specific pronouns that have recently come into use, if you don't want to. The Government cannot punish you for this.
However, there will always be a possibility that your non-governmental, private-sector employer may express his/her/their unhappiness with your choices in ways that you don't like. Especially if some of the things that you indiscreetly say to your workmates faces (or behind their backs) result in creating what is known as a hostile workplace, or otherwise turn out to be bad for your employer's business. If you find your employer's demands to be intolerable, you have the freedom to seek employment elsewhere. I know it's tough to find a job that suits all your personal requirements, but life is tough for everyone. Even for those who find themselves in a job where their employer perhaps shares the same sentiments as yours on this subject.
On the other hand, I personally can see some legitimate reasons for not calling some people by certain titles, that have more to do with freedom of religion than a mere and obstinate lack of courtesy. Again, though, the Government cannot get involved in this:
Example 1: There are some non-Catholics who are uncomfortable about addressing a Catholic priest as "Father." Protestants have historically protested against this practice, citing a verse from the New Testament (Matthew 23:9) in which Jesus is quoted as saying: "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven."
Example 2: Observant Jews will not use the word "Christ" along with the name of Jesus (as in the phrase "Jesus Ch---t") because this suggests that Jesus was the anointed Messiah, and the Jewish people do not accept this as we are still waiting for the Messiah ("Mashiach") to arrive, bringing peace and redemption to the world. (He can't come soon enough, if you ask me, what with all the outrage and anger we're seeing all around us these days.)
And then... There actually is one example when it comes to terms of address in which the government may get involved, and that is:
Example 3: Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution states that no American citizen may accept a title of nobility "from any King, Prince, or foreign State." This is firmly fixed in our Constitution. In fact, a follow-up amendment to the Constitution was proposed that, if ratified, would have furthermore allowed the government to revoke U.S. citizenship and the ability to hold federal office from any U.S. citizen who accepted a title of nobility from a foreign power. Even though this amendment was approved by both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the year 1810, it had not been ratified by the necessary number of States for it to become part of our Constitution. However, this amendment is still "alive" (along with four other as yet unratified amendments to the Constitution that had been proposed during a period in our history when there was not yet a legal time limit placed on the States' ratification for proposed amendments).
There's a reason Shakespeare now sounds to obviously dated, why Chaucer is barely comprehensible, and why Beowulf is now a completely foreign tongue.
Those who are triggered by supposedly non-standard and gender neutral pronouns ... well, they aren't. That's just an excuse for them to rage against something that that dislike, a something that has absolutely nothing to do with language.
They word they was originally only plural. But it has been used in the singular form now for hundreds of years. The word you was originally only a plural object. Now it routinely serves as a subject and is a singular form as well. He has long been a generic pronoun used regardless of sex. This is just a small sampling of non-standard and gender neutral pronouns routinely used without issue by those who gnash their teeth and profess to detest such things. But, again, it's not language they detest. That's just an excuse.
In general, the reality is that everyone is massively accepting of language change. People accept decades and centuries and millenia of change. It's just that some people expect this inexorable force of change to grind to a complete halt now that they're around, just for their sake. It's rather self-absorbed.
When you address someone, you say "you". That's not what the pronoun thing is about. It's about dictating what you say when the pronoun person is not around, and that is unreasonable and abusive.
The OP isn’t really even about pronouns since French is a gendered language. It’s about way more than calling a person “they” if that is what they prefer. It’s also about all the other female-specific or male-specific versions of words that go along with it.
I mean...it IS sexist. I'm not saying that someone using the language this way is being sexist - it's just the way the language is - but the grammatical feature itself demonstrates how deeply rooted the subordination of females is in society. It's unfortunate with languages that carry grammatical gender into various parts of speech that it's so difficult to make any change without causing a cascade of untenable alterations.
The “sexism” card could be used either way IMO. One might also say that the masculine form lacks individuality as it’s inflected the same way as the neutral one, therefore it’s intrinsically less important.
For instance, the word “oso” (bear) is both a masculine and a neutral/generic form. If we want to say that bears are omnivorous mammals, we can say “El oso es un mamífero omnívoro” and we understand it’s about bears in general, regardless of their gender. If we talk about a female bear, we just say “osa”, but if we mean a male bear, it’s necessary to clarify “oso macho”. Having to add an additional word might be seen as a downside.
I guess that the perception of –at least this element of- a language as sexist is based on the precedent sexism within the society, and not because the language is sexist on its own.
Proponents of inclusive language believe that the way the language works triggers sexism in society, so it’s essential to change it to an allegedly non-sexist structure. This is a very strong statement, so I think the topic is indeed very important.
It's interesting to see the evolution of language in just our lifetimes.
On Federal lands, we've seen a change in one sign that indicated where a unique black cowboy had his ranch. It was known as " N-word Bill Canyon". By the time I saw it, it was "Negro Bill Canyon". Then there were objections to that and some suggested "African-American Bill Canyon". I don't know what finally happened.
In Wyoming there was a mountain range called "Squaw Teats". I'd bet money that has changed!
The gendered nouns have always bugged me. I really wonder why inanimate objects have to have genders in other languages. Just adds another whole layer of complexity to learning it. Thank goodness English doesn't do that. The personal pronoun issue hasn't intruded into my life yet, so not sure about it.
There's a reason Shakespeare now sounds to obviously dated, why Chaucer is barely comprehensible, and why Beowulf is now a completely foreign tongue.
Those who are triggered by supposedly non-standard and gender neutral pronouns ... well, they aren't. That's just an excuse for them to rage against something that that dislike, a something that has absolutely nothing to do with language.
They word they was originally only plural. But it has been used in the singular form now for hundreds of years. The word you was originally only a plural object. Now it routinely serves as a subject and is a singular form as well. He has long been a generic pronoun used regardless of sex. This is just a small sampling of non-standard and gender neutral pronouns routinely used without issue by those who gnash their teeth and profess to detest such things. But, again, it's not language they detest. That's just an excuse.
In general, the reality is that everyone is massively accepting of language change. People accept decades and centuries and millennia of change. It's just that some people expect this inexorable force of change to grind to a complete halt now that they're around, just for their sake. It's rather self-absorbed.
But it also needs to be understood that the linguistic changes you have mentioned are organic. They developed naturally within society, they were not imposed from above.
Of course language is still changing. But in this particular instance, what people are resisting, more than the idea of change, is that a very small group of very insistent people are demanding that everyone around them change their natural speech patterns to conform to what they want. The topic happens to be a fraught or sensitive one, true, but I think there would be a similar reaction to any linguistic change being forcibly imposed on society.
Again, it's not even a question of now having to avoid words that are seen as offensive. That happens all the time: "We used to call this group of people X, but they prefer be called Y." The pronoun situation isn't about a name for a group of people or a physical condition, but about function words that people don't even think about when they speak. It's really not easy to alter one's usage of function words.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
