NationStates Jolt Archive

Pray tell how calling someone Mrs. is sexism?

If anything it would be a sign of respect.

It denotes whether a woman is married or not.

A woman can take it the wrong way, believe me.
Also, assholes wil find a way to turn it into an insult. You can alway bet on humans being dicks.

And how exactly is using the terms "policeman" and "policewoman" "Mrs" and "Mr" acting like a dick?

That's not the point.

1) Arguably, neither is sportsman, considering the etymology of 'man', and the fact that 'man' has two meanings.

2) That still doesn't change the fact that I'm pretty sure nobody will be offended by it.

One has to have already been looking to get offended or looking to pick a fight about something, to be offended by the use of Mr. or Mrs. or statesman or whatever.

You're all males, aren't you?

I have yet to see a female poster come in here and say that they're not offended. Just an observation. Make of it what you will.


In general, gender-specific descriptions are supposed to be avoided, including anything with “man” in the title, such as policeman, fireman or dustman. But, says the guide, “midwives” is acceptable – presumably as “midhusbands” are so rare.

Midwive means 'with wife'. I would assume midhusbands are rare becasue husbands rarely get pregnant.

...not our fault for believing and discussing an issue published in a few (credible) newspapers.

Not all of us believed it.

Pray tell how calling someone Mrs. is sexism?

If anything it would be a sign of respect.

Since Mrs is used solely for married women, that would imply that you respect married women more. Tell me, what is it about being attached to a man that makes a woman more worthy of respect?

It denotes whether a woman is married or not.

A woman can take it the wrong way, believe me.
Also, assholes wil find a way to turn it into an insult. You can alway bet on humans being dicks.

Yes it does, so how is that sexist? And if they aren't married you would call them Miss.

Assholes can find almost anything to turn into an insult.

When I was talking about respect, I meant using their title (Mrs/Miss/Mr/Dr) as showing them respect. The same way as I may call a Doctor Dr. X or a Captain, Captain X, rather than calling them by their first name.

You're all males, aren't you?

I have yet to see a female poster come in here and say that they're not offended. Just an observation. Make of it what you will.

Yet to see one that says they will. But since this is NSG I no doubt know that one will be saying it soon.

Since Mrs is used solely for married women, that would imply that you respect married women more. Tell me, what is it about being attached to a man that makes a woman more worthy of respect?

*Yawn*

Come back to me when you have something better. If I hold the same respect for a woman who may not be married I would refer to her as Miss of course if she preferred Ms. (whether married or not) I would use that.

Yes it does, so how is that sexist? And if they aren't married you would call them Miss.

Assholes can find almost anything to turn into an insult.

When I was talking about respect, I meant using their title (Mrs/Miss/Mr/Dr) as showing them respect. The same way as I may call a Doctor Dr. X or a Captain, Captain X, rather than calling them by their first name.

Say miss to someone who is married or Mrs. to someone who isn't and you can get a war started because of hurt feelings.

Since Mrs is used solely for married women, that would imply that you respect married women more. Tell me, what is it about being attached to a man that makes a woman more worthy of respect?

It would only imply such if you did not use a similar honorific title for unmarried women.

Yet to see one that says they will. But since this is NSG I no doubt know that one will be saying it soon.

If you were to read the thread you would see female posters arguing for the use of non-gendered language.

...If I hold the same respect for a woman who may not be married I would refer to her as Miss of course if she preferred Ms. (whether married or not) I would use that.

I'm sorry. I thought you said...Pray tell how calling someone Mrs. is sexism?

If anything it would be a sign of respect.

I was wondering why you thought calling someone Mrs was a sign of respect.

It would only imply such if you did not use a similar honorific title for unmarried women.

Are you married? Do you think it is important when meeting someone for them to know you are married? Do you think it is always important?

For example, when introducing Michelle Bachelet, should I introduce her as Señorita Bachelet, as she is unmarried? It seems a little odd to refer to a head of state by a word used when being polite to little girls.

So I would disagree that such an honourific suffices.

Say miss to someone who is married or Mrs. to someone who isn't and you can get a war started because of hurt feelings.

Yep you are more than likey correct. What would happen if I said Mrs to someone who was married? Or Miss to someone who wasn't?

Are you married? Do you think it is important when meeting someone for them to know you are married? Do you think it is always important?

For example, when introducing Michelle Bachelet, should I introduce her as Señorita Bachelet, as she is unmarried? It seems a little odd to refer to a head of state by a word used when being polite to little girls.

So I would disagree that such an honourific suffices.

While a nice rant, entirely irrelevant to the point. You said using Mrs. would imply a person respects married women more than unmarried women. I said this would only be true if one did not also use a similar title for unmarried women. Perhaps you could explain how using Mrs. to refer to married women shows them MORE respect than using Miss or Ms. for unmarried women.

I was wondering why you thought calling someone Mrs was a sign of respect.

Because it is their title rather than simply calling them by their first name. Same goes for those who aren't married but deserves respect as well, I would say Miss instead of Mrs (obvisouly)

Are you married? Do you think it is important when meeting someone for them to know you are married? Do you think it is always important?

For example, when introducing Michelle Bachelet, should I introduce her as Señorita Bachelet, as she is unmarried? It seems a little odd to refer to a head of state by a word used when being polite to little girls.

So I would disagree that such an honourific suffices.

I would actually refer to her as President Bachelet since she is, I would not be calling her Michelle.

While a nice rant, entirely irrelevant to the point. You said using Mrs. would imply a person respects married women more than unmarried women. I said this would only be true if one did not also use a similar title for unmarried women. Perhaps you could explain how using Mrs. to refer to married women shows them MORE respect than using Miss or Ms. for unmarried women.

Actually, I was asking Blouman Empire why he thought that using Mrs was a sign of respect. As opposed to Miss or Ms, I presume, as those are the only other two options.

Because it is their title rather than simply calling them by their first name. Same goes for those who aren't married but deserves respect as well, I would say Miss instead of Mrs (obvisouly)

So, why not use Ms. for both of them?

I must say that I can't remember the last time I actually used either Miss or Mrs. Both are mildly offensive in that they are intended to indicate ( to men ) the marital status of a woman, who's private life is completely immaterial.

It's always annoyed me that languages such as Spanish and Italian and French e.t.c. don't have an equivalent of "Ms." constantly having to highlight whether someone is a "maiden" or a "madame" seems archaic and offensive to me.

It presumes that the defining quality of a woman is her marital status ( or more primitively, her transition from a virgin to the sexual property of a man ) and frankly in most cases I personally couldn't care less if the woman I'm talking to is married or not.

Actually, I was asking Blouman Empire why he thought that using Mrs was a sign of respect. As opposed to Miss or Ms, I presume, as those are the only other two options.

Actually, you literally said this:

Since Mrs is used solely for married women, that would imply that you respect married women more. Tell me, what is it about being attached to a man that makes a woman more worthy of respect?

Since you seem so keen on avoiding responsibility for what you can be quoted as saying, I'll reiterate: using the title Mrs. does not imply you respect married women more unless you do not use a similar title for unmarried women.

Actually, you literally said this:



Since you seem so keen on avoiding responsibility for what you can be quoted as saying, I'll reiterate: using the title Mrs. does not imply you respect married women more unless you do not use a similar title for unmarried women.

Actually, it might. Just because you declare it in bold font does not make it so.

Especially when the person I was quoting mentioned it as a sign of respect and omitted the other two honourifics. That doesn't outright say that it is more worthy of respect than Ms. or Miss, but it does imply it.

Not to mention the simple fact that for most of our history, married women were considered more respectable than unmarried women. Even if you do have the unmarried title.

Actually, I was asking Blouman Empire why he thought that using Mrs was a sign of respect. As opposed to Miss or Ms, I presume, as those are the only other two options.

If they would prefer to be called that then I will but if they don't mind, then I don't see the problem with it. Nor do I see how it is sexist to call an unmarried woman Miss and a married woman Mrs.

Actually, it might. Just because you declare it in bold font does not make it so.

Especially when the person I was quoting mentioned it as a sign of respect and omitted the other two honourifics. That doesn't outright say that it is more worthy of respect than Ms. or Miss, but it does imply it.

Not to mention the simple fact that for most of our history, married women were considered more respectable than unmarried women. Even if you do have the unmarried title.

I see reason and logic are lost on you.

Especially when the person I was quoting mentioned it as a sign of respect and omitted the other two honourifics. That doesn't outright say that it is more worthy of respect than Ms. or Miss, but it does imply it.

I also left out other titles mention in the article.

Actually what these guidelines do mention is that women should be referred to by their first and last name. Does it mention the same for men? If not then these guidelines are pretty sexist in themselves. After all I will still be able to use Mr. (another sign of respect) but shouldn't use the female equivalents.

