|
Go
|
New
|
Find
|
Notify
|
Tools
|
Reply
|
|
Member |
As some of you may have seen from the 6 letters thread, I was startled by dictionary.com's thesaurus entries for "men". There were 6 entries for men; besides the obvious "gender", there were "military", "world", "public", "army", "cavalry", and "troop".
Yet, for women, there was one entry--"gender". Doesn't it strike you that the dictionary is sexist? Also, the number of war categories for men was quite telling. I know that in Israel women are drafted into the army. Is that true for other countries? |
||
|
Member |
You can't say that the dictionary is sexist. It simply reflects the language. If you were to say that the language is sexist, that would be a different matter.
|
|||
|
|
Member |
You make a good point, arnie. Yet, it seems to me that our language has changed, regarding women. [Perhaps my optimism is showing?] Look at our terms such as "chair" rather then "chairman" or "him/her" in referring to "one". Our local high school wanted to change its motto to "humankind" from "mankind", but they couldn't because it came from a quote. These are just a few examples.
How long, I wonder, does it take for dictionaries to change? Really, since at least the 70s, women have been a much bigger factor in the "world" or "public" categories, for example. I will give you that in the U.S., at least, women still are not a big part of the military. Still, I was surprised at the emphasis "military" is given to "men". When do we see the "cavalry" any more, for example? Those definitions of "men" just seemed outdated to me. |
|||
|
|
Member |
What other definitions for "women" would you include?
Tinman |
|||
|
Member |
You have to be wary about changing words simply because the three letters "man" appear. If you're going to change "mankind" to "humankind" then maybe you need also to change "human" to "huperson" - or perhaps not.
Throughout the history of mankind (or should that be "the personstory of hupersonkind) the word man has frequently been used to include both genders and, where there is no bias or disadvantge to either sex, then I see no reason why that should not continue. By all means change "policeman" to "police officer" to include both sexes but don't fiddle about with perfectly good words otherwise. Many of the words containing man (and I suggest that "mankind" is but one) have no gender bias and it is a sad commemtary on the part of the more extreme feminists that many perfectly good woods have been changed (often for the worse) simply because some extremist thought they were "sexist". For example, everyone knows what a manhole cover is - but it is apparently deemed sexist to call it such and thus we now have something like a "person access chamber cover" " "Mind you don't fall down that person access chamb...oh, too late!" Richard English |
|||
|
Member |
quote: This is one of my favourite examples of inappropriate attempts to remove sexism, racism and all the other perceived evil -isms from the language. The etymology of "manhole" has absolutely nothing to do with the word "man" being derived from Latin via the French "main", meaning hand. It's the kind of specious nonsense that is also responsible for the objections to "black ice", "nitty-gritty" and "niggardly". I'm the first to admit that the language needs a sexless third person pronoun and an associated grammar but such attempts to - and I'm choosing my word deliberately here - bastardise the language serve no-one's best interests. Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. |
|||
|
Member |
Guns don't kill; people do.
Language is not sexist or racist; people are. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Whereas I agree 100% with both your sentiments, Jerry (being a one time Bisley shooter) I have to consider an alternative point of view.
If there were no guns there would be no gun crime. Sexist language, whilst its abolition might not remove sex discrimination, it might help reduce it. That, at least, is the hope of those who taught me when I was studying sex discrimination for my UKHRD diploma. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |
Herein lies the problem: You are all men. How, really, do you know? You've not experienced it. It is annoying to be called a "chairman" or a "policman" or a "fireman" when you are a woman! When you are reading a book, and the author refers to "one" as "he", it is annoying. Is it the worst thing in the world? Of course not. However, in some ways it is demeaning.
To answer your question, Tinman, asking what other definitions about women I would include: I would definitely include "women" in the following synonyms for the "public" entry of "men": audience, bodies, buyers, cats, cattle, citizens, clientele, commonalty, community, country, dudes, electorate, everyone, followers, following, great unwashed, hangers-on, heads, hoi polloi, masses, men, mob, multitude, nation, patrons, people, populace, population, ragtag, riffraff, society, suite, supporters, voters Similarly, I would include "women" in the following synonyms for the "world" entry of "men": class, division, everybody, everyone, group, human race, humanity, humankind, mankind, race, realm On second thought, you men can keep "ragtag" and "riffraff"!   [This message was edited by Kalleh on Sun Aug 17th, 2003 at 19:40.] |
|||
|
|
Member |
Let's be serious here. Men and women are not equal, and tinkering with the language will not alter that fact.
Men are more creative, inventive, industrious and aggressive - hence their position above women in society. Only men's benevolence allowed women the vote, and gave them encouragement to improve their position at home and in the workplace. Women will only ever be as equal as men allow them to be. |
|||
|
Member |
I did a search on this and found zero hits of course.
Is there a word for pseudo-PC - the kind of stuff that is made up at the starting of a reactionary rant. We actually have no other kind in the UK. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Ah, FatStan, so good to see you back. You are right, of course.
