Larry, so long as there is no such word as “tesman” or anything similar. so long as “man” is supposed to mean both “human” and “male human”, we have a problem. Which would be my point.
stoid
Following this train of thought: the word “dress” means both “general clothing” and “female outer garment (usually a one-piece bodice and skirt)”. We clearly have a problem here too - no doubt Stoid would say that we “subtly reinforce the idea” that female clothing = norm, and male clothing = not norm.
Yep, I feel all oppressed, and see this as just another example of women treating men like second class citizens, blah blah blah. :rolleyes:
Or would that be a ridiculous thing to say?
Why do women get to be all special and have an extra two letters in front?
I see… what is the problem, exactly? I’m not up on my feminism, and I can think of no one better to instruct me, and in no better place than the SDMB.
Why, exactly, is having “man” have two seperate definitions a problem?
Must I point out that the word “bitch” means female dog. Not a male dog, a female dog. OF COURSE IT’S GENDER SPECIFIC. Fuckin A.
Oh, and to all the overreacting feminists: quit yer bitchin’, womyn.
She explained her reasoning a ways up this page, in a response to Angel.
This was her reasoning, I agree. Now I’m just wondering why “normalcy” is an issue. When we use the word “he” for “he or she” how does this in any way reflect normalcy?
For instance, when I use the word “red” to refer to “apple” I am not, in some subtle way, suggesting that Granny Smith apples (or other green apples) are abberant. I am wondering if such “normalcy” issues always refer to all things we abstract, or only gender abstractions.
Hence: “What is the problem again?” I’ve never quite understood it.
Good to know I got that base covered. 
Except that you don’t. Do you say “Honey, bring me a red!” and your wife brings you an apple? If so, it’s a special language between the two of you.
I was just trying to come up with an accurate example and I will have to stew on it. The “dress” one above comes much closer.
The problem is that when we are children, learning how the world works, learning who we are in the world, what our importance or lack of it may be, it is subtly denigrating to women and elevating to men to have the male represent the male and female, while the female reps only the female. As I said earlier, I remember distinctly being bothered by this as a girl. And in terms of our language, it’s pretty pervasive. Women are subsumed into their husbands as “The Mrs”, a mere appendage of the greater whole, the man. Which is why many women reject taking their husband’s name.
If you turned all the occurances of this inside out and started mentally referring to she/womankind/woman, etc. instead of the male versions, I think you would better understand what “the Problem” is.
stoid
PS: In looking for examples, I did think of another, but it was gender related again! “Dog” refers both to male dogs and to all dogs, (although the use of “dog” to refer to males is confined more to show rings and the like.)
Perhaps this is something I should post in “General Questions” “What nouns represent a variety of the thing, and all varieties of the thing as well?”
In the above post I said “When we are children…” and kinda left it like that. What I meant to say was that there is always subtext in the words we choose, and our understanding of that subtext begins as all understanding does, in childhood. It does not end there, of course, but that is the time when our minds are most pliant, open to change. That is the time when we learn things like " ‘he’ means he, he and she, he or she, or just she. ‘she’ means just ‘she’ " The subtext of which is: " ‘he’ is extremely powerful and important. ‘she’ isn’t even necessary, really."
And if you don’t see what impact that might have on the way our culture sees women, then it is my inadequacy, I’m sure.
stoid
erislover:
When a word is used for two different meanings, it can have the effect of concatenating those two meanings. If we use the word “normal” to mean “typical, normative, of the most common variety” and also use it to mean “healthy, proper”, (as has been the case, btw), we end up with a concatenated corollary: that if something isn’t normative and conventional, it isn’t healthy and proper either: “Them folks ain’t NORMAL”
You also find a sort of “gliding” concatenation taking place sometimes, where speakers start off intending to use the word in Sense #1 but slide into using it in Sense #2:
[Approximate quote from a college textbook]
From the silly constructs above, an entire theory was devised to explain the institution of marriage and the practice of trade as a logical outcome to the need of Early Man for a wife, with no consideration for the needs of Early Woman, who might or might not need a wife, might or might not wish to BE a wife, and might or might not need a husband, and whose need might or might not conflict with those of Early Man, a conflict which might or might not have an outcome that could be assessed in terms of that conflict…none of which got onto the “map” because, of course, Early Man means Early Human, which includes Early Woman (except, of course, where it doesn’t).
Heck, I know some Republicans who resent the double-jointed word “Democratic” for similar reasons!
** Nicely ** done, AHunter! Thank you!
Hmm, seems a rather long response I typed up was lost. Well, I will do what I can to repeat it.
“Any employee using the restroom must was his hands”
This does not tell me that men do not wash their hands. This is not directed only at men.
“An employee not following the dress code will find himself under review.”
Women are not free to abandon the dress code.
“A male employee must wear a tie to work as part of his normal appearance.”
I think that speaks for itself.
Furthermore, there are a number of words which follow the exact same path.
Automobiles do not necessarily have automatic transmissions, and if they did, they won’t shift into reverse for you all on their own. I still drive my automatic car, and my manual still idle’s all on its own. Writing out recursive formulas can be done in printed works, and writing in cursive can be repeated again and again without recursiveness. Stacks can be of pallets, pancakes, or emit smoke, and signs can emit lights or sounds. An alarming number of holes in the ozone layer do not emit sound or light in a fashion simlar to an alarm system. Men and women can both bitch about their small, furry, four-legged bitch to their bitch of a neighbor who is married to a bitch. None of these cause us any problems whatsoever. (at least, I am assuming they don’t)
So my question is, what is the deal with gender?
AHunter, you said,
There is no concatenated meaning there. “They are not proper” is already covered under “normal.” No need to slur meanings for that.
A card game I play with friends, Jyhad, has a very complicated set of rules. in the rule book they refer to all players as female and all the minions the player controls (the cards representing people) as male. There is no confusion that men can play the game, and when I draw a female vampire from my minions I am not astonished at the schism in the rulebook.
Stoid, you mentioned, “…it is subtly denigrating to women and elevating to men to have the male represent the male and female, while the female reps only the female.” I do not feel special for being male. Why did I slip through the cracks? Why can I see “he” used in a general sense without associating it with forced masculinity? I am not an especially intelligent person. I was raised by my mother alone. I should, by all rights, be sensative to the issue, but I have seemingly never had a problem with it. I’ve, very frankly, found the entire topic ridiculous and never understood it. That the OP wants me to believe it is now part of our swearing is also very amusing to me.
Perhaps because you are a “he”?
And masculinity and maleness are different. Sex and gender are different, and I have been remiss in using them interchangably myself.
stoid
Do fags become cigars in Cuba? Maybe we should send Esprix to check it out.
I’ve always liked Douglas Hofstadter’s A Person Paper bit on such things.
Me, I’d just sort of like gender-neutral pronouns to work into the language simply for clarity’s sake more than any kind of philosophical ax to grind.
“fuck” and “arse” are great non-gender specific but oh so expressive words. Now every one try one of these for size:
stupid fuck!
complete arse!
fucking arse!
Feels good huh?
I like it!
It goes a little further than is necessary, I think, but very nicely done.