If they would prefer to be called that then I will but if they don't mind, then I don't see the problem with it. Nor do I see how it is sexist to call an unmarried woman Miss and a married woman Mrs.

Yes. I am aware that you do not see the problem. I will try to illustrate the problem for you.

Let us discuss President Bachelet again. She is currently unmarried. Therefore the correct honourific, as mentioned before, is Señorita. And, as mentioned before, is used primarily for girls and teenagers. Which is not very fitting for a head of state. You suggested using her official title as President.

That was a good idea. It lets people know the important things. But what if she was an entrepreneur? The owner of Chile's largest chain of department stores is also a woman. These women have no official title that can be used in everyday life. Using an honourific that is used mostly for girls and adolescents may not be fitting for such influential women. Nor is their unmarried status of any importance.

But if we use one of these existing words, we run into the problem of either pretending they are married, or talking to them as if they were children.

I see reason and logic are lost on you.

It would be more reasonable, and more logical, to point out the flaws in my reason or logic than it would be to imply that I am incapable of using them.

I also left out other titles mention in the article.

Actually what these guidelines do mention is that women should be referred to by their first and last name. Does it mention the same for men? If not then these guidelines are pretty sexist in themselves. After all I will still be able to use Mr. (another sign of respect) but shouldn't use the female equivalents.

Ms. (an honourific title for women that is not indicative of marital status) is the equivalent of Mr. (an honourific title for men that is not indicative of their marital status). It is suggested that you use that.

Ms. (an honourific title for women that is not indicative of marital status) is the equivalent of Mr. (an honourific title for men that is not indicative of their marital status). It is suggested that you use that.

It is suggested by who? You? The guidelines suggest that you call them by their full name. I do know some women who prefer to be called Miss rather then Ms.

But if we use one of these existing words, we run into the problem of either pretending they are married, or talking to them as if they were children.

Indeed so when I was talking to my 25 year old teacher as Miss X I was talking to her as if she was a child. Got ya.

I do know some women who prefer to be called Miss rather then Ms.

I think they're pronounced the same, which can be confusing, untill one sees them written down that is.

I'd like to take this opportunity to note that 'Miss' is usually used in order to be more polite than 'Mrs.' would be - I suppose it's debatable whether women consider it to be such, given the implications (Youth & look > experience & societal success), but it's certainly the intention.

Incidentally, how exactly are Ms. & Miss pronounced? I have a mild suspicion that they sound the same, which may cause trouble when it comes to verbal communication.

Indeed so when I was talking to my 25 year old teacher as Miss X I was talking to her as if she was a child. Got ya.I lol'd. Win <3

Indeed so when I was talking to my 25 year old teacher as Miss X I was talking to her as if she was a child. Got ya.

Well traditionally women were expected to give up work once they got married ( that point at which women were considered to become adult ) so strictly the use of Miss as a title for a teacher respects this traditional custom.

Naturally women no longer give up work upon marriage, so calling your teacher Miss is mildly sexist and offensive and would be infantilising.

It is suggested by who? You? The guidelines suggest that you call them by their full name. I do know some women who prefer to be called Miss rather then Ms.

The pamphlet in the OP would presumably suggest this if it is calling for language that supports gender equity.

Indeed so when I was talking to my 25 year old teacher as Miss X I was talking to her as if she was a child. Got ya.

Where I live, all the students cal the male teachers Sir and the female teachers Miss. I have had many female teachers tell me that they are, in fact, offended by it. Your 25 year old teacher may not have been offended, or she may have been and let you off the hook because of the fact that you are ignorant of how you cause offence. I don't know, and I won't speculate about your vague anecdote. Nor do I suggest you take my anecdote to heart. You should actually ask your female teachers how they wish to be addressed and why.

Naturally women no longer give up work upon marriage, so calling your teacher Miss is mildly sexist and offensive and would be infantilising.Clearly, Blouman is in severe need of a sound caning from her. That'll teach that sexist bastard some respect for her.

I'd like to take this opportunity to note that 'Miss' is usually used in order to be more polite than 'Mrs.' would be - I suppose it's debatable whether women consider it to be such, given the implications (Youth & look > experience & societal success), but it's certainly the intention.

I am beginning to understand why these pamphlets are felt to be necessary.

Incidentally, how exactly are Ms. & Miss pronounced? I have a mild suspicion that they sound the same, which may cause trouble when it comes to verbal communication.

Ms. is pronounced Miz, rhymes with Liz like Liz taylor. Miss is pronounced as it's spelt. Like hit and miss.

I think they're pronounced the same, which can be confusing, untill one sees them written down that is.

Yeah it is a bit but I think you usually can tell the difference.

Well traditionally women were expected to give up work once they get married ( that point at which women were considered to become adult ) so strictly the use of Miss as a title for a teacher respects this traditional custom.

Naturally women no longer give up work upon marriage, so calling your teacher Miss is mildly sexist and offensive and would be infantilising.

Well no we called her Miss. because she wasn't married while those who were we called Mrs. Both were said with the same amount of respect regardless of their marital status.

It would be more reasonable, and more logical, to point out the flaws in my reason or logic than it would be to imply that I am incapable of using them.

The moment you start using them, I'll be sure to do that. You've consistently failed to demonstrate how there is more implied respect in using Mrs. than in using Miss or Ms. You made the claim that:

Since Mrs is used solely for married women, that would imply that you respect married women more. Tell me, what is it about being attached to a man that makes a woman more worthy of respect?

You're the ONLY person who has made that claim. Why don't you try supporting your claim, for once? Demonstrate to me how using the title Mrs. shows more respect for married women if the Ms. and Miss titles are also used.

Ms. is pronounced Miz, rhymes with Liz like Liz taylor. Miss is pronounced as it's spelt. Like hit and miss.Ms. sounds stupid, then. I may use it all the time when writing (Comes automatically, it's not like I think about it; mostly, it's faster to type), but I vow never to say it, because it sounds absolutely horrid.

The pamphlet in the OP would presumably suggest this if it is calling for language that supports gender equity

Which would be fine if it was suggested they stop using the word Mr. but since this doesn't appear to have been included perhaps they think that we shouldn't use titles for women because they don't deserve our respect.

You're the ONLY person who has made that claim. Why don't you try supporting your claim, for once? Demonstrate to me how using the title Mrs. shows more respect for married women if the Ms. and Miss titles are also used.My guess would be 'By actually believing it'.

Can't really think of an alternative, at least not off-hand.

Where I live, all the students call the male teachers Sir and the female teachers Miss. I have had many female teachers tell me that they are, in fact, offended by it. Your 25 year old teacher may not have been offended, or she may have been and let you off the hook because of the fact that you are ignorant of how you cause offence. I don't know, and I won't speculate about your vague anecdote. Nor do I suggest you take my anecdote to heart. You should actually ask your female teachers how they wish to be addressed and why.

And where I live we call them Mrs X or Miss X when talking to make teachers it Mr. X is used. The only time this wouldn't be used is when we were talking to the Principal who would be called Principal X. How they want to be addressed they do indeed tell us.

Well no we called her Miss. because she wasn't married while those who were we called Mrs. Both were said with the same amount of respect regardless of their marital status.


So if the quantity of respect was the same why on earth did you make the distinction ?

Clearly, Blouman is in severe need of a sound caning from her. That'll teach that sexist bastard some respect for her.

I lol'ed at this.

That will learn me to call her Miss X rather than by her first name.

Ms. sounds stupid, then. I may use it all the time when writing (Comes automatically, it's not like I think about it; mostly, it's faster to type), but I vow never to say it, because it sounds absolutely horrid.

I have used it and will use it again simply because some women do prefer this term. Of course these guidelines also want people to not use this title either.

The moment you start using them, I'll be sure to do that. You've consistently failed to demonstrate how there is more implied respect in using Mrs. than in using Miss or Ms. You made the claim that:



You're the ONLY person who has made that claim. Why don't you try supporting your claim, for once? Demonstrate to me how using the title Mrs. shows more respect for married women if the Ms. and Miss titles are also used.

My claim: Blouman Empire's phrasing implied that there is more respect in using Mrs. than in using Miss or Ms.

What you think I claimed: Using Mrs implies more respect than Ms. or Miss. (Actually, I think that traditionally this is true, but I don't know if Blouman Empire was trying to say that)

Do you see the difference between the two?

So if the quantity of respect was the same why on earth did you make the distinction ?

Because one was married and the other wasn't. Something which we already have established what they mean. :confused:

And another argument could be made: What RIGHT does the EU Parliament have to control speech, even more so non-hate speech?
Every organisation has the right to control the content of publications made in its name.

