NationStates Jolt Archive

Examine this proposal,

it aims to root out the phallocentric tendencies of the English language, thereby equalizing men and women all around the world.

:twisted:

Not to be picky, but the example you use in your title is a poor one, as the "his" in history is not an example of gender bias. The word history comes from the greek "histor" and is related, I believe, to storytelling--nothing phallocentric about it.

As far as your proposal is concerned, while I attempt to be as non-sexist as possible in my language choices, that's a personal matter. It's one of those things that I believe just shouldn't be legislated.

This legislation is rubbish. I implore everyone to ignore it.

While women are allowed, tolerated in the workplaces of my Empire, their primary roles nevertheless are cooking, cleaning and sex.

While women are allowed, tolerated in the workplaces of my Empire, their primary roles nevertheless are cooking, cleaning and sex.

That's a little extreme, don't you think?

Rewriting established language in the name of PC is also extreme. If it weren't such a ridiculous concept, I would write a resolution banning political correctness myself! :twisted:

Come join the Matriarchates - you know it makes sense

Only in the Matriarchates are men equal to women!

Come join the Matriarchates - you know it makes sense

Only in the Matriarchates are men equal to women!

Given the title of your country surely women are the rulers of your country - how typical of women's lib, not wanting equality, but your own time in the sun at the expense of the men who have now been brought up in a fairly equal society and act as such

The title of my country is Brigstonia, in the Federation of Matriarchates we have true equality of the sexes - not the ersatz variety subscribed to women by male orientated and organised patriarchates. After all men are our sons, husbands, fathers and are not second class citizens. We seek no agrandisement, which seems to be your pre-occupation.

Men and women run countries are welcome to join the Federation provided they have true equality. Those that don't needn't bother. Lesbian and Gay nations are more than welcome.

I believe that both sexes should be equal in everything...but they also have different functions to perform as well in society.

HERSTORY et alli
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights Strength: Mild Proposed by: New Labor
Description: Henceforth, all nouns containing the suffix -man shall be altered so as to not discriminiate, in their meaning, against the female gender.

By setting such a precedent in the English language, the language of choice in the international community, oft used in cases of diplomacy and business, the message will be sent to the international community that Females are to be treated as Males as far as language is concerned.

Thus

1. the suffix -man shall be changed to either -person or -womyn

2. the prefix man- shall be changed to human-

3. words containing the particle "man" which imply no gender, such as the word "emancipation", shall NOT be altered


~ D R N L

Approvals: 4 (New Labor, Stephistan, Tekcutnan, Panya)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 117 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Sat Sep 27 2003

I'll admit I was a bit afraid of what extremes this proposal would take, but I actually find it quite moderate and acceptable. I just don't know if it is necessary. Things are more likely to come about through encouragement than mandatory enforcement. Because I'm not a delegate, I can't endorse it, though.

While we fully support the *cause* of this proposal, we feel that the proposal itself it is a highly unreasonable limit on free speech, and thus we will not support it. It is unprecedented for a language to develop due to legislation banning or promoting certain words. We tend to agree with Tipayimisoowin -- encourage language change, but accept that such change will take time. Legislating the use of certain words is simply immoral. It is equivalent to telling people what to say.

Office of the Governor

The title of my country is Brigstonia, in the Federation of Matriarchates we have true equality of the sexes - not the ersatz variety subscribed to women by male orientated and organised patriarchates. After all men are our sons, husbands, fathers and are not second class citizens. We seek no agrandisement, which seems to be your pre-occupation.

Men and women run countries are welcome to join the Federation provided they have true equality. Those that don't needn't bother. Lesbian and Gay nations are more than welcome.


I am appalled! Lesbian and Gay nations are allowed, but what about Transgendered? Have we forgotten all about the third flavor of the neapolitan sex cocktail [or organtail], the trasgendered :evil: ?

mmm, methinks someone has been living in the suburbs too long...

Examine this proposal,

it aims to root out the phallocentric tendencies of the English language, thereby equalizing men and women all around the world.

