English, gender and God

quote:

---

I re-read shcraf's post and cannot find anything that would support this. She did not say anything about someone being deliberately sexist - but that sexism is ingrained. This is actually almost entirely opposite to deliberate sexism - she was objecting, if I read her correctly, to inisudous, subconscious sexism permeating our discourse about God.

---

Exactly correct.

quote:

---

quote:Then you need to get some better colleagues. Either that or a backbone.Ooooo, hark at the catty tongue on her! Aren't we the forceful manly one?

---

ROTFLMAO!!!

There has been some research which rather strongly shows that people use the masculine pronoun as male to the exclusion of females, rather than as a truly gender-neurtral meaning:(Emphasis added)"In 1972, two sociologists at Drake University, Joseph Schneider and Sally Hacker, decided to test the hypothesis that man is generally understood to embrace woman. Some three hundred college students were asked to select from magazines and newspapers a variety of pictures that would appropriately illustrate the different chapters of a sociology textbook being prepared for publication. Half the students were assigned chapter headings like ``Social Man'', ``Industrial Man'', and ``Political Man''. The other half was given different but corresponding headings like ``Society'', ``Industrial Life'', and ``Political Behavior''. Analysis of the pictures selected revealed that in the minds of students of both sexes use of the word man evoked, to a statistically significant degree, images of males only --- filtering out recognition of women's participation in these major areas of life --- whereas the corresponding headings without man evoked images of both males and females. In some instances the differences reached magnitudes of 30 to 40 per cent. The authors concluded, `This is rather convincing evidence that when you use the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and tend not to think female ([Miller et al 1980, pages 19--20,]).Additionally, ``a number of studies have shown that young people are influenced in their job preferences and their willingness to apply for advertised jobs by gender bias in the wording of the advertisements'' ([Bem et al 1973] in [Frank et al 1983, page 90,]).Several sentences can be found that demonstrate that ``man'' is often unintentionally used to exclude women:David Moser once .... observed that in books you will find many sentences in this vein: `Man has traditionally been a hunter, and he has kept his females close to the hearth, where they could tend his children.'.... So much for the sexual neutrality of the generic `man'. I began to look for such anomalies, and soon ran across the following gem in a book on sexuality: `It is unknown in what way Man used to make love, when he was a primitive savage millions of years ago' [Hofstadter 1986, page 145,]."Additionally, of using she/he, "engineer-hours" instead of "man-hours", etc. in our usage, Douglas Hofstadter writes:"This is not progress, in my opinion. In fact, in some ways, it is retrograde motion, and damages the cause of nonsexist language. The problem is that these people are simultaneously showing that they recognize that ``he'' is not truly generic and yet continuing to use it as if it were. They are thereby, at one and the same time, increasing other people's recognition of the sham of considering ``he'' as a generic, and yet reinforcing the old convention of using it anyway. It's a bad bind [Hofstadter 1986, page 150,]."[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-08-2003]

Page not found | MIT CSAILSeveral writers, in order to argue for non-sexist writing, have written essays with other biases than the traditional male/female ones, and the results are (intentionally) shocking. In this section, I describe three such forays.* Douglas Hofstadter has written an essay ostensibly arguing for traditional usages but from an imaginary standpoint with different terms for whites and blacks analogous to those for men and women in our culture. For instance, ``white'' is used for ``whites and blacks'' (as ``men'' is used for ``men and women''), and blacks have different honorifics and pronouns. Here is an excerpt of his (long) essay:
Most of the clamor, as you certainly know by now, revolves around the age-old usage of the noun ``white'' and words built from it, such as chairwhite, mailwhite,... The negrists claim that using the word ``white'', either on its own or as a component, to talk about all the members of the human species is somehow degrading to blacks and reinforces racism. Therefore the libbers propose that we substitute ``person'' everywhere where ``white'' now occurs. Sensitive speakers of our secretary tongue of course find this preposterous. There is great beauty to a phrase such as ``All whites are created equal.'' Our forebosses who framed the Declaration of Independence well understood the poetry of our language. Think how ugly it would be to say ``All persons are created equal'', or ``All whites and blacks are created equal''.... [Hofstadter 1986, page 159,]* Bobbye Sorrels Persing, in [Persing 1978], has written a powerful essay of an office scene with the male and female roles reversed. Not only are male workers called ``boy'' and ``sir chairwoman'' (corresponding to ``girl'' and ``madame chairman''), they are treated and talked about as men stereotypically treat women who work for them [Persing 1978, pages 1--5,].* A recent example exists in the computer world. In MacTech Quarterly (now MacTech Journal), ``she'' is used instead of ``he'' as the generic pronoun. An editorial justified the policy and announced that it would be used henceforth by the magazine [MTQ 1989A]."I'm the co-author of the [X] Guide;... One of the decisions that I made was to remove all the sexist language, e.g. ``when the user types his command'' sort of stuff. It wasn't that hard to do, and I figured that it was appropriate.A couple of the reviewers ... noticed this --- I suppose my prose wasn't quite as seamless as I thought it was --- and commented on it. They both suggested putting the male gender pronouns back in since ``most of the users are men, anyway''. I didn't take this suggestion; but what struck me was that these folks actually noticed the lack of male pronouns."