My claim: Blouman Empire's phrasing implied that there is more respect in using Mrs. than in using Miss or Ms.

What you think I claimed: Using Mrs implies more respect than Ms. or Miss. (Actually, I think that traditionally this is true, but I don't know if Blouman Empire was trying to say that)

Do you see the difference between the two?

Well I have already said it isn't, not to mention the fact that I took one thing out of these guidelines rather than everything doesn't mean I am implying things at all. Perhaps you shouldn't look for things that aren't there.

Ms. sounds stupid, then. I may use it all the time when writing (Comes automatically, it's not like I think about it; mostly, it's faster to type), but I vow never to say it, because it sounds absolutely horrid.

So, your aesthetic sensiblities are important and should not be offended, but women who are offended at being categorised by their marital status are not important and may be offended whenever one wishes.

Which would be fine if it was suggested they stop using the word Mr. but since this doesn't appear to have been included perhaps they think that we shouldn't use titles for women because they don't deserve our respect.

You can use Mr. and you can Ms. They are equivalent.

And where I live we call them Mrs X or Miss X when talking to make teachers it Mr. X is used. The only time this wouldn't be used is when we were talking to the Principal who would be called Principal X. How they want to be addressed they do indeed tell us.

Please ask your teachers if they would like to be addressed as Miss, Mrs or Ms. and ask them why. Actually do this. See what happens.

Because one was married and the other wasn't. Something which we already have established what they mean. :confused:

That's completely illogical. Unless you want to make some specific reference to someones marital status for some other purpose, calling them anything but Ms. makes no sense if all you are trying to do is offer them a modicum of respect.

Of course if you genuinely believe that marital status does contribute to the level of respect a woman deserves then it might make sense to use Miss or Mrs.

You can use Mr. and you can Ms. They are equivalent.

Yep, but as I have said before the guidelines would like people not to use Ms either but rather call women by their full name.

Please ask your teachers if they would like to be addressed as Miss, Mrs or Ms. and ask them why. Actually do this. See what happens.

I called them what they wanted to be called, at high school they would say Miss or Mrs. If I go and ask my female teachers at university I dare say they would say Dr. or Professor or really since they are very lax just call them by their first name. I might just ask them.

That's completely illogical. Unless you want to make some specific reference to someones marital status for some other purpose, calling them anything but Ms. makes no sense if all you are trying to do is offer them a modicum of respect.

Of course if you genuinely believe that marital status does contribute to the level of respect a woman deserves then it might make sense to use Miss or Mrs.

What? :confused: Miss refers to an unmarried woman, that would be their title thus if I wanted to show them a bit more respect rather than their first name I would use Miss, same goes for married women as well.

So, your aesthetic sensiblities are important and should not be offended, but women who are offended at being categorised by their marital status are not important and may be offended whenever one wishes.Yes.

Of course, there's the question of whether they'd be offended in the first place.

But yes.

Actually, I think I'd probably settle for 'Miss' in all circumstances. The most ear-pleasing variant, IMHO.

What? :confused: Miss refers to an unmarried woman, that would be their title thus if I wanted to show them a bit more respect rather than their first name I would use Miss, same goes for married women as well.


You would call a married woman Miss ? It's worth pointing out that the term Miss was used both as a title and pejoratively for centuries, especially since women used to be regarded as socially inferior if they weren't married.

Servants and spinsters were referred to as Miss as a way of marking them out as lacking in the dignity which used to be associated with marriage.

If you call women Miss out of some misguided belief that it refers to the age or youthfulness of a woman and that those things would be prised above all else by the woman you are addressing then I imagine you've accidentally insulted a lot of people in the past.

Well I have already said it isn't,

I know, because I asked you. Just trying to help Sdaeriji catch up.

not to mention the fact that I took one thing out of these guidelines rather than everything doesn't mean I am implying things at all. Perhaps you shouldn't look for things that aren't there.

You know, you can imply things without meaning to imply them. For example, using Mrs or Miss instead of Ms implies (even if you don't think it does) that you think a woman's marital status is somehow important to you.

Yep, but as I have said before the guidelines would like people not to use Ms either but rather call women by their full name.

We don't actually know what the pamphlet says, so we can't actually make claims like that.

... I might just ask them.

This would be best. The truth is that we are probably both wrong in one way or the other, and it never hurts to have the point of view of those actaually affected.

Yes.

Of course, there's the question of whether they'd be offended in the first place.

But yes.

Actually, I think I'd probably settle for 'Miss' in all circumstances. The most ear-pleasing variant, IMHO.

So, it's allright to offend women if it sounds nice to you?

So, it's allright to offend women if it sounds nice to you?Yes.

(quoted from Neesika's reply to a previous post of mine: jolty jolt won't let me use the quote button!)


Yes, clearly this is the ONLY thing that a gender equity organisation does. Bitch about language.
Oh wait. That's not even remotely true.

Ever heard of hyperbole? Naah, I wouldn't guess so.
Clearly you're not very familiar with hardcore self-appointed feminists and gender equity activists (thanks for the correction here).
I am, much to my displeasure.
Not a pleasant experience, everytime a committee has to write something, to have someone around who constantly bitches about "use a gender-neutral language!" (quite impossible in Italian without devastating the grammar, btw) instead of trying to find intelligent things to say about the issue that's being debated. Sessions that could have been finished by 11 pm going on to 2 am because the usual cretin has to revise all the drafts to expunge them of all "gender-biased" words, totally oblivious that centuries of stratification of the italian language have led to the male gender being used also as indefinite gender.
Do they want to discuss the stratification of language? Fine. Not while one is debating about more urgent and meaningful matters, though.
There is a difference between those who are seriously concerned with gender equity, and those who exploit the "gender bias in language" issue to carve an audience for themselves.


But I guess because this article complained about one thing, using misleading terms to fire up the fevered imaginations of those on the lookout for PC-world domination, that MUST meant that this is the only focus of gender equity in the world today. That is clearly supported by the lack of a comprehensive list of other activities in the OP's article. There is no other explanation. Such a balanced piece of journalism would of course include these other activities if they existed!


Your guess is quite wild, and wrong.

I didn't even read the article linked in the OP, because I ALREADY knew about that idiotic recommendation. You know, some of us, including myself, don't rely on articles linked in NSG as the sole source of information. Generally when I arrive at my office in the morning, I've already read one or two national newspapers, and have already listened to a couple of the TV news (generally RAInews24 and BBC World). Then I proceed to read an extensive resume of the daily press of the whole nation.

Not at all.

Pray tell why guidelines for translators and interpreters are a waste of time and money.

Pray tell why improving accuracy and removing sexism from language is a waste of time and money.

Pray tell how calling someone Mrs. is sexism?

If anything it would be a sign of respect.

1. Your answer is non-responsive.

2. If calling someone "Mrs." is a sign of respect, what is calling them "Miss"?

3. The use of Mrs. and Miss is based on archaic, patronizing gender roles. We don't differentiate between married and unmarried men, why should we do so with women?

It's about time the EU Parliament freaking caught up to the 21st century.
:|

*See last paragraph.



Seriously? People are still whining about saying 'police officer' instead of 'policeman'?

1. Context? What's so grievous about using policeman and policewoman again?

2. As opposed to the immense amounts of whining and groaning about the use of policeman and policewoman...

3. Circumstantially yes. Police officer would be the proper english term for a general use. But when being specific, how is 'male police officer' and 'female police officer' any better than policeman and policewoman?



Considering the wide range of progressive, human rights-based initiatives entered into by the EU, it would be beyond hypocritical to continue to engage in anachronistic sexism for the sake of...sorry TAI, what was it for the sake of? Not making things 'difficult' for old guys?

Are we talking about the same EU? What is it that they have accomplished that hasn't, nor wouldn't, have been done without it?


What's beyond hypocritical is continuing to use the tinfoil hat rantings (theories) of a really small, really loud, extremest elite few, as the measuring stick for how everyone and everything else has to think and work. Almost always about some pet peeve or other trivial matter. And always in the name of fighting some grievous crime against women... oh, sorry.. womin. Instead of actually doing something!

Guidance issued in a new 'Gender-Neutral Language' pamphlet instead orders politicians to address female members by their full name only.
'...he is one of those vipers in literature who nourish themselves with their own venom; a pamphlet-monger.” “A pamphlet-monger!” said Candide, “what is that?” “Why, a pamphlet-monger,” replied the abbé, “is a writer of pamphlets—a fool.”'
-Voltaire

Because it is their title rather than simply calling them by their first name. Same goes for those who aren't married but deserves respect as well, I would say Miss instead of Mrs (obvisouly)

I think the point would be that - as 'titles' go, I title that basically serves no purpose other than to suggest you have achieved the goal of being a woman, with a husband - and suggests no other attributes or achievements - is a bit of a sucky 'title'.