 And, Graham, I had never quibbled over manhole cover. I agree with Bob on that one. But that "audience" or "voters" are included in the dictionary.com thesaurus as synonyms for "men" and not "women", well give me a break! Frankly, I am surprised at the reaction here. |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote: Well I'll jump in and support you !  To a point anyway. I see no problem at all with substituting non-sexist phrases or words for the ubiquitous "men" when the sense intended is "people". Fire officer ? No problem. Chair for chairman ? Likewise, no problem. Some of the coinages for the more difficult ones are faintly ludicrous - Milk Delivery Person for Milkman ? Surely we can do better than that. However now that I've had time I've investigated the original post at the top of the thread more closely and I think I see a slight flaw in the reasoning. The thesaurus wasn't searched for synonyms for "men" and "women" but for entries containing "men" and "women". So far so good but what this does is leads to the false conclusion that things which are synonyms to the key entry are necessarilly synonyms to each other. Take the first entry for example - army. It may be strictly incorrect nowadyas but it certainly traditional usage that an army company, brigade, platoon or whatever is addressed as "men". Hence the synonym. It would be extremely unlikely that any officer would ever address the unit as "women". This is a case where I can't think of an acceptable alternative. "People" sounds too unmilitary. "You" is workable but fails when a noun is needed. What other alternatives are there ? The second entry "cavalry" is just a variation on the first. While there may be women in the cavalry it would be an unusual commander that would address a mixed unit as "women" rather than "men". With "public" rather than add "women" as a synonym I'd be inclined to delete "men" as neither seems to me be be especially synonymous with the term. This entry though, it should be noted, isn't suggesting that audience or voters are synonyms for men, it is suggesting that all three may in some circumstances be synonyms for public. Let me say again that words which are synonyms to a common word are not necessarily synonyms for each other. Troop is the army/cavalry problem again. World is just reporting the use of the word mankind. Much though you might like it to be otherwise the word "womankind" does not express the same concept as the word "mankind". If the word Womankind exists at all it's the men who should get uptight about it because there is no word that means just us - mankind means everybody. So what it comes down to is that there are two legitimate listed uses of "men" - the one under sex and multiple variations of the military usage. There is one questionable listing under "public". And there is the listing for man/mankind under world which some may find objectionable but which is nevertheless the common accepted usage and has been for a very long time. As I said I'm all for using inoffensive gender-free terminology but to object to "men" in the contexts shown seems to be a little unreasonable. I did start this post intending to support the original position and believe me I do support it in the everyday contexts of using alternatives to policeman, fireman, chairman. milkman, and so on but it seems that I've done nothing but attempt to demolish the original post. That wasn't my intention. It just turned out that way. Sorry.  Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. |
|||
|
|
Member |
Please click here for the original in Spanish
Sor Juana Inez de la Cruz, Mexican nun and poet, 1648 - 1695, wrote: Cuál mayor culpa ha tenido en una pasión errada, la que cae de rogada o el que ruega de caído? ¿O cuál es más de culpar, aunque cualquiera mal haga: la que peca por la paga o el que paga por pecar? Translation: ==> Which is more guilty in an illicit love affair, she who yields to his begging, or he who begs her to yield? Or which is more guilty, even though both are at fault, she who sins for pay, or he who pays her to sin? [This message was edited by jerry thomas on Mon Aug 18th, 2003 at 19:13.] |
|||
|
|
Member |
The funny thing is, Jerry, that I had never, in the first place, intended this to be a "battle of the sexes" thread. I really am more than a little surprised at these responses.
