English, gender and God

RrHain,I wonder if you have every heard of a concept called linguistic determinism? It comes in two flavors. The first is the 'hard' variety, and it holds that people cannot think other than in the ways their language allows. This version makes no sense to me because if this were the case it seems that language could not change, and it does. The second version is 'soft' linguistic determinism, which hold that language, though not an absolute controlling factor, strongly influences the way people think. This version I can accept. Numerous informal fallacies, for example, stem from the way language works. People tend to behave as if words are things, or as if a name implies that the thing actually is. People also tend to reject things for which they have no words, or things which described in language seem absurd-- like quantum physics or singularities or the idea that there might have been nothing at all before the BB. Scientists have been forced to accept such things as quantum wierdness, but try explaining it to someone not versed in mathematics. People also lump and group things. Grouped things share characteristics, and often share characteristics which are not justified. Like, say, the association of expensive dress with competent business sense.The point, basically, is that language and thought are inextricably intertwined. Words, in that they are connected to ideas, influence what and how people think. In that sense, a language can be sexist, or racist, or any number of things.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

We seems to be grinding to a halt here, primarily around two issues.You seem to find it impossible, or perhaps just unsuitable to your present purpose, to separate out the deliberate and conscious from the casual and habitual. It is noticeable that in order to make your case you have now taking to exaggerate schraf's comments to the point of absurdity, accusing her of accusing Paul of being insincere, an idiot, having no brain of his own, incapable of putting together a coherent thought, parroting the lines of a sexist bastard etc. I think the need to exaggerate in this way reveals quite nicely that your argument doesn't hold water within the parameters of the original context. I hope you are merely exaggerating to throw the point you are trying to make into sharper constrast. Unfortunately, as the topic under discussion is concerned very much with subtleties of gradation in expression, sharpening the contrast consititutes a distortion rather than a clarification.For instance:

quote:

---

Pamboli: ... you seem determined to heighten it to an accusation of deliberate rudeness, when Schraf actually took some pains to ensure that was avoided.
Rh: She delibertely invoked sexism. How is that avoiding invoking sexism?

---

I think the distortion in your reply should be clear to everyone else reading this.

quote:

---

Now, were you actually playing politics with Paul, knowing that he has a "thing" about god being male? I have no idea ...

---

Actually, and by the by, no. In fact, in my response to Paul, I said I would not use the term if he really objected. That was sincere, although if he had objected he would have received a stern talking-to (posting-to?) along with my compliance.

quote:

---

I think we're having a bit of a definitional difference in "language." I'm referring to the more formalistic aspects of the language and you seem to be referring to every aspect of communication.

---

Yes we do seem to be working with slightly different definitions. The difficulty lies in the fact that language is just one aspect of communication, and the decision to draw the boundary of the term is, to an extent, arbitrary. Intonation and diction are vital in English - in some cases so vital that we must have signs to show this: question marks, exclamation marks (remember Seinfeld?), full stops, commas etc. (The capital letter at the beginning of the sentence is perhaps redundant today, given the full stop, but it was once useful to distinguish the stop from common scribal abbreviations.)It has often been asked why we do not have similar signs for expressing other intonations such as sarcasm. The answer appears to be threefold. Firstly, written language did not develop as a means of recording speech, but as a means of conveying over time and distance what might otherwise be conveyed in speech: thus written language developed its own means - primarily circumlocutary - of expressing tone when needed. Secondly, highly inflected languages, such as Greek, are often much more capable of expressing subtleties which are underscored by tone and gesture, or in uninflected languages conveyed almost entirely by tone and gesture. Thirdly, in the last couple of hundred years we have seen an increasing use of written signs for expressing intonations, from he "said" he would do it to the wonderful innovation of smilies.For my part, then, I cannot draw the boundary of what constitutes language at that which can be conveyed in written speech. Yeah, yeah is a very poor representation of the richness of language behind the utterance.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-11-2003]

quote:

---

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.