Since you clearly haven't witnessed the whole exchange, I'll sum up.

GnI has taken the position that since "bitch" is not always feminine in gender (which, by a single definition of the dictionary out of four, he's right), that the change in a joke of "bitchslap" to "humanslap" was inappropriate and not funny, as isolating "bitch" is turning a nongender term into another nongender term.


Good grief.

If you don't understand it, please, for the love of Merciful Zeus, don't try to explain it to someone else.

If you're making a genuine effort, link to the posts - don't present YOUR half-baked abortion version of my argument, as though it were MY argument.

Their fault for faulty reporting, not our fault for believing and discussing an issue published in a few (credible) newspapers.
Actually, yes, it is your fault for being gullible and unquestiongly accept whatever's written in the article you dug up. Not that I have any illusions concerning your reluctance to post dubious claims here... Several posters have been critical throughout the thread, not surprisingly more than one who's well-versed in the field of law.

Given that you now know that your OP is based on falsehoods and hysteria, when are you going to edit it?
Hasn't happened yet...

Yes. I am aware that you do not see the problem. I will try to illustrate the problem for you.

Let us discuss President Bachelet again. She is currently unmarried. Therefore the correct honourific, as mentioned before, is Señorita. And, as mentioned before, is used primarily for girls and teenagers. Which is not very fitting for a head of state. You suggested using her official title as President.

That was a good idea. It lets people know the important things. But what if she was an entrepreneur? The owner of Chile's largest chain of department stores is also a woman. These women have no official title that can be used in everyday life. Using an honourific that is used mostly for girls and adolescents may not be fitting for such influential women. Nor is their unmarried status of any importance.

But if we use one of these existing words, we run into the problem of either pretending they are married, or talking to them as if they were children.
If what's written in one of the blog posts that Cat-Tribes linked to is correct, it could be useful to show more examples of what non-binding recommendations the booklet might suggest:

Author (not authoress)
Doctor/physician (for both sexes, including for ‘Ärztin’, etc; avoid lady/woman doctor; also applies in the sense of ‘Ph.D.’)
Flight attendant or (in plural) flight crew (not air hostess)
Manager (not manageress)
Mayor (not mayoress)
Midwife (for both sexes; there is no accepted alternative for male midwives)
Nurse (for both sexes; avoid male nurse)
Police officer (not policeman/policewoman unless the officer’s sex is relevant)


Why go around saying "I visited my female doctor", or "I had a meeting with the mayoress"?


3. Circumstantially yes. Police officer would be the proper english term for a general use. But when being specific, how is 'male police officer' and 'female police officer' any better than policeman and policewoman?
It's not. When you're being specific.


Are we talking about the same EU? What is it that they have accomplished that hasn't, nor wouldn't, have been done without it?
Free movement across Europe?


What's beyond hypocritical is continuing to use the tinfoil hat rantings (theories) of a really small, really loud, extremest elite few, as the measuring stick for how everyone and everything else has to think and work. Almost always about some pet peeve or other trivial matter. And always in the name of fighting some grievous crime against women... oh, sorry.. womin. Instead of actually doing something!

So translators should say "The male nurse raised some objections to the Directive", for example? Why?

Just going to bring this back to the forefront, as it got buried.

"In the word 'fireman', the word is not definitively gendered. It is not constructed to be so - the word 'man' in that context, is nongendered, by design. This has been covered already, by me, no less. It becomes nonsensical when you isolate 'man', because 'man' is not definitively gendered.

Fixed for the logical extrapolation of your argument. Fixes are bolded.

Just going to bring this back to the forefront, as it got buried.



Fixed for the logical extrapolation of your argument. Fixes are bolded.

There's nothing logical about saying that a car and two bikes are the same thing, because both have four wheels.

Your 'fix' is nonsensical, because 'fireman' was not 'designed' to be non-gendered. There's no point addressing your 'argument' beyond that.

There's nothing logical about saying that a car and two bikes are the same thing, because both have four wheels.

Your 'fix' is nonsensical, because 'fireman' was not 'designed' to be non-gendered. There's no point addressing your 'argument' beyond that.

And you support changing a nongendered term to another nongendered term in the name of gender equality.... why?

And you support changing a nongendered term to another nongendered term in the name of gender equality.... why?

And you support using spoons to fling babies onto moving trains... why?

1. Your answer is non-responsive.

2. If calling someone "Mrs." is a sign of respect, what is calling them "Miss"?

3. The use of Mrs. and Miss is based on archaic, patronizing gender roles. We don't differentiate between married and unmarried men, why should we do so with women?

The same I have lready replied plenty of times in this thread to that answer. It is not up to me to dictate our language, but calling them Miss or Mrs is a damn sight more respectful than calling them by their first name.

I think the point would be that - as 'titles' go, I title that basically serves no purpose other than to suggest you have achieved the goal of being a woman, with a husband - and suggests no other attributes or achievements - is a bit of a sucky 'title'.

Same could be said for using the term Mr. and they did even less they were born wth a penis.

Same could be said for using the term Mr. and they did even less they were born wth a penis.

Which, most (even casual) students of history will tell you, has traditionally been treated like a crowning achievement.

And you support using spoons to fling babies onto moving trains... why?

Because of the noises they make.

You didn't address it. You support putting out an official government document changing a nongender term into a nongender term for no reason whatsoever. Why?

You didn't address it. You support putting out an official government document changing a nongender term into a nongender term for no reason whatsoever. Why?

Did you learn nothing? If you're going to make random shit up, either make it fun, or, at least, interesting.

Is "man" always necessarily gendered? No.

Is it usually gendered? Of course. Conspiculously absent from your quote of Webster's is the primary definition:

1 a (1): an individual human ; especially : an adult male human (2): a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation) —usually used in combination <councilman> (3): husband (4): lover b: the human race : humankind c: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) that is anatomically related to the great apes but distinguished especially by notable development of the brain with a resultant capacity for articulate speech and abstract reasoning, is usually considered to form a variable number of freely interbreeding races, and is the sole living representative of the hominid family ; broadly : any living or extinct hominid d (1): one possessing in high degree the qualities considered distinctive of manhood (2)obsolete : the quality or state of being manly : manliness e: fellow , chap —used as mode of familiar address f—used interjectionally to express intensity of feeling <man, what a game>

Regardless, your ranting ignores a couple of points: (1) we don't have a copy of the brochure, so we don't actually know what it says and (2) you have yet to explain what is inappropriate or inaccurate about words like "athelete," "police officer," "firefighter," etc.

Since you clearly haven't witnessed the whole exchange

You are mistaken. I read the whole embarassing exchange and you haven't acquitted yourself well.


However, he has conveniently ignored that most definitions of "man" do not actually mean a male member of the species, but simply a member of the species. Therefore, the change of "policeman" to "police officer" is changing a nongendered term into another nongender term. Similarly with "fireman" into "firefighter." However, he supports doing this one, while he opposes the previous.

And you are ignoring that the primary definition of "man" is masculine and that these terms do have a history based in gender roles.


1) Would be nice, but no we don't. We have to go on the two articles posted (one more accurate than the other)

Why? Couldn't we just not go on nonsensical rants about non-problems?


2) There isn't anything wrong or inaccurate about the terms, but I wouldn't recommend in any kind of official brochure that "rock" should always be replaced with "stone" because "ck" is tacky.

Updating language to avoid outdated gender roles is a bit more substantive and worthwhile than claiming "ck" is tacky.

And you support changing a nongendered term to another nongendered term in the name of gender equality.... why?

You appear to be maintaining two consistently contradictory positions at once: (1) there is no difference between "policeman" and "police officer," so there is no reason to prefer the latter and (2) there is something wrong with preferring the latter.

Did you learn nothing? If you're going to make random shit up, either make it fun, or, at least, interesting.

So you *don't* support this EU documentation changing a nongender term for another nongender term?

So you *don't* support this EU documentation changing a nongender term for another nongender term?

Are you implying that "Mrs" is ambi-gendered?

Or are you thinking you can quote me supporting this document, in some way?

And you are ignoring that the primary definition of "man" is masculine and that these terms do have a history based in gender roles.

And the primary, secondary, and tertiary definitions of "bitch" all involve the female gender. Yet, this should be considered nongender. Why?

Why? Couldn't we just not go on nonsensical rants about non-problems?

That's what we do at NSG.

Updating language to avoid outdated gender roles is a bit more substantive and worthwhile than claiming "ck" is tacky.

Except that the language has evolved over time into what it is. The words do not mean what many people here seem to think they mean. It's irrelevant to go around trying to tell people how to speak when how they are speaking is not incorrect.

