Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoSconosciuto";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by ForceoftheTruth";p="
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoSconosciuto";p="
IMO, political correctness implies and is supported by various hypocrisies. A certain code of behavior and manner of speech when dealing with this group, another when dealing wth that group.
|
When taken to an extreme (and yes, I have sometimes been guilty of taking it to an extreme), that is true. However, political correctness as it has most often been practiced consists of equalizing social treatment of various groups, often in how our language refers to them. It resembles the golden rule. Political correctness works on the principle that you shouldn't do something if you would resent the equivalent being done to you. I don't agree with her on some issues, but I thought Gloria Steinem illustrated this point brilliantly when she wrote this:
Take language for instance. Many women feel invisible or aberrant when they are subsumed under a masculine term that is supposed to be universal; yet they are often made to feel trivial and nit-picking if they object. But look at it this way: Would a man feel included in “womankind?” Would he refer to himself as a “chairwoman”, “Congresswoman” or “Mr. Mary Smith”? If a male student earned a “Spinster of Arts” degree, and a “Mistress of Science”, or had to apply for a “Sistership” would he feel equal in academia? If men had grown up seeing God portrayed only as Mother and She, would they feel equal godliness within themselves? |
In Spanish and Italian, the words you are referring to are feminine in that use. In other words, they would refer to a woman. In the plural or mixed company, the masculine is used to cover all bases. In the singular, the gender of the person in question decides the form. Most English words do not have masculine and feminine forms. |
That is irrelevant even if it is correct. You didn't address the point Steinem made about the English language. Would the wording Steinem used to invert our language's traditions offend you? Would it bother you if humanity were referred to as "womankind"? Would it bother you if you were in Congress and regularly called a "Congresswoman"? If you were married, would it bother you to be called by your wife's name? How about being a "Spinster of Arts", a "Mistress of Science" or being part of a "sistership"? Would it bother you if everyone referred to God exclusively as "She"? If the answer is yes to any of these questions, then to be fair you have to recognize the truth in what Steinem wrote. |
Well, that
was my response. So if it is correct, I suppose it could not be irrelevant. Attaching gender to words in a language which, for the most part, does not assume gender, is part of what causes me to chuckle at feminists. Yes, they nit-pick and complain about everything from words to the sexual abuse of cows being milked on a farm.
"Man" is simply a word with three letters. It may apply to a species or to a gender. In the word "mankind", no gender is implied. Only the feminists get wound up and infer something that is not there.
As for being called by my wife's name, no, that wouldn't work, as that is not part of
my belief system. If some feminist doesn't like that, too bad. She(he) will get over it or she won't. But she wouldn't have to take my name either. In the multi-page pre-nup, I would be glad to make sure her maiden name was clearly spelled out.
03-12-2006, 01:07 PM
Culture and Language
Linear Mode