R,Have you had a chance to think about my points against your claim that our language isn't sexist?Specifically, I'd like you to address my "guy" usage example.It's still in the other thread, and I'll cut n paste it here if you like.

quote:

---

What I asked you was whether it was the language that did it or the people using the language that did it.

​

Are you saying the language forces you to think about males when using "he"?

---

Language exists because people use it. Please explain how one can separate the usage from the language.I remember being told as a child that "he" included both genders, but I also remember thinking, "That's stupid. "He" means "male". It's not as if I can EVER walk up to a woman and start referring to her as a "he" and have her understand that I am using a gender-neutral pronoun. She will look at me strangely and perhaps protest because I am referring to her inappropriately. That's because "he" isn't a gender-neurtral pronoun in common usage.I don't buy that "most people" understand it to be neutral, as you say they do.

quote:

---

So how do you manage to keep the distinctions of "theory" meaning "educated guess" and "theory" meaning "analysis of a set of facts"?

---

It depends upon the context. I really don't see how this is terribly relevant.

quote:

---

For the umpteenth time. You said that the language was sexist. Not the person using the language but the actual language, itself, as if somehow the language forced a definitive meaning.

---

Language is as language is used.Please explain how they are separate.

quote:

---

So even though it may be true that many if not most people skew male when seeing "he" as a generic term, does that mean everybody does? That it is sufficient to say that the language is sexist and forces everyone to do so?

---

Well, if the majority skew male when seeing "he" as a generic term, then the language is skewed towards male bias.

quote:

---

Yes...and? Your point? You do realize that you're talking about two different words, right? You do understand that "guys" is not the same word as "guy" and that nobody uses "guys" when they really mean "guy," yes?

---

Nobody? Nobody at all? I seem to recall being talked to by you about making broad pronouncements such as this about word usege just a few posts ago.Anyway, you're wrong. "Guys" is used when meaning all males AND mixed gender (but only when being addresses by someone), but never all female, and one would never use a word like "girls" or "gals" to refer to a group of males.

quote:

---

The word "guys" has a definition of a group of people of either a single, male sex or a group of people of indeterminate sex. The word "guy," on the other hand, is much more strongly attached to the masculine, though even then it can be used for women since there is the rhyming comment, "Hi, guy!"

---

Exactly. That is my point about the language being skewed towards the male."One guy." = a single male."A group of guys." = a group of males"Hi guys!" = can be any gender in the group when addressing. However, one cannot then point to that same group and say, "look at that group of guys." and not expect confusion if there are women in the group as well."Guy" and "guys" are clearly singular and plural forms of a noun meaning, "male", except in the special case of addressing a group, in which there can be women also.

quote:

---

Therefore, since everybody who speaks the language understands the word can mean both solely-masculine and non-solely-masculine, the term isn't sexist. It isn't like a woman who, upon greeting her girlfriends, shouts out, "Hey, you guys!" suddenly thinks she's addressing a group of men or that the group is shocked to hear themselves being addressed as if they were men. Everybody understands that "guys" means "group of people" without necessarily saying anything about the sex of the people in the group.

---

Like I said, what do you think whan I say, "Look at that group of guys over there."?

quote:

---

In other words, Paul is insincere. Paul hasn't thought about it. Paul is intellectually lazy. Paul is just a mindless drone parroting somebody else's words without actually believing it or understanding it for himself.