You appear to be maintaining two consistently contradictory positions at once: (1) there is no difference between "policeman" and "police officer," so there is no reason to prefer the latter

Nope.

(2) there is something wrong with preferring the latter.

Never said that. If you prefer the latter, use it. If you don't, don't. How you speak is irrelevant as long as the proper concepts are conveyed in a manner that can be understood by the listener. This is the purpose of language.

Are you implying that "Mrs" is ambi-gendered?

You and I never spoke about Mister, Mrs., Ms., or Miss. I don't think you'll find any conversation with me arguing it. I still think it's stupid, but it's beyond the scope of the argument.

Or are you thinking you can quote me supporting this document, in some way?

Do you support it or not? Or, do you support specific portions? I ask you directly.

Galloism, this is one of the most pathetic exchanges I've ever seen on NSG. Stop being a whiny bitch.

You and I never spoke about Mister, Mrs., Ms., or Miss. I don't think you'll find any conversation with me arguing it. I still think it's stupid, but it's beyond the scope of the argument.


Whether you mentioned the word 'Mrs', to me, is a matter of supreme indifference. If you are hard-pressed to recall the topic of the thread, allow me to refer you to the OP.


Do you support it or not? Or, do you support specific portions? I ask you directly.

And yet, you've been merrily attributing a position to me. Is that how these things are done, down your way? Shoot from the lip, first, and ask questions later?

And the primary, secondary, and tertiary definitions of "bitch" all involve the female gender. Yet, this should be considered nongender. Why?

That's what we do at NSG.

Except that the language has evolved over time into what it is. The words do not mean what many people here seem to think they mean. It's irrelevant to go around trying to tell people how to speak when how they are speaking is not incorrect.

Nope.

Never said that. If you prefer the latter, use it. If you don't, don't. How you speak is irrelevant as long as the proper concepts are conveyed in a manner that can be understood by the listener. This is the purpose of language.

Complete disingenuousness.

First, as you admit, language evolves. No reason why it shouldn't evolve along gender-neutral lines.

Second, if, as an organization, you prefer the gender-neutral language, why is it wrong to say so? You appear to be throwing a hissy fit over something that you say is fine and irrelevant.

Third, your definition of "incorrect" is lacking. Gender-loaded terms may be considered incorrect for copious reasons.

First, as you admit, language evolves. No reason why it shouldn't evolve along gender-neutral lines.
Reminds me of the 'translator's note' in Iain M. Banks' fantastic Culture novel, The Player of Games, which features three-gendered aliens, the Azadians; male, female and apice.

Paraphrasing:

"This story was originally written in [the Culture language] Marain, which of course has one pronoun for male, female, hermaphrodite, neuter, drone, Mind, etc. If you're unfortunate enough to be using a language not evolved to handle these divisions, I’ve translated the male and female pronouns for Azadian males and females, and I’ve used whichever is the dominant sex’s pronoun in your language for apices. If your civilisation has no dominant sex, your translation will obviously reflect this."

Whether you mentioned the word 'Mrs', to me, is a matter of supreme indifference. If you are hard-pressed to recall the topic of the thread, allow me to refer you to the OP.

The op also includes the other words that have "man" in their name, which is gender neutral, and you refuse to acknowledge.

And yet, you've been merrily attributing a position to me. Is that how these things are done, down your way? Shoot from the lip, first, and ask questions later?

I clearly must have misread. I thought these posts

And there's my problem with it, to be honest.

There is no ultimate and absolute right to use the entire vocabulary of the language, or ANY language.

You can have total freedom to express your thoughts, and STILL manage to do so within the two-hundred-and-forty-nine-THOUSAND-and-something OTHER words of the language that are not controversial.

The idea that 'speech' is 'forcibly restricted' by limiting the number of choices of SOME particular wording, is somewhat comical.

I view a word like 'sportsman' as unnecessarily divisive. We're a reasonably intelligent species, most of whom are somewhat aware that vocabularies are evolving things. The idea that we SHOULD stick to vocabulary content that is - at best - somewhere between misleading and inaccurate - JUST for the sake of 'tradition', is nonsensical.

We're not talking about actual laws here, but even this kind of 'rule' should be irrelevent. Why wouldn't you change your phrasing slightly to stop causing unnecessary offense? Why would somone oppose slightly altering their use of vocabulary? It's not like the English language is short on words.

seemed to indicate that you were in agreement with the issuance of this documentation.

Did I misread? If so, correct me.

Complete disingenuousness.

Believe what you want about my honesty.
First, as you admit, language evolves. No reason why it shouldn't evolve along gender-neutral lines.
No reason governmental organizations should force it to evolve along imaginary lines that make little sense, either.
Second, if, as an organization,
governmental organization
you prefer the gender-neutral language, why is it wrong to say so? You appear to be throwing a hissy fit over something that you say is fine and irrelevant.
Because language as it has evolved carries much history and beauty with it. We shouldn't cut it up with a knife.
Third, your definition of "incorrect" is lacking. Gender-loaded terms may be considered incorrect for copious reasons.

Then don't use them when you view them as being a bad time. I'm fine with that. However, if you were the president, and sent a letter to congress that you didn't like certain words and want them to no longer use them, I would think you'd lost it.

Galloism, this is one of the most pathetic exchanges I've ever seen on NSG. Stop being a whiny bitch.

Tone it down; no need to turn up the heat.

Do you support it or not? Or, do you support specific portions? I ask you directly.

Ah, so this must mean that you've found the booklet and can show it to us? Because at this point in the thread, you surely wouldn't be asking anybody if they supported the whole or specific portions of a document we haven't seen and don't know the actual contents of, expecting them to base their position on a rather short article that's be shown to be severely inaccurate if not outright erroneous? Or on the uncorroborated blog reports?

So where's the link I must have missed?

Galloism, this is one of the most pathetic exchanges I've ever seen on NSG. Stop being a whiny bitch.Fearing competition?

Same could be said for using the term Mr. and they did even less they were born wth a penis.Does this mean you support giving men a different title depending on whether or not they're married?

-Voltaire

Psst... we're not talking about the same pamphlet.

Does this mean you support giving men a different title depending on whether or not they're married?

If such a title existed then yes I would. Did you have a point behind this question?

Reminds me of the 'translator's note' in Iain M. Banks' fantastic Culture novel, The Player of Games, which features three-gendered aliens, the Azadians; male, female and apice.

Paraphrasing:

"This story was originally written in [the Culture language] Marain, which of course has one pronoun for male, female, hermaphrodite, neuter, drone, Mind, etc. If you're unfortunate enough to be using a language not evolved to handle these divisions, I’ve translated the male and female pronouns for Azadian males and females, and I’ve used whichever is the dominant sex’s pronoun in your language for apices. If your civilisation has no dominant sex, your translation will obviously reflect this."

I liked that book. Especially the way he sets it up so that you never know if the protagonist (the game player whose name I forget) allowed himself to be played by his droid companion or if he was just letting the droid think that.

Fearing competition?

Someone missed the joke...

The same I have lready replied plenty of times in this thread to that answer.

No, you haven't answered the questions I asked.

It is not up to me to dictate our language, but calling them Miss or Mrs is a damn sight more respectful than calling them by their first name.

Again, we don't know what the pamphlet actually suggests but even the most hysterical articles have claimed that the suggested alternative to Miss or Mrs is to use the person's full name. How is that disrespectful?

No, you haven't answered the questions I asked.

Right back at ya.

Again, we don't know what the pamphlet actually suggests but even the most hysterical articles have claimed that the suggested alternative to Miss or Mrs is to use the person's full name. How is that disrespectful?

I don't know but I wasn't claiming that it was I was stating that is was more respectful to call them Mrs.X or Miss. X or Ms. X. I would like to see if these guidelines suggest the same for males, and call them by their first name as well and to stop using Mister.

The best title to use on both males and females and abolish all sexism would be to call everyone Citizen or perhaps Person.

Right back at ya.

Pray tell what question of yours I failed to answer, 'cuz I don't see any.

I don't know

Exactically. I rest my case.

but I wasn't claiming that it was I was stating that is was more respectful to call them Mrs.X or Miss. X or Ms. X. I would like to see if these guidelines suggest the same for males, and call them by their first name as well and to stop using Mister.

Again, we don't have the guidelines, but, given that the whole point is to stop perpetuating gender roles, I find it quite likely that men are also to be referred to by name.

The best title to use on both males and females and abolish all sexism would be to call everyone Citizen or perhaps Person.

Or just use people's names. :eek:

Believe what you want about my honesty.

I stated my view of the honesty of your arguments: there is none.

No reason governmental organizations should force it to evolve along imaginary lines that make little sense, either.

