Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'd just like to have an open discussion of this.....

How many people think the modern English push for eliminating 'sexist language' like policeman, fireman, referring to the human race as Man or mankind e.g. is a waste of time overall? I mean...how many women are actually offended by having members of the species called Homo Sapiens Sapiens as Man or mankind? I honestly don't see it as too big an issue, but I'd like to have more opinions available on it.

And on a more general thing.....what do people think of the whole politically correct movement? I mean.....yeah people should avoid using offensive words like calling an african a n*****, but I personally see the whole movement as going too far. I mean....shouldn't common sense be enough? Do we really have to go all the way to celebrating 'Generic Winter Solstice Celebration Day' ?

ChrisWWII wrote:yeah people should avoid using offensive words like calling an african a n*****

[see forum posting rules] is inherently offensive?

Strange, I call my friends [see forum posting rules] all the time. I also call them melon-fether, witch, donkey-cave, dickrag, and a whole host of other obscenities, unless they don't seem fine with it. It's about intent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lolk.

Well, I made a mistake in my language. What I meant was that you shouldn't call a random person of that type that. Of course if its between friends, and both are alright with it then ok! Sure, no problem. My main point was that a person should use common sense with the use of those types of words.

There isn't a "whole politically correct movement".

It is a convenient invention of recidivist authoritarians wishing to impose their own sexist, homophobic agenda on public discourse.

There are of course some examples of weird, extreme PCness which are seized on and blown up out of proportion to support the RASH agenda. There are also made-up or deliberately misinterpreted examples such as Winterval.

There is no problem at all with modern usages such as

police officer
chairperson
firefighter

People should just use them and get on with things.

First off, I am not trying to be a "recidivist authoritarians wishing to impose their own sexist, homophobic agenda on public discourse." I am none of those things.

And the problem with the replacement of those words is that, in all honesty they can be awkward. And I for one grew up using chairman, policeman, and other things, so it's very hard for me to suddenly switch over. My biggest problem is that in most English language classes, they seem to be deadset on ramming home the idea that if you use those words you are being sexist, and I view that mindset as frustrating, and irrelevant.

"Chairman", "Fireman", "Policeman" etc are all positions, not descriptions of gender. Luckily English does not have male/female words like French or German.

I would use any of the above words to desclibe a person of any gender in the abstract - the title referrs to the job, not the person doing it. In the same way I will not invent a new title for a female soldier, or a female MP. I might however use "chairwoman", "firewoman", or "policewoman" if referring specifically to a woman who is within one of those roles.

In the same way I would not call a male midwife a "midhusband" and I'm not going to call a male sister (nurse, rather than religious sister) a "brother".

ChrisWWII wrote:First off, I am not trying to be a "recidivist authoritarians wishing to impose their own sexist, homophobic agenda on public discourse." I am none of those things.

And the problem with the replacement of those words is that, in all honesty they can be awkward. And I for one grew up using chairman, policeman, and other things, so it's very hard for me to suddenly switch over. My biggest problem is that in most English language classes, they seem to be deadset on ramming home the idea that if you use those words you are being sexist, and I view that mindset as frustrating, and irrelevant.

I'm not saying you are a RASH. You must agree, though, that lots of people in the media and so on are.

I am also of an age such that policeman, fireman and so on are the terms I was brought up with. I found it a little strange to say chairperson, however it comes more easily with practice.

These reflect the fact that 30-40 years ago, it was nearly unthinkable for women to be employed outside "proper women's professions" -- of which, nursing is a good example.

To persist in using these terms (chairman, chairwoman) now may indicate some resistance to the concept that men and women can equally well perform such duties. Or perhaps a better way to express it is to say that lack of awareness of gendered language reflects a lack of awareness of gender issues in employment.

I haven't been to any English language classes since I was 15 so I don't know what they teach now. I expect there are good and bad teachers, like in everything.

It is a convenient invention of recidivist authoritarians wishing to impose their own sexist, homophobic agenda on public discourse.

That's a pretty warped perspective on things...

How is it that the person who wants to continue saying things as they've been said for lifetimes is "imposing" anything?

How is it that the people who are trying to change our language and enforce a new code of politeness are NOT the authoritarians?

The fact is, we say "fireman." When we say it, it's one word. It's not "fire" pause "man." It's fireman. It might as well be "fermun" it's not "male person who puts out fires." It's just "person who puts out fires." When you tell somebody to say "fireperson" it's just strange for the sake of mind control.

And it IS mind control. It's seeking to force people to think in terms of gender equality. You may argue that this is a good thing, but that doesn't make it NOT mind control. It also doesn't make it NOT authoritarianism.

On top of all that, I'm totally unaware of any sort of movement to force everyone to keep saying "fireman." It seems like the advocates of the 'old way' mainly just want to be left alone to say it how they wish. It's the "new way" people who want to force things on people.

