How did you become a Feminist?

[KarenAM]

Sorry, Perdita, I guess I'm confused. Do you mean structure as in word-order and things like that? Because that's quite true; those elements of language do only change slowly. But I'm not sure how this sort of structure is patriarchal. Can you clarify?

Thanks!

 

[Guest]

Just one simple example then (there's plenty of literature on the subject). The use of the male pronoun to identify humanity. Some changes are still in progress, but it's taken decades and I suspect decades more until this patriarchal seed is diminished, destroyed or transcended. P.

 

[CharleyH]

No, no, I thought the Ashleigh Brilliant statement was cute, not anything that you said!

Raph, hoping he's headed that one off at the pass.

Apparently, from what is popping out of the jeans - you have headed it well -

 

[Guest]

p.s. to Karen: politics has always played in the making of language. English as we know it is derived from Latin, Celtic, German, Danish, French (that's all I can recall right now), and obviously depending on who was conquering and occupying whom. E.g., when Christianity became the majority religion (connected to the state), Latin became the larger influence in how the language developed. All this under the old patriarchal societies of each contributing group.

Perdita

 

[raphy]

Just one simple example then (there's plenty of literature on the subject). The use of the male pronoun to identify humanity. Some changes are still in progress, but it's taken decades and I suspect decades more until this patriarchal seed is diminished, destroyed or transcended. P.

So you're objecting to the use of 'man' in 'human' and 'mankind' and even just the use of 'man' to describe humanity as a whole?(i.e. "Man first walked on the moon in blah blah", or "Neaderthal man hunted saber-tooth cats" etc etc)

Serious question - I am curious. Would you support those groups of women that choose to spell it womyn?

 

[Black Tulip]

Raphy,

I know it's changing, but not much for my generation.

 

[Guest]

No, Raph, I don't want to change the spellings of those words, but I do like that their history and effects are now recognized. It used to mean something disparaging to me, even as a young girl, that 'man' was used throughout the bible, and elsewhere, to denote all people. It was presumed that women were included, but think how you might feel if it was 'woman' that represented everyone.

What will happen to the language will someday be academic, but for the present it's still in flux. Still, I would not deride those passionate activists and radicals who call attention to its history and meaning.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

We have a female Mayor in my town. She insists on being called "Mr Mayor". She's one of the strongest, most admirable women I've ever had the fortune to meet. And, she asked me for advice on something! When that happened, it made my week.

Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

Lou

 

[KarenAM]

Ah! Thanks, Perdita!

I don't see the use of the masculine for the default pronoun as being part of a language's structure, but rather a reflection of the society that uses the language (since structurally, English could use the feminine or neuter pronoun and remain identical to the English of today). But that's a minor quibble, and I agree with the point you are making.

What is structual are the words "he" and "she" themselves, now that I think about it. "She" is clearly derivative of "he". "Woman" is clearly derivative of "man". Does this mean that the framers of the English language saw the female (there it is again!) as being "other", vis-a-vis the male? But is "her" derivative of "his"? Hmmm... interesting.

Okay, you've convinced me, Perdita. This word use reflects our society's patriarchal origins. What's fascinating is that we can see the language changing, though. Have you noticed how the 3rd person plural is more and more being used to refer to singular individuals in order to obscure their gender? As for example:

"If one wishes not to be sexist, they should eat more cookies."

My mother, who learned formal English grammar in the 1940s and 1950s, would have a fit over this, but to me it sounds fine.

I admit it. I'm a linguistics junkie.

 

[Guest]

Loulou, I rather like that. For me it's like saying a certain woman has balls. We know what it means and it fits. P.

 

[Guest]

Does this mean that the framers of the English language saw the female (there it is again!) as being "other", vis-a-vis the male?

I only quote this statement because of your use of "framers of the English language". Well, there was not a set of men who proclaimed this or that was proper or correct English, but if you are somewhat well read in English law, history and literature it is obvious the 'framers' were all patriarchal types, and many of them directly related to a Christian hierarchy. Just another point, P.

 

[CharleyH]

No, Raph, I don't want to change the spellings of those words, but I do like that their history and effects are now recognized. It used to mean something disparaging to me, even as a young girl, that 'man' was used throughout the bible, and elsewhere, to denote all people. It was presumed that women were included, but think how you might feel if it was 'woman' that represented everyone.

What will happen to the language will someday be academic, but for the present it's still in flux. Still, I would not deride those passionate activists and radicals who call attention to its history and meaning.

