If we didn't have gender based thingies like "he" or "she" then how would I know the gender of this or that person without being given the name(and that too wouldn't help much sometimes) of the speaker etc?
How DOES the gender-based nature of English really cultivate and propegate a real inequality between the genders?
“If you turn somebody with no memory loose in a foreign country with only the words for tools and machine parts, don’t be surprised if he ends up a mechanic. By manipulating his vocabulary properly you can just as easily make him a sailor, or an artist” (Delany 214)1. This idea expresses the essence of a linguistic concept called derivational thinking by M.J. Hardman. “Derivational thinking is the structure our language gives us for human relations” (“Sexist Circuits” 32). ...
The postulates of English constrain speakers to lead a hierarchical existence. English has three mutually reinforcing postulates: number, ranking (comparative/superlative: good, beter, best) and sex based gender. “We summarize the three postulates with the following trilogy: number is important, number one is the most important, number one is masculine” (Taylor). Singular and plural, or number, is present in almost all sentences in the English language. As a child learns singular and plural, she also learns that singular is the best, which is connected with the postulate concerning ranking. Ranking places the English speaker in a position to acknowledge community only as a field of competition. Only one person can be the winner. Only one person can be the best. Even when groups of humans are the subject of speech, one is the desired outcome. This is illustrated by the “melting pot” metaphor applied to the United States. Though many cultures are represented in the United States, there is an attempt to represent only a singular U.S. culture.
LiquidBlue wrote:Do you just have a general dislike for feminist theory?
If you haven't read Hardman's essay and know virtually know nothing about her, how can you call her (or me, for that matter) a man-hater? She is married to a MAN...has friends and students that are men...how do you know she has "anger issues"...She happens to teach at a college about 3 hours from where I live and I know quite a few people that were her students. They seem to find her to be a nice person, not a rampaging anger management issue.
Gender inequality is well doccumented, you can't deny that...what is wrong with her applying her field of study to a topic that touches her as a person?
What good is knowledge if we don't apply it to the world around us?
Why does it matter? Does it make my argument less vaild because I am a woman, does it make yours less vaild because you are a man?
You also have to deal with the idea that gender is fluid (not fixed) and culturally determined. What is "masculine" in one country might be "feminine" in another country or even cultural context. If thats the case (and it is) then gender isn't 100% biologically determined.
From my paper:As a child learns singular and plural, she also learns that singular is the best,
which is connected with the postulate concerning ranking. Ranking places the English speaker in a position to acknowledge community only as a field of competition.
Only one person can be the winner. Only one person can be the best.
Even when groups of humans are the subject of speech, one is the desired outcome. This is illustrated by the “melting pot” metaphor applied to the United States. Though many cultures are represented in the United States, there is an attempt to represent only a singular U.S. culture.
Do you agree that most concious thought occurs though the use of a language?
If you don't have the proper language to articulate a thought, how can you think it?
If you don't have a language that allows men and women to be the same thing, how do you think it?
If you don't have language that allows Black and White people to be the same thing, then how can you stop dividing humanity?
I suppose my idea of equality is that people should be judged as individuals in a non-arbituary fashion (Black/white is an arbituary distinction dependent on the judger, same as hot and cold, orange and red, soft and hard, and even masculine and femenine...)
Enough with the its flippant, and if thats how you really feel, then I won't take my time to debate with you...
Phaedrus wrote:And come on, Orald, that argument won't fly. No, people aren't equal. But they shouldn't be treated differently based on completely arbitrary standards that they can't even change about themselves. It's not right to say that one race is inherently superior to another, and then elevate the one over the other in society, and it's not right to do that with gender, either. Maybe you missed history class...every day, but women have had a pretty tough break throughout history. Feminists just say that it's time society treated women like, you know, people.
orald wrote:Is that the law? No.
That the average man earns more than the average woman is well known, but it's also due to the jobs they work at.
Robspierre wrote:I see Pardot lists his location as Texas, he must be outside of Austin because that would be the only place in Texas that wouldn't consider druids satanic from my experiences.
Pagans are not looked upon favorably in certain parts of the US.
LiquidBlue wrote:Once again Orald, you're argument is just based on a bizarre trajectory of what is being said and what is factually known in *our* world. Seeing as how you are from part of the world with deep and extremely patriarchal roots, I can at least understand where your arguments are coming from...but you are refusing to argue with facts and I won't play that game. I've given you facts and you give me emotional assumptions. You are this [ ] far away from a caveman, woman barefoot in the kitchen mentality...so I'll have my believes and I'll try not to step on yours (of course, if a woman being able to conduct an intelligent conversation and stand her ground bothers your sense of self you'll just have to deal with it) You can respond if you like, but I'm finished with this wacky conversation
As far as my opinion on FH based on my "feminist" view point...The ideas and power given to women in FHs books are, in my opinion, ground breaking ideas for his time. Every time I read about the BG I think that he must have had an AMAZING wife. Is it perfect, no, could I critique it, yes...but I admire the brilliance of his writing and the forwardness of his thinking every single time I read his books...
chanilover wrote: I'm quite enjoying Orald's points, it's good to see Western PC ideas being challenged.
LiquidBlue wrote:Orald's arguments are doing no one a favor. They come off as fanatical and do not follow logically from the things I have said or the things Hardman has said. Until he can back his ideas up with facts or intellectually recognized theory, he arguments are mute.
LiquidBlue wrote:Blacks in America do not refer to themselves as African American. They refer to themselves as Black. Aferican American is the PC term used by mostly white/upper class people and the entities that pander to them (ie: the media). The example of your friend is an example of ethnocentrism. My "culture" is better /more civilized/more advanced/cleaner than your "culture". Still its an arbitrary claim...
As for Orald, his views are as valid as anyone else's here. I do find what you're saying interesting, but it just seems like one opinions amongst others. I don't agree with the hierarchical structure being the doom of humanity, hierarchy is built into human nature. I think our doom will probably come from a massive asteroid, rather than our not being able to find alternatives to he and she.
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 1 guest