Bob, I do appreciate the thoughtful response. I read it and reread it to be sure that I understand you. However, you must understand how I came to this post in the first place. I was in the 6 letters thread, trying to find a synonym for men. I do that all the time in that thread and while sometimes the synonyms are lame, most of the time they are good. I was amazed at what came up for men, and then more amazed that only gender came up for women. Now, while you say that the entry "public" and the definition "community" are synonymous with "audience" and not "men", at the very least, isn't that misleading? Further, if you are correct, then certainly "women" should be represented in the "public" and "world" entries. The "human race", "humanity", "everyone" all include women, too. In the end, though, it seems you actually agree with me. We both think that the army, cavalry entries are acceptable, though somewhat outdated. While not in the U.S., in many parts of the world women are integral parts of the military. Even in the U.S. they make up a much larger percentage than even 10 years ago. Secondly, you, as I, question the use of "men" to define "public". I agree that men should be deleted from this definition, rather than to add "women". Now, in "mankind" we may have some disagreement. I, unlike you, think there should be a reasonable alternative, after all these years. To use "men" to represent (yes, I am not saying define!) the human race is ludicrous. This seems to be our biggest disagreement. I do appreciate the analysis, though. |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote: This is precisely why a thesaurus should be consulted with care. Words listed in a thesaurus are rarely "true synonyms" as few such exist anyway. They are almost always words which in some circumstances can be substituted for the head word of the entry. Take the one in question - public. I personally feel that "men" is so far from the concept it shouldn't be included at all but if we accept the rationale that entries listed under "public" must in some way be connected to each other then we are accepting that "riffraff" is a synonym for "voters" and that "clientelle" is a synonym for "nation" as all four of these words are in the list. It's why I rarely recommend the use of a thesaurus to my foreign students. quote: True, but the converse isn't. Neither "women" nor "men" can legitimately be considered a synonym for "public" because neither of them encompasses the whole of the public. quote: As you have pointed out we have the words humanity and humankind but the thesaurus has to report all of the currently acceptable sysnonyms - one of the oldest of which is mankind. To delete words from a dictionary or thesaurus on the grounds that while they are used they are nevertheless in some way objectionable to some people is taking us perilously close to the concepts of 1984 where the Government controls the language and anyone who opposes the prevailing view is guilty of "thoughtcrime". Feels good to be back ! Non curo ! Si metrum no habet, non est poema. Read all about my travels around the world here. Read even more of my travel writing and poems on my weblog. |
|||
|
Member |
quote: I, being a woman and all, still have to disagree with you. I was the Chairman of Disaster Services for the Red Cross and was very proud to be so. I never once wanted to be the Chairperson. quote: Not to me! quote: Not to me. Sorry... this is my womanly opinion and I'm sticking to it! |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote: Okay... I, as a former US Army Airborne Parachute Rigger, I have to take offense at this. I'm sure that the troops, both men and women, whose parachutes I packed considered me an extremely integral part of the United States military. |
|||
|
|
Member |
quote:Fair enough. quote:I, in no way, meant to demean the wonderful work that women do in our military, nor to offend you. In fact, recently I was at a dinner in Washington DC honoring our women in the military, at the Women in Military Museum. I apologize. I was merely referring to numbers when I used the term "integral"; perhaps that was confusing. Welcome back, TrossL. We have missed you. Bob, you make 2 good points. First, as far as using a thesaurus, you are right. We do have to be careful. I looked "thesaurus" up in dictionary.com, and it is defined as a book of synonyms first; then, secondly, a book of related words. I do think people should be more careful with how they use it. I have often chuckled over some of their "synonyms" (i.e. from another thread: "interface" for "wed"). Alright, I give you that "mankind" should stay. I don't even suggest we make it "humankind". Yet, I would like to see some "usage notes" or something to denote there has been discussion about its use. While TrossL disagrees with me, I can tell you that I am not alone here, nor am I even one of the reactionary women about this. My husband did suggest to me that "man" is in "woman. So, he considers "mankind", "chairman", etc. to include women as well. That is a good point. Still, I like being called the "chair", though I do hate "chairwoman". The new edition of the Chicago Writing Style Book (I don't know the exact title), in fact, suggests "chair" over "chairman" now. At least that term is changing. [This message was edited by Kalleh on Tue Aug 19th, 2003 at 19:04.] |
|||
|
|
Member |
Well, folks, if "cavalry" is somewhat related to "men," and "cavalry" literally means "horsemen," it leads me to wonder which end of the horse we're discussing! Or is this "tempest in a teapot" putting the horse before the carp? (synonym: gripe, complain, kvetch, whine...)
|
|||
|
Member |
quote: Kalleh! I am astounded!! There is no doubt in my mind that if all the women in the U.S. military were removed overnight, the whole shebang would collapse in the morning. (We'll sidestep the debate regarding whether or not this would be a good thing.) Is our military half female? Of course not, but I don't know just how much more "integral" women could be. My daughters' half-sister was recently decorated for her work as a member of an aircrew which flew several combat missions in Afganistan during which she played a major role (not to put too fine a point on it) in the killing of substantial numbers of the enemy. When I first entered the Air Force in 1970, women were definitely an underused and underappreciated minority. The all-too-common joke was that "WAF," which stood for "Women in the Air Force," actually stood for "We All F**k" which was as unjust and it was ignorant. They were, however, almost exclusively assigned duties as secretaries, nurses, and personnel specialists. Aside from on-the-ground hand-to-hand combat kinds of jobs, women in today's U.S. military have almost completely blurred the lines between what was previously considered "men's work" and "women's work" much to the benefit of us all. Especially with this board being read by a number of non-U.S. types, I really feel strongly that this point needs to be made. For what it's worth, I'm still not officially back on the board but I did get a heads-up from a regular that there were a few items here that I'd probably want to comment on. And as far as an alternative to "milkman" is concerned, might I suggest "lactaporter"?? |
|||
|
|
Member |
Do you still have milkmen in the USA?
They are a dying breed here, I fear, but we still get our milk delivered to our house. Sadly the competition from cheaper supermarket milk is driving most people away from the home delivery service. Richard English |
|||
|
|
Member |