"Force"? Suggesting better language involves force?

"Imaginary lines that make little sense"? The lines suggested are not imaginary and make perfect fucking sense. It is your objections to improvements in the language based on illusory downsides that makes no sense.

governmental organization

Relevance?

Because language as it has evolved carries much history and beauty with it. We shouldn't cut it up with a knife.

The difference between "policeman" and "police officer" "carries much history and beauty"? The use of Mrs. and Miss does too? Bullshit.

Regardless, some suggestions on improved language doesn't cause any harm -- as you yourself have essentially conceded.

Then don't use them when you view them as being a bad time. I'm fine with that. However, if you were the president, and sent a letter to congress that you didn't like certain words and want them to no longer use them, I would think you'd lost it.

Really bad analogy and a stupid point besides. Especially in that there is nothing wrong with an employer making INTERNAL GUIDELINES that SUGGEST the use of gender-neutral language.

The use of Mrs. and Miss does too? Bullshit.I would agree with the policeman thing, but this? What have you been smoking?

But yeah let's call them all "comrades"! That's the spirit!

Pray tell what question of yours I failed to answer, 'cuz I don't see any.

Pray tell how calling someone Mrs. is sexism?

It was a question in response to one of your posts.

Exactically. I rest my case.

And what exactly is this case? That it is sexist to say Mrs. X? But then as I have already said I was never claiming it is disrespectful to call a woman by their first name, I have been saying that it is more respectful to call them by their title.

Again, we don't have the guidelines, but, given that the whole point is to stop perpetuating gender roles, I find it quite likely that men are also to be referred to by name.

How exactly does calling a woman a woman perpetating gender roles?

Exactically. I rest my case.

The Caterpillar!!!!!:fluffle:

"Force"? Suggesting better language involves force?

Poor choice of words. Compelling someone to change their language when there is nothing technically wrong with the language they're using.

"Imaginary lines that make little sense"? The lines suggested are not imaginary and make perfect fucking sense. It is your objections to improvements in the language based on illusory downsides that makes no sense.

I don't see them making any sense. Maybe I'm obtuse, but when we start forgetting what the words and the roots of words actually mean and just start making shit up about what we think they mean, I call that as making little sense.

Relevance?

A governmental organization (some EU organization) is attempting to compel - albeit without force - another governmental organization (its member nations political leaders) to change their language. It's not telling your employees not to swear.

The difference between "policeman" and "police officer" "carries much history and beauty"? The use of Mrs. and Miss does too? Bullshit.

There is no fucking difference between a policeman and a police officer. You can use either damn one you want. I really don't care. However, I think it's stupid to tell people to use one over the other.

Regardless, some suggestions on improved language doesn't cause any harm -- as you yourself have essentially conceded.

When governmental entities, using tax euros, start doing weird things, the standard of our judgement on it should not be "does it do any harm? no, it's ok." It should be "does it do any good? No? Why did we waste our money on it?"

Really bad analogy and a stupid point besides. Especially in that there is nothing wrong with an employer making INTERNAL GUIDELINES that SUGGEST the use of gender-neutral language.

Except most of the words they're changing (aside from Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Miss) are gender neutral already. Ergo, it's pointless, quite stupid, and a waste of money. In addition, it's offensive to the people who have been directed to comply with it, as they are telling them they don't have the ability to speak English (and whatever other languages this covers).


Also, as an aside, how does this work in romance languages? Almost every noun in the language is either masculine or feminine, the way I understand it.

Also, as an aside, how does this work in romance languages? Almost every noun in the language is either masculine or feminine, the way I understand it.

In the case of Spanish, there articles that can cancel the usage of "Mr." and "Mrs.". We have "la", which refers to female, and "el", for male. Of course, in to that which pertains to politics and parliament, the use of the term "honorable" (gender neutral) and applied to senators and congress people, takes care of this EU ban.

In the case of Spanish, there articles that can cancel the usage of "Mr." and "Mrs.". We have "la", which refers to female, and "el", for male. Of course, in to that which pertains to politics and parliament, the use of the term "honorable" (gender neutral) and applied to senators and congress people, takes care of this EU ban.

Ah, interesting.

What about the other romance languages? Do they have a similar term?

Ah, interesting.

What about the other romance languages? Do they have a similar term?

You mean, for articles that would cancel using "Mr." and "Mrs."? Of course. French has "un" (male) and "une" (female). That's just to cite another example.

If such a title existed then yes I would.So would you support the creation of such a title?

Did you have a point behind this question?Yes.

I'm going to beat someone to death next time I hear the phrase "political correctness gone mad". Seriously.

This is political correctness gone mad. Sorry, had to.

Does this really need to be legislated? Really?

^ This. Where does the EU power find a limit? Does the EU have the authority to legislate on such absurd matters? Aren't there slightly more important issues to discuss, like wars, famines, and international disputes?

^ This. Where does the EU power find a limit? Does the EU have the authority to legislate on such absurd matters?
I'd suggest you actually read the thread.

A governmental organization (some EU organization) is attempting to compel - albeit without force - another governmental organization (its member nations political leaders) to change their language. It's not telling your employees not to swear.
We still haven't seen much in the way of "compelling".

Found any laws yet?


There is no fucking difference between a policeman and a police officer. You can use either damn one you want. I really don't care. However, I think it's stupid to tell people to use one over the other.

The policeman couldn't work that day because she was pregnant.

...seems like something's a bit off there to me...

I'm going to beat someone to death next time I hear the phrase "political correctness gone mad". Seriously.

Can I join in?

^ This. Where does the EU power find a limit? Does the EU have the authority to legislate on such absurd matters? Aren't there slightly more important issues to discuss, like wars, famines, and international disputes?

Oh fuck - now you just want to rehash the thread with ignorance of A) the structure of the EU, and B) the competencies of the EP

*facepalm*

Can I join in?

Is Political Correctness not M.A.D. in and of itself?

Is Political Correctness not M.A.D. in and of itself?

You can start by defining the term, aye?

We still haven't seen much in the way of "compelling".

Found any laws yet?

Nah, appears it's just a pamphlet of protocol as stated, not a law.

The policeman couldn't work that day because she was pregnant.

...seems like something's a bit off there to me...

Then you clearly should go back to school and learn what the word "policeman" means.

EDIT: Removed the ambiguity.

Then you clearly should go back to school and learn what the word means.

It's a synonym for gravid, expectant, or 'with child'.

It's a synonym for gravid, expectant, or 'with child'.

Policeman, not pregnant. :p

My fault for not specifying.

Policeman, not pregnant. :p

My fault for not specifying.

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :D

Nah, appears it's just a pamphlet of protocol as stated, not a law.
So how do you attemt to compel without force anyway?


Then you clearly should go back to school and learn what the word means.

Which word? There were several...

If you mean "Policeman"... what's there to learn? I mean, it's the word you just claimed was not fucking different from police officer?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. :D

I would have done the same.

So how do you attemt to compel without force anyway?

Very easily. Let's suppose you have an employer - the employer tells you to skip your breaks that you're legally required to have. You can always say no, and it would be illegal for your employer to punish you.

Yet, most will comply anyway.

Which word? There were several...

If you mean "Policeman"... what's there to learn? I mean, it's the word you just claimed was not fucking different from police officer?

I mean if saying "The policeman couldn't work that day because she was pregnant." sounds "a bit off" to you, clearly you don't know what one of the words (probably policeman) means, and that's why it sounds "a bit off" to you. There is nothing wrong with the sentence.

You can start by defining the term, aye?

Its a joke on "Mutually Assured Destruction" the majority of debates on the merits/faults of "Political Correctness" end up making both sides look like asses in comparison...

Very easily. Let's suppose you have an employer - the employer tells you to skip your breaks that you're legally required to have. You can always say no, and it would be illegal for your employer to punish you.

Yet, most will comply anyway.

What? Hell no! What kind of world do you live in? If the suggestion wasn't blatantly ignored, the unions would swoop in or lawsuits would be filed.

Mind you, saying compel without force seems to be pointless, since if you remove the force it's no longer compelling (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compelling).

I mean if saying "The policeman couldn't work that day because she was pregnant." sounds "a bit off" to you, clearly you don't know what one of the words (probably policeman) means, and that's why it sounds "a bit off" to you. There is nothing wrong with the sentence.
So it couldn't possibly be that the term so strongly implies that we're talking about a man that it sounds off to ascribe a uniquely female characteristic to that person?

Because that's what I find to be off.

Ah well. At least I'm not clinging to an antiquated and archaic (not to mention inaccurate) style of language.

Then you clearly should go back to school and learn what the word "policeman" means.

Apparently, many dictionaries also don't know that the term is gender-neutral.