Perdita

Words need to be changed - womyn is a total dyke word. Quote me now - I am ALWAYS RIGHT - you will see a transfer from avant garde to mainstream the words that define male/female - you will also see greater use of S/m where the femme takes on the masculine, where the penis becomes a pawn to pleasure.

that was an aside - but quote me

Words - WORDS. Raphy the day a woman can walk down a street and have the word slut, dyke, bitch not take its particularly female position . . . what do you get walking down a street? AND Raphy, do, when you say fuck off get someone getting out of their car coming after you because they think you are weak and will bow to your agressiveness? Not that you are. Had it happen. Oh god still confused.

Womyn has a dyke'feminist pov to assert the history of women or something Going from this thread as promised?

 

[Guest]

Womyn Dykedom - I'm all for it. P.

 

[raphy]

I guess that fits into the same category as calling all ships 'she', which is another convention that I've never understood.

I do see your point, P, and were our positions reversed, I hope that my feelings on the matter would be that it's an inconsequential thing. To me, the issue smacks of trying to be overly politically correct. That said - I only say that I hope that that would be my feeling. I suspect that you believe I'd feel aggrieved, thus adding credence to your claim that it's unfair to persist in using the patriarchial-based language.

An academic question (or maybe not) - Are the words for the genders derivative in other languages as well as English? Homme and Femme don't seem derivative, neither do Herr and Frau.

Is this a phenomenon primarily associated with the English language?

 

[raphy]

Words need to be changed - womyn is a total dyke word. Quote me now - I am ALWAYS RIGHT - you will see a transfer from avant garde to mainstream the words that define male/female - you will also see greater use of S/m where the femme takes on the masculine, where the penis becomes a pawn to pleasure.

that was an aside - but quote me

Words - WORDS. Raphy the day a woman can walk down a street and have the word slut, dyke, bitch not take its particularly female position . . . what do you get walking down a street? AND Raphy, do, when you say fuck off get someone getting out of their car coming after you because they think you are weak and will bow to your agressiveness? Not that you are. Had it happen. Oh god still confused.

Womyn has a dyke'feminist pov to assert the history of women or something Going from this thread as promised?

I'm confused too. I'm not sure what your question means.

 

[Guest]

Raph, don't presume about me. I addressed my 'aggrieved' query to you only cos you asked the original question. It was rhetorical and analogical basically.

I don't take p.c. into the equation at all, that's for politicians.

I only know English well so I can't answer about other languages.

Perdita

 

[KarenAM]

An academic question (or maybe not) - Are the words for the genders derivative in other languages as well as English? Homme and Femme don't seem derivative, neither do Herr and Frau.

Is this a phenomenon primarily associated with the English language?

Now that Perdita has me thinking about it, most languages that I know anything about default to the masculine pronoun. This doesn't mean that all words in all those languages will, or that they will always default to the masculine. But it is a clear trend, and the history of these languages is that they are part of patriarchal cultures.

And "womyn"-- isn't that still based on "woman", which is still derivative of "man"? Phonetically, "myn" and "men" are identical, aren't they?

 

[CharleyH]

I'm confused too. I'm not sure what your question means.

Oh god asked a ? - when you walk down a street Raphy - do you get "Oh baby I'm gonna fuck you up the ass so good." A statement I recall vividly . . . and when car door was kicked with the word asshole, a very agressive, but not when I spit in his face with the words try it . . . its a personal story. Was a rhetorical, not directed at you except in the vein that do you walk down a street, getting this? I fortunately get it less than some big breasted GF's - should they be subjected? Can I go up to a guy and say WOW man, your dick looks so spectacularly SMALL. Same diss in my op

 

[Black Tulip]

An academic question (or maybe not) - Are the words for the genders derivative in other languages as well as English? Homme and Femme don't seem derivative, neither do Herr and Frau.

Is this a phenomenon primarily associated with the English language?

Most certainly not. In Dutch you have man = man and vrouw = woman. Different words right?
Now if you address a person formally you would say mijnheer = my sir (or something like that) or mevrouw = my woman.
See the difference?

Another thing: English has only one "lidwoord" = the. (Sorry, can't find a translation).
Dutch has two: "het" is used for words without gender and "de" wich is used for both male or female words. In French that would be "le" for male and "la" for female.
Now people is easy.
The man, he is old. = De man, hij is oud. Hij refers to male words.
The woman, she is old. = De vrouw, zij is oud. Zij refers to female words.
But with objects most people do not know if it's male or female.
The couch, it is old = De bank, hij is oud.
In English that would be it, neutral.
In Dutch that would be "hij" = male.
The virtue, it is a character trait. = De deugd, zij is een karaktertrek.
But most people wouldn't know "deugd" is female.
The language is changing and fast in some ways. The gender issue is fading away, leaving all "de" words male, except when the content is clearly female.

