|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 7892 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: English, gender and God | |||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2484 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
Wow.
Thanks, Mr. P. Thanks a lot.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote:quote: Because as a speaker of English, you should be able to interpret plain meaning from statements. After all, if you can't understand what was said, then how can you possibly have a conversation with someone? I don't deny that schraf may have meant something else. I'm simply asking what you think the point of bringing up sexism was. As someone who can understand English, what could possibly be the point of raising a comment about sexism if not to imply something? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Because as a speaker of English, you should be able to interpret plain meaning from statements. You didn't ask for plain meaning. You asked for Schraf's deep motives in making statements. Without mental telepathy those deep motives are not accesible to me. The plain meaning of her statements was that Paul's sexist gesture was not motivated by Paul's own sexism but rather by sexism inherent in the language, specifically the use of "he" to refer to a god commonly held to be ungendered. You've gone off the handle about what you think that says about Paul, but the simple truth is that Schraf's statements don't imply anything about Paul that they don't imply about all speakers of English.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: What makes a comment "sexist"? Wouldn't that be usage? Or are you saying the language forces the comments you make to be sexist? Weren't we all agreeing that usage is key?
quote: (*blink!*) Did you really just say that? If one makes a sexist comment, how does that mean he isn't being sexist? Again, I agree that one can misspeak, but there is a difference between saying the language, in and of itself, is sexist and saying that a person is. If I did not make a sexist comment and you merely think I did, does that mean I am sexist? Does that mean the language is? Or might it mean that you were wrong to claim sexism? Along those lines, how can you possibly tell if a comment is sexist? Be specific. At any rate, we're left with the same two questions: What was the point of raising the issue of sexism if not to make a point about Paul? What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
schrafinator responds to me:
quote:quote: How could it not be? Paul responded in English, did he not? If it's ingrained, he cannot help but think that, can't he?
quote: Then please tell me: What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? I keep asking this over and over, but nobody seems to answer it. While it is somewhat rhetorical, I really want to know what you think the answer is. Stop dancing around the issue and answer the direct question: What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein? And why don't you help me out here and answer my other question: What was the point of raising sexism if not to make a point about Paul? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
John responds to me:
quote:quote: Hold it right there. When was it agreed that there were "biases of the language"? That's the entire argument. Schrafinator is saying that "he" in the neuter is a bias in the language. I am saying it isn't but instead it can be used in a biased manner. That is, if we look at the definitions of the terms, "he" does really have a meaning of neuter. So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased? If I mean "dark" when I say "black" and I am clear in my usage that I do mean something "dark," then by what justification is there for someone to say that I really mean something else?
quote: I am saying that the language isn't biased, but the person is and will use the language accordingly. A biased person and an unbiased person can say the same words and mean different things. Therefore, it isn't the language that tells us but the usage.
quote: I am saying in this particular instance, it is not both.
quote: But you're assuming that the language is biased to begin with. What if it isn't? What if the language understands the difference between "he" in the neuter and "he" in the masculine? Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias?
quote: But only if you assume there is salt in the water to begin with. That's the point I'm arguing: You're making an unjustified assumption.
quote: And if the history of the language isn't that, what then?
quote:quote: I wasn't the one that rolled my eyes when MP referred to god as "she." In fact, I've directly stated over and over that I am not defending Paul in his rolling of his eyes or in his seeming opinion that god is male. I am simply wondering how one can claim that Paul is "sexist" and that the language is "ingrained" with sexism simply because Paul, who seemingly thinks that god is male, is using "he" to refer to god. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
schrafinator responds to me:
quote:quote: So you were making a complete non sequitur? "You know, I was thinking of having a salad for dinner what do you think?" "Have you noticed that so many fast food places have started offering salads?" "What does that have to do with anything?"
quote: What problem? What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?
quote: But what pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein? Who was talking about a "catch-all"? Wasn't Paul talking about god? And wouldn't it seem to be the case that Paul does think that god is male? Therefore, what pronoun would you suggest one use?
quote: It disappeared once it became apparent that you weren't even responding to the topic but were making a non sequitur. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias? I think the answer is here is clearly "yes". Such a usage implies a worldview (as that held by Greek philosophers) that masculinity was the "normal" state, and that femininity was a deviation from that - and therefore ultimately inferior. The use of "he" in reference to ungendered objects clearly perpetuates that view. Ergo, sexism in the language.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
crashfrog responds to me:
quote: I most certainly did! How can there be a claim of sexism without someone to be sexist? It's simple logic: If you claim that 2 + 2 = 5, then you must necessarily also be claiming that 2 = 3. If you claim that someone is using sexist language, then you must necessarily be claiming that the person is sexist since there are plenty of ways to avoid sexism in speech, are there not? I wasn't asking if this was a huge breach or a slight misstep. I was simply asking for what sort of antecedent could possibly exist from a claim of sexism. If the language is sexist and Paul used the language, what does that make Paul?