---

In my experience, deliberate and conscious sexism, like deliberate and conscious racism, is relatively easy to counter, if not to solve. Taking a clear opposite positon promptly is often enough to deal with the immediate situation - but the long term causes need continuing social change.Ingrained, habitual, attitudes are much more difficult to deal with, but do still need to be dealt with promptly, if only as a form of aversion therapy for the hapless ingrainees . I think your response to Paul was entirely appropriate.I remember as a child hearing my grandmother's comment on Kenneth Kaunda appearing on television: Isn't he black, the poor soul? In her way, she probably wished him nothing but good. Even at the age of ten, I knew this was something that needed to be countered. It was almost twenty years later that she apologized for punishing me.You don't need me to tell you to fight the good fight, schraf. Better to have one person think you a little rude (and it only appears to be one) than to let it go by without comment.

quote:

---

Thanks. I'm feelin' the love.

---

As Austin Powers would say Feel it, baby! Grrrrrrrrr.

Them perhaps it would behoove you to stop putting words in my mouth (fingers?) and implying insult where none can be found, like here: And here: And here: And here: And here: And yet again, here: I think we get it.Honestly, if your argument is going to rely on insulting implicatures that I'm not making, there's really no reason to argue with you. For somebody who wants to keep the insults out of the argument you used more in that last post than Salty in his last six.Come up with a better tack or don't expect a reply from me.

schafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

Something that is ingrained is done automatically, or is part of the whole.

​

That sexism is ingrained in the English language is my claim.

---

If the sexism is ingrained, then how could Paul not be sexist by using the language?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Just as an aside, is there a reason why some people are spelling my nickname with a capital H? I don't recall putting it in there that way and it doesn't appear to be that way in the "Author" fields. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid.John responds to me:

quote:

---

I wonder if you have every heard of a concept called linguistic determinism?

---

The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis, yes.And yes, the strong version is ludicrous. People who are bilingual do not see a different color of the sky simply because in one language they call it "azul" while in another language they call it "blau."And yes, as I have directly stated, language influences thought.But thought influences language, too. And if the language makes a distinction and the person thinks that there is a distinction, then by what justification is there a claim of bias?Once again, we seem to be accepting the offended person's opinion as gospel while completely ignoring the other person.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

If you use a green-colored tool (the color is ingrained) do you turn green yourself?Using a tool doesn't mean you aquire all aspects of that tool.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

Come up with a better tack or don't expect a reply from me.

---

I got a better idea:Answer the question I asked of you: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?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

If you use a green-colored tool (the color is ingrained) do you turn green yourself?

---

Invalid analogy.More accurate: If you use a paint brush that is filled with green paint, do you leave a green mark?Now, answer my question:What was the point of bringing up sexism if not to make a point about Paul?

quote:

---

Using a tool doesn't mean you aquire all aspects of that tool.

---

It means, however, that a tool that forces you to use it in a certain way can only be used in a certain way.Now, answer my question:What was the point of bringing up sexism if not to make a point about Paul?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Ask Schraf. How the hell should I know?

To the contrary, it was a very valid analogy. We're not talking about green paint being green - sexist comments being interpreted as sexist - but rather if painting green makes you green - if making sexist comments makes one sexist. I say they don't nessicarily.

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.

quote:

---

Just as an aside, is there a reason why some people are spelling my nickname with a capital H? I don't recall putting it in there that way and it doesn't appear to be that way in the "Author" fields. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid.

---

It's likely because Hain is an English surname, and sounds like one, so we are subconsciously fitting you into our linguistic experience. But don't worry we're not getting at you - it's ingrained, not deliberate.

quote:

---

And if the language makes a distinction and the person thinks that there is a distinction, then by what justification is there a claim of bias?

---

You are going to have to be more clear. There are several ways I can interpret this, but what it sounds like you are saying is that a person by default believes the biases of the language and thus that person can be considered biased rather than the language itself. It seems that you are arguing that either the person or the language can show bias, but not both. I am arguing that both can be biased. The language a person learns influences how that person thinks, but that person's experiences also influence thought and those experiences get fed back into the language through usage, and the language changes-- slowly. Still, you are justified in calling the language biased, just as, up to a point, you can still call salt water 'salty' even after you've mixed in some fresh water. A language is biased by its history, its past usages. You could call the person biased as well-- biased by the language, by experience, by any number of things.

quote:

---

Once again, we seem to be accepting the offended person's opinion as gospel while completely ignoring the other person.

---

If I were ignoring your side, I wouldn't be replying to you.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com