To make my lesson complete:
The house, it is old. = Het huis, het is oud.
That is a "het" word, meaning it's neutral.

I tried to pick words that are very similar to English and I think this little lesson shows it's not just English.
And as Perdita said, the first attempts to define rules for speaking or writing a language were made by men. Same for Dutch. Our grammar was first put on paper in the 16th century by one man who leaned heavily on Latin. He was a politician, an important historian and one of our famous writers.

Class dismissed.

 

[Guest]

Just some common examples of what was not questioned a few decades ago.

mankind - humanity, human beings, human race, people, humankind, humans
If a man drove 50 miles at 60 mph ... - If a person drove 50 miles at 60 mph ...
the best man for the job - the best person (or candidate) for the job
man-made - artificial, synthetic, manufactured, constructed, of human origin
manpower - workers. workforce, staff, labour, staffing, human resources
man - people, humankind, men and women, women and men, individuals, human beings, person, the individual
man the desk - staff the desk, be at the desk
manpower - workers, workforce, staff
chairman - chairperson, chair, convener
headmaster - headteacher, head
policeman, fireman - police officer, fire fighter
-------
Then there are 'subs' who say their "Daddy" does not necessasrily have to be female!

Perdita

 

[sweetnpetite]

No, Raph, I don't want to change the spellings of those words, but I do like that their history and effects are now recognized. It used to mean something disparaging to me, even as a young girl, that 'man' was used throughout the bible, and elsewhere, to denote all people. It was presumed that women were included, but think how you might feel if it was 'woman' that represented everyone.

What will happen to the language will someday be academic, but for the present it's still in flux. Still, I would not deride those passionate activists and radicals who call attention to its history and meaning.

Perdita

I don't know perdita- I don't by the whole, 'it pertains to men and women' argument. At least not at the time that it was written. I don't think that it was ever intended to adress women. Women were considered property in biblical times and during at least part of that time considered by at least some not to even have souls. I don't think that women were really intended to be included in the constitution either for that matter. IN that respect, I think that women are 'outlaws' in the sence that they are tecnically outside of the protection and the restriction of the laws.

I don't doubt that the women of biblical times for the most part did there own thing. But of course they never wrote it down- how could they? I think that it is a mistake to assume that the bible, or what was recorded in it applied in the same respects to the lives or experiences of the women of the time.

I think 'man' means 'mankind' was applied retroactively since women are no longer property of men and come to church on there own accord. Whereas before, a man would make the rules over his wife as he saw fit, now the church has to appeal directly to her as there is no man to tell her what is right and wrong.

Well that's my take anyway.

 

[Guest]

You make a valid point, Sweet. I was only generalizing for my point. The ancient Greeks didn't think of women as fully human either. But then whether from the Greeks or the Romans, "mankind" eventually came to mean humankind, 'someone' just forgot to change the prefix.

Perdita

 

[Guest]

I've just learned something about the origins of the word "man". Good on the Anglo-Saxons. - Perdita
------

Man once was a truly generic word referring to all humans, but has gradually narrowed in meaning to become a word that refers to adult male human beings. Anglo-Saxons used the word to refer to all people. One example of this occurs when an Anglo-Saxon writer refers to a seventh-century English princess as "a wonderful man." Man paralleled the Latin word homo, "a member of the human species," not vir, "an adult male of the species." The Old English word for adult male was waepman and the old English word for adult woman was wifman. In the course of time, wifman evolved into the word "woman." "Man" eventually ceased to be used to refer to individual women and replaced wer and waepman as a specific term distinguishing an adult male from an adult female. But man continued to be used in generalizations about both sexes.

By the 18th century, the modern, narrow sense of man was firmly established as the predominant one. When Edmund Burke, writing of the French Revolution, used men in the old, inclusive way, he took pains to spell out his meaning: "Such a deplorable havoc is made in the minds of men (both sexes) in France. . . ." Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males," and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise. Looking at modern dictionaries indicate that the definition that links "man" with males is the predominant one. Studies of college students and school children indicate that even when the broad definitions of "man" and "men" are taught, they tend to conjure up images of male people only. We would never use the sentence "A girl grows up to be a man," because we assume the narrower definition of the word man. The examples below seem disconcerting precisely for this reason:

* "Development of the Uterus in Rats, Guinea Pigs, and Men" (title of a research report)

* "The Pap test, which has greatly reduced mortality from uterine cancer, is a boon to mankind."