Policeman

NOUN: A man who is a member of a police force.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000 (http://www.bartleby.com/61/12/P0411200.html)

po·lice·man [ pə lssmən ] (plural po·lice·men [ pə lssmən ])
noun

Definition:

man on police force: a man who is a police officer

Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861738229)

policeman Show phonetics
noun [C]
a male member of a police force

Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=61247&dict=CALD)

policeman

Definition 1. a male member of a police force.

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=policeman&matchtype=exact)

Granted, you can find dictionaries that say simply "a member of a police force," but why use a term (1) with a sexist history and (2) sometimes a gender-specific meaning when a perfectly good non-sexist, gender-neutral term exists--"police officer"?

Apparently, many dictionaries also don't know that the term is gender-neutral.

Granted, you can find dictionaries that say simply "a member of a police force," but why use a term (1) with a sexist history and (2) sometimes a gender-specific meaning when a perfectly good non-sexist, gender-neutral term exists--"police officer"?

Go ahead and use whatever term you like. I'm not telling you to use any particular term, just as I wouldn't want you telling me to use a particular term.

Oh now that's interesting. There are dictionaries that say that's it gender-specific. Hmm, you have a valid point there and I have no ability to argue it.

Do the same dictionaries say similar things about firemen, sportsmen, etc?

What? Hell no! What kind of world do you live in? If the suggestion wasn't blatantly ignored, the unions would swoop in or lawsuits would be filed.

Not sure exactly where you live, but not every place of employment is a union shop.

Mind you, saying compel without force seems to be pointless, since if you remove the force it's no longer compelling (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/compelling).

Ah yes, I should have used "impelled." You caught me in a word slip a thread about language. Nice.

So it couldn't possibly be that the term so strongly implies that we're talking about a man that it sounds off to ascribe a uniquely female characteristic to that person?

Because that's what I find to be off.

It doesn't strongly imply it to me, because I've always gone by the definition I learned in school - that it was gender neutral. Cat-Tribe has made an interesting point, and perhaps the language has changed since I learned it, but it still doesn't sound off to me.

Ah well. At least I'm not clinging to an antiquated and archaic (not to mention inaccurate) style of language.

It's not inaccurate unless the language completely changes out from under me. It could happen, but it hasn't happened yet.

Go ahead and use whatever term you like. I'm not telling you to use any particular term, just as I wouldn't want you telling me to use a particular term.

Your personal touchiness about language suggestions aside, what exactly is the problem with asking people to use more accurate and more progressive language that avoids perpetuation of gender roles?

Oh now that's interesting. There are dictionaries that say that's it gender-specific. Hmm, you have a valid point there and I have no ability to argue it.

Do the same dictionaries say similar things about firemen, sportsmen, etc?

"Fireman" is even more frequently gender-specific. E.g., link (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fireman?view=uk), link (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861611654), link (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=29084&dict=CALD), link (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=fireman&matchtype=exact).

The same is true of "sportsman." E.g., link (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861712461), link (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=76820&dict=CALD), link (http://www.yourdictionary.com/sportsman), link (http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/S0665400.html)

Your personal touchiness about language suggestions aside, what exactly is the problem with asking people to use more accurate and more progressive language that avoids perpetuation of gender roles?

It's a waste of money, does nothing appreciably valuable, and is irritating. In addition, and I realize this falls in the realm of a slippery slope fallacy, things like this have a tendency to expand into a wider and wider scope as time goes on.

"Fireman" is even more frequently gender-specific. E.g., link (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/fireman?view=uk), link (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861611654), link (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=29084&dict=CALD), link (http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.php?script=search&matchent=fireman&matchtype=exact).

The same is true of "sportsman." E.g., link (http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861712461), link (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=76820&dict=CALD), link (http://www.yourdictionary.com/sportsman), link (http://www.bartleby.com/61/54/S0665400.html)

Fireman you have a valid point, but sportsman does encompass both genders in every dictionary.

It doesn't strongly imply it to me, because I've always gone by the definition I learned in school - that it was gender neutral. Cat-Tribe has made an interesting point, and perhaps the language has changed since I learned it, but it still doesn't sound off to me.


We've gone Through The Looking Glass:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

:rolleyes:

We've gone Through The Looking Glass:

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

:rolleyes:

No, I'm saying, if the definition has changed since I learned it, I may need to start using the word to only refer to males. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop using the word, though.

Fireman you have a valid point, but sportsman does encompass both genders in every dictionary.

:rolleyes: Really?

"a man who participates in sports"

"a man who plays sport, especially well"

"a man who is interested in or takes part in sports, esp. in hunting, fishing, etc"

"A man who is active in sports."

Moreover, the gender-specific definition of "sportsman" fits with the gender-specific definition of "sportswoman" link (http://www.onelook.com/?w=sportswoman&ls=a)

No, I'm saying, if the definition has changed since I learned it, I may need to start using the word to only refer to males. That doesn't mean I'm going to stop using the word, though.

You are actually trying to claim that the origins and definition of the word "policeman" has nothing to do with the long history of that occupation as male-dominated?

In what alternate universe did you learn the meaning of the word?

:rolleyes: Really?

"a man who participates in sports"

"a man who plays sport, especially well"

"a man who is interested in or takes part in sports, esp. in hunting, fishing, etc"

"A man who is active in sports."

Moreover, the gender-specific definition of "sportsman" fits with the gender-specific definition of "sportswoman" link (http://www.onelook.com/?w=sportswoman&ls=a)

2. somebody fair and honorable: somebody, especially [but not necessarily] a man, who behaves fairly, observing rules, respecting others, and accepting defeat graciously

2 someone who plays sport in a way that shows respect and fairness towards the opposing player or team:

2 a person who can take loss or defeat without complaint, or victory without gloating, and who treats his opponents with fairness, generosity, courtesy, etc.

2. A person whose conduct and attitude exhibit sportsmanship

From your four links, friend. Brackets my notation.

2. somebody fair and honorable: somebody, especially [but not necessarily] a man, who behaves fairly, observing rules, respecting others, and accepting defeat graciously

2 someone who plays sport in a way that shows respect and fairness towards the opposing player or team:

2 a person who can take loss or defeat without complaint, or victory without gloating, and who treats his opponents with fairness, generosity, courtesy, etc.

2. A person whose conduct and attitude exhibit sportsmanship

From your four links, friend. Brackets my notation.

When a word has a primary and secondary meaning, the fact that secondary meanings may not be gender-specific is hardly evidence that the word is gender-neutral.

You are actually trying to claim that the origins and definition of the word "policeman" has nothing to do with the long history of that occupation as male-dominated?

Perhaps, but as man also means anyone of the homo sapien species, the fact that something contains "man" does not make it a sexist term - unless human and woman also are sexist terms.

In what alternate universe did you learn the meaning of the word?

First grade, if memory serves. Perhaps the language has changed, but I didn't think such big changes would happen in my lifetime.

When a word has a primary and secondary meaning, the fact that secondary meanings may not be gender-specific is hardly evidence that the word is gender-neutral.

Really? Tell that to GnI.

The reason words have multiple definitions is because they can be used in various ways. Not all the ways are gender specific. If some (or many) of the ways are not gender specific, and it is used in the context to indicate that definition, then it should not be viewed as a gender-specific term within that context.

Perhaps, but as man also means anyone of the homo sapien species, the fact that something contains "man" does not make it a sexist term - unless human and woman also are sexist terms.

First grade, if memory serves. Perhaps the language has changed, but I didn't think such big changes would happen in my lifetime.

Really? Tell that to GnI.

The reason words have multiple definitions is because they can be used in various ways. Not all the ways are gender specific. If some (or many) of the ways are not gender specific, and it is used in the context to indicate that definition, then it should not be viewed as a gender-specific term within that context.

*tires of beating my head against this particular wall as it is clear no evidence will change your prejudices*

*tires of beating my head against this particular wall as it is clear no evidence will change your prejudices*

I don't see how using the entire vocabulary as it is in the ways that are correct is a prejudice. I'm kind of lost on that.

I'll have to change how I use the term "policeman", because ,apparently, that only refers to men now. So, therefore, I will have to only use it to refer to male police officers.

However, I don't see why I can't still use terms like "she's such a sportsman" or "She's your man." It's obvious by the context which definition I mean, and that it's nongendered within that context.

I don't see how using the entire vocabulary as it is in the ways that are correct is a prejudice. I'm kind of lost on that.

I'll have to change how I use the term "policeman", because ,apparently, that only refers to men now. So, therefore, I will have to only use it to refer to male police officers.

However, I don't see why I can't still use terms like "she's such a sportsman" or "She's your man." It's obvious by the context which definition I mean, and that it's nongendered within that context.
No one is stopping you from being an anachronism. Just don't get too sad when people point and laugh while you struggle to contend that your use of 'man' is inherently non-gendered.