quote: "Commonly held"? By whom? Don't you think we should look to Paul for that answer? After all, Paul was not talking about the "common perception" but rather his own. What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?
quote: How can descriptions of Paul's usage not be a reflection of Paul?
quote: What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein? ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7892 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Most everyone has answered it in their own way. I addressed it over 60 posts ago in message 19. Just because you didn't get an answer in the terms you would like, doesn't mean it wasn't answered. The correct answer to an irrelevant question can be to point out its irrelevance; and the trouble is, no one but you thinks your question is in any way relevant to the matter in hand. Further, in over 60 posts you have falied to persuade any of us that it should be. The matter under discussion has nothing to do with a pronoun used in passing of one whose gender is not in question - the issue has to do with attitudes to pronouns used when gender is the very issue at hand. The question you should be asking is more like What pronoun would one use of one when referring to Jaye Davidson's character in The Crying Game?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1782 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If the language is sexist and Paul used the language, what does that make Paul? Not sexist. Duh. If you tell me that Walt Disney's body is cryogenically frozen, which you absolutely believe to be true, does that make you a liar? No, it doesn't. Liars are people who knowingly promulgate untruths. Sexists are people who knowingly promulgate sexisim. Everyone agrees that to be guilty of an immoral elocutionary act, you have to know that the act is immoral. Just like any other immoral or offensive act.
After all, Paul was not talking about the "common perception" but rather his own. Paul was in fact rejecting another person's view of god's gender, not advancing his own.
How can descriptions of Paul's usage not be a reflection of Paul? Why would it be? The description wasn't of Paul's unique usage but rather usage in general.
What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein? Albert Einstein had a penis. I don't think even Paul believes this to be true for god. What's the relevance here? We're not talking about what Paul thinks about god, but what is appropriate for Paul to say about others who think differently about god.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7892 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:So you go with Sapir-Whorf on this one? Very curious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7892 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Wouldn't you be claiming that 2 = 2.5? I do hope your logic is better than your arithmetic! ![]() quote:Not if they are unaware that the language they are using is sexist. You seem determined to dance around the point of this particular pin. For my part I am beginning to find it contrived and tiresome. I suspect schraf and crashfrog feel the same way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: No! I don't! That's the point I'm making! The language isn't sexist, it's the person using the language that is! ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member (Idle past 322 days) Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Mister Pamboli responds to me:
quote:quote: You would be claiming that, too. Here's what I was getting at: Suppose 2 + 2 = 5.Then (2 + 2) - 2 = 5 - 2. Then 2 + (2 - 2) = 5 - 2. Then 2 + 0 = 5 - 2. Then 2 = 3. It is a necessary result of the fact that 2 + 2 = 5 that 2 = 3. Similarly, suppose 2 + 2 = 5.Then (2 + 2) / 2 = 5 / 2. Then (2 / 2) + (2 / 2) = 5 / 2. Then 1 + 1 = 5 / 2 Then 2 = 2.5. You get a whole bunch of problems that fall out by saying that 2 + 2 = 5. So if someone is making a claim of sexism, it necessarily follows that a person is involved since things, being inanimate, cannot discriminate against either sex. Things aren't sexist...people are.
quote:quote: If they are unaware, then they aren't being sexist. Sexism is a motivation. Things can't be sexist. People can be, however. How can a non-sexist person make a sexist comment? Again, I can easily understand misspeaking...where a person mistakenly uses "black" when he really meant "white," but that happens when everyone agrees that the terms used don't mean what they were thought to mean: "He didn't fall? Inconceivable!" "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." But if there is recognition of a definition and the word is used according to that definition, why the claim that what is really meant is this other definition? "Yeah, you said 'theory' and I know that 'theory' can mean 'analysis of a set of facts,' but when you said 'theory' right then, I heard 'speculation.'"
quote: Strange, I was going to say the same thing about you three. Why else have you all refused to directly answer my direct question? What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein? I'm not asking it for my health. It was even asked, by you if I recall correctly, why I keep asking it and I told you why. And still, you don't answer. ------------------Rrhain WWJD? JWRTFM! [This message has been edited by Rrhain, 05-14-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025