Even when authors insist that "man" is a general term of all humans, they can lapse into meaning it as a term for only males:

* "As for man, he is no different from the rest. His back aches, he ruptures easily, his women have difficulties in childbirth . . . "

* In James Baldwin's essay "Stranger in the Village" Baldwin refers to "white men" and "black men" (seemingly generic terms), but then he eventually refers to "that peculiar, intent, paranoiac malevolence which one sometimes surprises in the eyes of American white men when, out walking with their Sunday girl, they see a Negro male approach."

Once you've started to recognize the problems that can arise with using "man" as a generic pronoun, how can you prevent confusion? One way is by substituting "human," "humankind," "people," or another word that does not involve any specific gender.

citation

 

[Svenskaflicka]

My Hubby is big and strong. He's tall, and he used to be into bodybuilding. He's a workaholic. He's the typical old-fashion model of a man, the big, strong man who works and brings home money for the family, and he's strong enough to take care of and protect his woman.

Then we have me. I'm rather strong. I know martial arts. I've been living alone for so long that I've learned how to take care of myself. And I feel utterly bad when I don't have a job to go to, partly because I want to do my part and bring home money to support myself (and later on my family), and partly because I need the intellectual stimulation of working.

Who wears the pants in our relationship?

Both of us. We have a pair each, and we co-operate when it comes to decisions and stuff. Not having a traditional male/female roleplaying gives us the opportunity to instead have a Hubby/Svenska relationship, where we play ourselves, and not some old-fashioned stereotype of what a man should be or what a woman should be.

It works for us.







Except when it comes to the toiletseat issue.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Why I love the word WOMAN

Being as how I am a totally sexist woman who *does* happen to think that women are the superior sex, I happen to LOVE the word women.

To me, women is complete- man is smaller- less or simpler, as a Y chromosome is like an X chromosome missing a leg. Man comes from woman. As a woman can have either a male or female child inside her, so to does the word woman contain both woman and man. And female contains both female and male.

If 'man' means person, then a man is a standard and a woman is a delux. A woman is a 'man' with a 'womb'- better than being considered a 'man' without a penis as frued would have it. Men and women have corresponding body parts on all counts- accept the womb. Men have a penis- women have a clitoris. Men have balls- which are the gonads, yes women have gonads too, they are the ovaries. Every part of a man's biology has, a womans has something that corresponds, or in otherwords is 'the same but different' However- a woman has something that no man has, and no man has anything that corresponds too it either- a womb. So maybe we should be called wombman. (but that looks funny- how about womb-man) To me, it seems that 'women' should be (and is) the inclusive term, as it includes men, whereas men excludes the feminine (womb)

This also answers the question- why do men have nipples. *Because* men and female have corresponding biology except for that womb I mentioned. Men's nipples are simply an immiture form of the female nipple.

The word man is simpler, just as men are simpler, physically as well as socially. Women are more complex, as is the word which describes us. Women are 'fertile' at certain times of the month and they have different things that they focus on depending on where they are in there cycles (studies show that the type of man or male behavior that they are attracted to varies based on where they are in there cycle) Men on the other hand are alway 'fertile' and they are more singular in there goal or purpose.

I read somewhere that the symbolism of the madonna and child (borrowed from the bablonian and egyptian symbols before it) originally showed the glory of woman in that not only can she create and grow within her something like her- a copy, (a girl) but that she can also create something different (a boy) The way I read it made more sence than the way I'm writing it now. Anyway, the female can have both male and female life growning inside and in that way can experience both in a way that man cannot.

I firmly believe that a woman can do anything that a man can (including pee standing up) And yet, a man can never have a child growing inside of him, or give birth. True, a man can have *half* of a human being growing inside of him (in the form of sperm) but that is the extent that he can experience. Therefor, I believe that it is a man who is incomplete, not a woman. (and the same goes for the word)

***I would like to add that I am sorry if I offended anyone, but these are my oppinions, and I own the fact that they are considered sexist. I have read some well meaning posters who claim not to be sexist (even to be feminist) and certain of there attitudes, to me are quite sexist. Growing up in a male dominant society, you come to accept certain things as so without even realizing it. So if I caused you to think, I am happy; but if I caused anyone to anger then I am sorry.

Love,
Sweet