No one is stopping you from being an anachronism. Just don't get too sad when people point and laugh while you struggle to contend that your use of 'man' is inherently non-gendered.

If they never learned what the words mean, I fail to see how that's my problem.

By the way, if we can only use the first definition of a word, I reference you to the word run (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/run).

That's okay, I know a lot of old geezers who still call female staff 'girls' even said women are in their 60s. Some people really feel the need to hold on to their outdated use of language despite the offensive connotations of the words used, and invariably, the justification used is 'oh well it isn't offensive, it wasn't offensive in my day, and it's not offensive now!'

Battle on.

That's okay, I know a lot of old geezers who still call female staff 'girls' even said women are in their 60s. Some people really feel the need to hold on to their outdated use of language despite the offensive connotations of the words used, and invariably, the justification used is 'oh well it isn't offensive, it wasn't offensive in my day, and it's not offensive now!'

Battle on.

I don't see how using a current and accepted definition of a word is offensive. Maybe I'm stupid or old-fashioned, but I just don't see it.

I don't see how using a current and accepted definition of a word is offensive. Maybe I'm stupid or old-fashioned, but I just don't see it.

I'd use the term 'willfully blind', but your theories are also plausible. There has been ample discussion about the offensive nature of certain words you seem to want to champion. It's quite clear you are dead set against any other opinion but your own. That leads us back to my first sentence.

I'd use the term 'willfully blind', but your theories are also plausible. There has been ample discussion about the offensive nature of certain words you seem to want to champion. It's quite clear you are dead set against any other opinion but your own. That leads us back to my first sentence.

Except, despite all this bluster about "man" being such an offensive term to use as part of a word, you still use it constantly and just randomly decide which words that have a "man" root are offensive. There seems no rhyme or reason where or why the "man" root is offensive.

Except, despite all this bluster about "man" being such an offensive term to use as part of a word, you still use it constantly and just randomly decide which words that have a "man" root are offensive. There seems no rhyme or reason where or why the "man" root is offensive.

Okay seriously? Are you really willing to have this conversation, despite the pages and pages where you seem oblivious to the arguments? I'm not going to have a lot of patience if you are just dicking around.

Occupational descriptions. Policeman, fireman, or conversely stewardess, waitress, etc. Descriptions that are specifically gendered. Why are they specifically gendered? Look to historical gendered divisions of labour. These are the most obviously offensive. Is it enough to simply create an alternative, gendered term? Steward? Waiter? Policewoman? Firewoman? Why would we do this? What are we trying to convey? The gender of the person performing a certain function, or the nature of the function itself? I argue it's the latter. Therefore a single, non-gendered term makes a lot more sense.

Marital descriptions. These only apply to women. The term 'Mr.' does not give any indication of marital status but the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' are inherently based on marital status. Is this necessary? At all? For year the term 'Ms' has been used by women who don't want to be prefaced by a statement of their relationship status.

It's not simply about ever word that has 'man' in it. You argue about historical meanings, dictionary definitions, but you ignore social reality, you ignore gendered history.

Occupational descriptions. Policeman, fireman, or conversely stewardess, waitress, etc. Descriptions that are specifically gendered. Why are they specifically gendered? Look to historical gendered divisions of labour. These are the most obviously offensive. Is it enough to simply create an alternative, gendered term? Steward? Waiter? Policewoman? Firewoman? Why would we do this? What are we trying to convey? The gender of the person performing a certain function, or the nature of the function itself? I argue it's the latter. Therefore a single, non-gendered term makes a lot more sense.

Ah, so now we get to the heart of it. Waitress is offensive because, sometime in the not-all-that-distant past, the only people who performed that position were women. Conversely, policeman or fireman are the same way. Ok, maybe *maybe* I can see that. Maybe.

Marital descriptions. These only apply to women. The term 'Mr.' does not give any indication of marital status but the terms 'Miss' and 'Mrs' are inherently based on marital status. Is this necessary? At all? For year the term 'Ms' has been used by women who don't want to be prefaced by a statement of their relationship status.

Which doesn't explain why they're getting rid of "Mr." and "Ms." as well.

It's not simply about ever word that has 'man' in it. You argue about historical meanings, dictionary definitions, but you ignore social reality, you ignore gendered history.

I'm not ignoring it - I just think it's irrelevant.

http://tallskinnykiwi.typepad.com/tallskinnykiwi/censorship-small.jpg



Yes, it's all a bunch of ridiculous, dreary leftist garbage until my main man Struan Stevenson, a conservative MEP from Scotland comes into the picture and puts foot to ass.



Just another step up the newspeak-ladder.

Opinions, correct and incorrect?
I think that they should just change woman to woperson and get it over and done with.

Not sure exactly where you live, but not every place of employment is a union shop.
But where you live, people are simply drones or slaves that obey the whims of their employers without question?

Then you surely can't be living in the most litigious country in the world...


Ah yes, I should have used "impelled." You caught me in a word slip a thread about language. Nice.
What? Different words have different meanings? NO WAY!! :eek2:


It doesn't strongly imply it to me, because I've always gone by the definition I learned in school - that it was gender neutral. Cat-Tribe has made an interesting point, and perhaps the language has changed since I learned it, but it still doesn't sound off to me.
Language is always changing. This particular claim we're dealing with here isn't anything new either. Apparently, all terms historically ending in -man that designate specific occupations (foreman; mailman; policeman; repairman; etc.) were dropped in favor of sex-neutral terms in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles published by the U.S. Dept. of Labor in 1977, so the war on... uh... the wasting of taxpayer money has been going on since then.

And you could send me back to school, as you think the dictionaries and I are all wrong, but I doubt my mind (or the dictionary definitions) would be changed as a result.


It's not inaccurate unless the language completely changes out from under me. It could happen, but it hasn't happened yet.
Yes, it has.

It's a waste of money, does nothing appreciably valuable, and is irritating.
Improving the accuracy of translations is a waste of money? Raising awareness that different words in different languages have different meanings is doing nothing?


First grade, if memory serves. Perhaps the language has changed, but I didn't think such big changes would happen in my lifetime.
Language is always changing, along with culture. As I've said, this change has happened gradually since the 70's.

Ah, so now we get to the heart of it. Waitress is offensive because, sometime in the not-all-that-distant past, the only people who performed that position were women. Conversely, policeman or fireman are the same way. Ok, maybe *maybe* I can see that. Maybe.
Does this booklet claim that the words and terms should be avoided because they are offensive?

I think that they should just change woman to woperson and get it over and done with.

I think we should go back to this and use True English versions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

In older English language the words wer and wyf (also wæpman and wifman) were used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, and "Man" was gender-neutral

Hmm, interesting. Also interesting to note is that in German, it goes like this.

Mann - Man

Frau - Woman

Man - one (example: Darf man da rauchen? 'Is one allowed to smoke there?')

Human - Humane

Mensch - Human

Menschheit - Humanity

Also...to throw some twists in there, 'Mensch' is male but 'Menschheit' is female, due to German grammar endings. :D

That's okay, I know a lot of old geezers who still call female staff 'girls' even said women are in their 60s. Some people really feel the need to hold on to their outdated use of language despite the offensive connotations of the words used, and invariably, the justification used is 'oh well it isn't offensive, it wasn't offensive in my day, and it's not offensive now!'

Battle on.

I will be like that. I mean, let's say one day for whatever reason, the word "gay" becomes unacceptable to reference homosexual people. I'll have been using that word for decades, am I really going to change just because some snotty brats who don't even remember when there was no Internet get offended at it? Fuck no! A need to speak freely without society or people force you to censor yourself for seemingly arbitrary reasons is not limited to paternalistic dirty old men.

I will be like that. I mean, let's say one day for whatever reason, the word "gay" becomes unacceptable to reference homosexual people.

You may already be there...the primary use of the word Gay in current social circles, at least in my locality has switched to referencing something being Lame or stupid...

Its actually rather odd when the lesbians you work/hang out with use it in that sense, lol...

Hmm, interesting.

Still no edit of your erroneous OP, eh?

Still no edit of your erroneous OP, eh?
That would rob him of the opportunity, months from now, to link to the OP and claim some sort of victory, hoping no one will remember how he had his ass handed to him.

I think we should go back to this and use True English versions...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman
Or we could go even further back and resort to grunts and groans and gesturing?

Or we could go even further back and resort to grunts and groans and gesturing?

Cromagnon is a language now? <_< :eek:

I think that they should just change woman to woperson and get it over and done with.

Discriminating against daughters much?:p

Discriminating against daughters much?:p
My bad.....how about wodaught?