If somebody wants to say "chairperson," that's fine, I don't care. I say "chairman" if it's a male, "chairwoman" if it's a female, and "chairman" in reference to the general position. I don't care what people say, so long as they don't try to say that they have a right to tell me how to speak or think.

You must agree, though, that lots of people in the media and so on are.

Perhaps media is different in the UK, Japan, wherever, but in the US the media are the very tip of the spear in politically correct thought policing.

"Man" was gender-neutral before it was ever male-specific, and I'm not about to sacrifice a good word for the sake of political correctness. "Person" sucks; can you imagine The Imperium of People? It's just awful.

Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no problem at all with modern usages such as

police officer
chairperson
firefighter

People should just use them and get on with things.

I agree that there is no problem with using these words. It is your last comment I take umbrage with. The fact that you are telling us that we "should" use these words implies that if we don't use them we are doing something wrong. I think it would be a better idea to spend more time addressing actual issues of gender equalities such as unequal pay, unequal opportunities, and the rampant abuse that occurs in other countries instead of the inanities of arguing over fireman vs. fireperson

Nice deflection attempt.

The thread is about gender specific language not pay.

You can make a new thread about pay.

I am going to go out on a limb here, my intention is not to flame bait or troll, so please bear with me. I will try to be as clear as possible as I know in the past some have misenterpreted my comments.

Firstly I want to make it clear that I do not consider myself racist, sexist, homophobic or generaly the type of person who discriminates. To quote cliche I have many friends and collegues from all sorts of diverse backgrounds, I try to base my opinions of others based upon their actions and attitudes rather then something as silly as the colour of thier skin or which god/s they chose to worship.

What I do believe though is that for someone to be branded as racist or homophobic or any other flavour of biggot there need to be real intent behind their words or actions.

When I was at school my best friend was a Muslim, Pakistani lad called Umar, we used to knock about with a black lad called James and a half Greek half Irish jehovahs witness guy called Hambis and Jewish guy called Jeremy. After a particularly heated row Umar made a coment about about my mother and I called him the P word, all of this was overheard by an overzealous pc teacher who, ignoring Umar's previous comments and the fact that he told her he wasn't bothered by what I had said, dragged me in front of the head teacher, phoned both my mum and Umars parents for a meeting and proceeded to denounce me at the following mornings year assembly as a racist. This was a huge over reaction as later on that day myself and Umar had made up and both of our parents asked the school to drop it. Unfortunately the word racist was on my file for the rest of my time at the school.
Now this leads back to my initial point that even though what I said was wrong and the word itself is a racist term and deplorable, it does not render me a racist. In the heat of the moment I was hurt by his words and looked for the thing that I thought would hurt him the most, no different to calling someone fat, thin, bug eyed, a stupid girl, gay or any other biggoted coment. What it did not mean was that I had a hatred of him based upon his country of birth or that I had some sort of irrational hatred towards anyone else born in Pakistan. If it did mean that then yes I would be/have been a racist.

I am not trying to defend the use of racist terminology or any other form of derogatory language, but each time someone cries sexist or racist over a fairly trivial matter or one which is taken completely out of context then is cheapens the case against it, it leads to general apathy and to coments such as " oh there we go again, playing the race/sexism/homophobic card when they don't get their own way".
Many people who shout so loudly against there sorts of terms have nothing to do with those who are most likely to be offended, whilst I agree in standing up for your beliefs and against bullies part of me feels that a lot of it is just fake outrage and wanting to be seen as "in with the minorities". Quite often those who are seen to be the ones who may be offended i.e. female firemen, or firefighters would rather the issue was ignored so that they can get on with their business of saving lives (and good on anyone who does that)

I guess what I am trying to say is that everything needs to be taken in context and only looked at when a complaint is recieved by the person the comment was directed at or someone from that group, not some daily mail reading idiot who spends his time on the internet looking for causes to be outraged on behalf of.

Kilkrazy wrote:Nice deflection attempt.

The thread is about gender specific language not pay.

You can make a new thread about pay.

it's not a deflection attempt - nice way to ignore what I said if you even read it. What I said, was that this topic is inane and that far too many people seem to spend alot of time getting wrapped around the axle about it. I also said that you and people like you are the ones imposing an agenda on those of us who just want to be left alone. I am fully aware how gender language, gender roles in media, and traditional gender images can impact people. However, I reject the notion that just because someone says fireman or mankind or even "gasp" chairman means that I am wishing to impose my "sexist, homophobic agenda on public discourse." My direct superior is a woman and she is smart, talented and the equal of any of the men in my unit in the cockpit - oh wait - maybe I should say flight control deck - wouldn't want to offend.

Oh wait, that's okay, you probably won't read this either.