​

That's not a very nice thing to accuse somebody of without evidence.

---

Look, I think that paul was quite sincere, and I do not appreciate you making up intentions that you imagine I had and then stating them as if you know my mind.In my experience as a woman on this earth, I have experienced all sorts of suble and not so subtle sexism. It could be true that I misread Paul as sexist, and that is why I asked him "why can't God be female".Since we have not heard from Paul, I think the jury is still out.Anyway, as a woman and a feminist, one learns to watch out for misogyny.

quote:

---

I think Schraf was responding not to that particular instance, but to it's context of a greater, inherent sexism found in male conceptions of god.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

The proverbial last straw, perhaps. Anyway, I don't see anything eye-rolling-worthy about the idea of a female god, and it was that summary dismissal that Schraf was responding to, I believe.

---

Also correct.

quote:

---

I could be wrong; I don't claim to read her mind. But I found her comments very appropriate, because I also was slightly offended by the idea that a female aspect of god is something to be rejected outright with a roll of the eyes.

---

Bingo.

quote:

---

If something is "ingrained," how can it fail to be deliberate? Isn't that the point behind an ingrained trait? It happens whether you want it to or not?

---

"Deliberation" implies conscious choice, doesn't it?Something that is ingrained is done automatically, or is part of the whole.That sexism is ingrained in the English language is my claim.

quote:

---

At last - the point of the discussion. Took a while, didn't it?

​

Schraf - was implying that Paul may have been so conditioned by the traditional usage of he for God that he was surprised to see she written.

​

She was generously suggesting that it might not be Paul who was being sexist, but simply that he was so used to the sexually-biased term that he was astonished to see a different term used. I thought it was quite nice of her - I had a much harsher line of attack planned.

---

Contrary to popular myth, I do not see sexism everywhere, and I do not assume that people are being deliberately sexist when they have not come right out and said something obvious.I am glad that some folks here recognize that.Thanks. I'm feelin' the love.

quote:

---

If the sexism is ingrained, then how could Paul not be sexist by using the language?

---

Keep track of your own arguments, please.We were talking about whether it was deliberate or not. You seem to have forgotten.There's a difference, obvious to (nearly) all, between being unconsciously influenced by culture, context, and language, versus deliberately intending, with malice aforethought, to diminish a gender.

quote:

---

What was the point of bringing up sexism if not to make a point about Paul?

​

That's it. That's what this entire thread boils down to. That one question:

​

What was the point of bringing up sexism if not to make a point about Paul?

---

Paul made an "eye-roll", which could mean been any number of things. It may be that he is sexist, and was offended by the "feminism" of MP. Or it may be that he simply thought it was affected. Or any number of things. I don't know. Which is why it's not making a point about Paul.But isn't it funny the way our language works that we run into these problems? The idea of male-gendered words serving as catch-alls seems
obviously problematic to me, and if it isn't to you I've presented a sampling of the empiricial evidence supporting my opinion.So...where is my vicious attack on Paul in that? I'm sure you'll find one.

Wow.Thanks, Mr. P.Thanks a lot.

quote:

---

Same thing here. Since when did "niggardly" become obsolete? When did we agree that everyone has a fifth-grade education?

​

There is no "change" in the term "niggardly." It does not mean anything about race, never has, and still doesn't.

​

Just because people think something is true doesn't mean it is.

---

Rrhain, I can tell by the way you write that you are a really gay person.In fact, you just exude gaiety with everything you write on this board.You have got to be the gayest person here! You should really consider going around the country giving inspirational talks about how great you obviously feel it is to be as gay as you are and encourage others, especially schoolchildren, to live as gay a life as you do.Your posters and fliers could read, "BEING GAY THE RRHAIN WAY!!"I think you would be received really well!

quote:

---

And the word (niggardly) has never had racial connotations in any mainstream usage.

---

Then why did a whole bunch of people get really upset when the politician used it?Isn't "a whole bunch of people" qualify as "the mainstream?"Oh, and like John, I haven't known that word to be used at all in 25 years or more. I was taught about it in middle school because it was in a book we were reading, but I have never known anyone, personally or professionally, to use it in conversation or in writing, in those 25 or more years, outside of an academic setting.In other words, I have never heard it used in common usage in 25 years.However, I would like to continue to compliment you on your gay attutude in all of this debate.