:twisted:

Women should have completely equal rights and responsibilities as men but if your corrupted version of political correctness involves things like changing the word for "history", then that is just absurd and I will fight it to the last. What's next? The Shemalayas? Viqueens? Charlewomange?

Actuallt TGM, if you read the proposal, you'll see that none of the examples you cite would be affected. I have my own problems with the proposal, but at least they're based on the proposal itself, not on some incorrect application of it.

Actuallt TGM, if you read the proposal, you'll see that none of the examples you cite would be affected. I have my own problems with the proposal, but at least they're based on the proposal itself, not on some incorrect application of it.

"1. the suffix -man shall be changed to either -person or -womyn"

This reminds me of a funny story. At state student congress we addressed the [female] presiding officer as "Chairman"

If we are to be totally equal in every way, certain body parts will have to be left at the desk on your way out. Thank you, and have a nice day.

:roll:

What about a strongman in a circus? Calling him "strongwomyn" wouldn't exactly be very appropriate.

I voted yes... because that was the closest to what i believe... I believe that women can --mostly-- do some things better than men, and the same goes for men... Some men play the "mother" role better than some women, and some women play the "bread getter" role better than some men... So in that respect i say there should be NO AFFERMATIVE ACTION AS IT IS UNFAIR, AND ALSO CONSIDER THE HUSBAND'S/BOY FRIENDS DECISION IN ABORTION!!! which is wrong...

I voted yes... because that was the closest to what i believe... I believe that women can --mostly-- do some things better than men, and the same goes for men... Some men play the "mother" role better than some women, and some women play the "bread getter" role better than some men... So in that respect i say there should be NO AFFERMATIVE ACTION AS IT IS UNFAIR, AND ALSO CONSIDER THE HUSBAND'S/BOY FRIENDS DECISION IN ABORTION!!! which is wrong...

Affirmative action is wrong but the husband should NOT have a say in abortion. Abortion is justified because the baby is only in the woman's body by HER consent. Letting anyone other than her block teh abortion kinda destroys the whole rationale for abortion.

This proposal is flawed. Not all UN countries speak English. What about French? Sexism is too ingrained in it's grammer to remove without radically altering it. We don't speak English. If we were in the UN, would it effect us?

Actuallt TGM, if you read the proposal, you'll see that none of the examples you cite would be affected. I have my own problems with the proposal, but at least they're based on the proposal itself, not on some incorrect application of it.

"1. the suffix -man shall be changed to either -person or -womyn"

This reminds me of a funny story. At state student congress we addressed the [female] presiding officer as "Chairman"

3. words containing the particle "man" which imply no gender, such as the word "emancipation", shall NOT be altered

But your examples were the Shemalayas, the Viqueens and Charlewomange (and the last is ludicrous since the proper spelling of Charlemagne has no "man" in it).

And most businesses and deliberative bodies have already changed to the non-gender specific "chairperson" or "chair" or simply change the sex of the honorific to match that of the chairholder.

Examine this proposal,

it aims to root out the phallocentric tendencies of the English language, thereby equalizing men and women all around the world.

:twisted:

Women should have completely equal rights and responsibilities as men but if your corrupted version of political correctness involves things like changing the word for "history", then that is just absurd and I will fight it to the last. What's next? The Shemalayas? Viqueens? Charlewomange?

hahahahaha!! that is hillarious.

Except, I indicated that words containing "man" where masculinity is not implied will not be altered.

That goes for HERSTORY as well, which is obviously a pun on the idiocy of feminist extremism which at times gets out of hand. History clearly has nothing to do with HIS.

Also, Himalayas would have to become Hermalayas...
And what the hell does -magne have to do with "man"? Magne is a version of Magnus as far as I'm concerned.

And about some idiot who said that French is also a language used throughout the world, yes, it is, but French doesn't have these horrible "man" paticles peppered throughout the language. Where we have -man, they have -eur or -euse, etc.

Masculinity and Femininity shall not be extracted from the language, it's the implication that an occupation can only be held by the MAN as indicated by suffixes which shall be removed, so as to spread equality, happiness, and sunshine.

The world is trying to be overly politically correct to the point of political incorrectness...