English, gender and God

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

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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

---

​

Ask Schraf. How the hell should I know?

---

Because as a speaker of English, you should be able to interpret plain meaning from statements. After all, if you can't understand what was said, then how can you possibly have a conversation with someone?I don't deny that schraf may have meant something else. I'm simply asking what you think the point of bringing up sexism was. As someone who can understand English, what could possibly be the point of raising a comment about sexism if not to imply something?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

You didn't ask for plain meaning. You asked for Schraf's deep motives in making statements. Without mental telepathy those deep motives are not accesible to me.The plain meaning of her statements was that Paul's sexist gesture was not motivated by Paul's own sexism but rather by sexism inherent in the language, specifically the use of "he" to refer to a god commonly held to be ungendered.You've gone off the handle about what you think that says about Paul, but the simple truth is that Schraf's statements don't imply anything about Paul that they don't imply about all speakers of English.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

sexist comments being interpreted as sexist

---

What makes a comment "sexist"? Wouldn't that be usage?Or are you saying the language forces the comments you make to be sexist?Weren't we all agreeing that usage is key?

quote:

---

if making sexist comments makes one sexist. I say they don't nessicarily.

---

(*blink!*)Did you really just say that? If one makes a sexist comment, how does that mean he isn't being sexist?Again, I agree that one can misspeak, but there is a difference between saying the language, in and of itself, is sexist and saying that a person is. If I did not make a sexist comment and you merely think I did, does that mean I am sexist? Does that mean the language is? Or might it mean that you were wrong to claim sexism?Along those lines, how can you possibly tell if a comment is sexist?Be specific.At any rate, we're left with the same two questions:What was the point of raising the issue of sexism if not to make a point about Paul?What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

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.

---

How could it not be? Paul responded in English, did he not? If it's ingrained, he cannot help but think that, can't he?

quote:

---

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.

---

Then please tell me:What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?I keep asking this over and over, but nobody seems to answer it. While it is somewhat rhetorical, I really want to know what you think the answer is. Stop dancing around the issue and answer the direct question:What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?And why don't you help me out here and answer my other question:What was the point of raising sexism if not to make a point about Paul?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

John responds to me:

quote:

---

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

---

Hold it right there.When was it agreed that there were "biases of the language"?That's the entire argument. Schrafinator is saying that "he" in the neuter is a bias in the language. I am saying it isn't but instead it can be used in a biased manner.That is, if we look at the definitions of the terms, "he" does really have a meaning of neuter. So if I understand that definition and I am clear in my usage that that is the meaning I intend by that usage, by what justification is there for someone else to come along and say that I am being biased?If I mean "dark" when I say "black" and I am clear in my usage that I do mean something "dark," then by what justification is there for someone to say that I really mean something else?

quote:

---

and thus that person can be considered biased rather than the language itself.

---

I am saying that the language isn't biased, but the person is and will use the language accordingly. A biased person and an unbiased person can say the same words and mean different things. Therefore, it isn't the language that tells us but the usage.

quote:

---

It seems that you are arguing that either the person or the language can show bias, but not both.

---

I am saying in this particular instance, it is not both.

quote:

---

The language a person learns influences how that person thinks,

---

But you're assuming that the language is biased to begin with.What if it isn't? What if the language understands the difference between "he" in the neuter and "he" in the masculine? Does the mere fact that the same word is used for both inherently mean bias?

quote:

---

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.

---

But only if you assume there is salt in the water to begin with.That's the point I'm arguing: You're making an unjustified assumption.

quote:

---

A language is biased by its history, its past usages.

---

And if the history of the language isn't that, what then?

quote:

---

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.

---

I wasn't the one that rolled my eyes when MP referred to god as "she." In fact, I've directly stated over and over that I am not defending Paul in his rolling of his eyes or in his seeming opinion that god is male.I am simply wondering how one can claim that Paul is "sexist" and that the language is "ingrained" with sexism simply because Paul, who seemingly thinks that god is male, is using "he" to refer to god.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

So you were making a complete non sequitur?"You know, I was thinking of having a salad for dinner what do you think?""Have you noticed that so many fast food places have started offering salads?""What does that have to do with anything?"

quote:

---

But isn't it funny the way our language works that we run into these problems?

---

What problem?What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

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.

---

But what pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?Who was talking about a "catch-all"? Wasn't Paul talking about god?And wouldn't it seem to be the case that Paul does think that god is male?Therefore, what pronoun would you suggest one use?

quote:

---

So...where is my vicious attack on Paul in that? I'm sure you'll find one.

---

It disappeared once it became apparent that you weren't even responding to the topic but were making a non sequitur.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I think the answer is here is clearly "yes". Such a usage implies a worldview (as that held by Greek philosophers) that masculinity was the "normal" state, and that femininity was a deviation from that - and therefore ultimately inferior.The use of "he" in reference to ungendered objects clearly perpetuates that view. Ergo, sexism in the language.

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

You didn't ask for plain meaning. You asked for Schraf's deep motives in making statements. Without mental telepathy those deep motives are not accesible to me.

---

I most certainly did! How can there be a claim of sexism without someone to be sexist?It's simple logic: If you claim that 2 + 2 = 5, then you must necessarily also be claiming that 2 = 3.If you claim that someone is using sexist language, then you must necessarily be claiming that the person is sexist since there are plenty of ways to avoid sexism in speech, are there not?I wasn't asking if this was a huge breach or a slight misstep. I was simply asking for what sort of antecedent could possibly exist from a claim of sexism.If the language is sexist and Paul used the language, what does that make Paul?

quote:

---

The plain meaning of her statements was that Paul's sexist gesture was not motivated by Paul's own sexism but rather by sexism inherent in the language, specifically the use of "he" to refer to a god commonly held to be ungendered.

---

"Commonly held"? By whom?Don't you think we should look to Paul for that answer? After all, Paul was not talking about the "common perception" but rather his own.What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

You've gone off the handle about what you think that says about Paul,

---

How can descriptions of Paul's usage not be a reflection of Paul?

quote:

---

but the simple truth is that Schraf's statements don't imply anything about Paul that they don't imply about all speakers of English.

---

What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

quote:

---

What pronoun would you suggest one use to refer to Mr. Einstein?

​

I keep asking this over and over, but nobody seems to answer it.

---

Most everyone has answered it in their own way. I addressed it over 60 posts ago in message 19. Just because you didn't get an answer in the terms you would like, doesn't mean it wasn't answered.The correct answer to an irrelevant question can be to point out its irrelevance; and the trouble is, no one but you thinks your question is in any way relevant to the matter in hand. Further, in over 60 posts you have falied to persuade any of us that it should be.The matter under discussion has nothing to do with a pronoun used in passing of one whose gender is not in question - the issue has to do with attitudes to pronouns used when gender is the very issue at hand.The question you should be asking is more like What pronoun would one use of one when referring to Jaye Davidson's character in The Crying Game?

Not sexist. Duh.If you tell me that Walt Disney's body is cryogenically frozen, which you absolutely believe to be true, does that make you a liar? No, it doesn't. Liars are people who knowingly promulgate untruths. Sexists are people who knowingly promulgate sexisim. Everyone agrees that to be guilty of an immoral elocutionary act, you have to know that the act is immoral. Just like any other immoral or offensive act. Paul was in fact rejecting another person's view of god's gender, not advancing his own. Why would it be? The description wasn't of Paul's unique usage but rather usage in general. Albert Einstein had a penis. I don't think even Paul believes this to be true for god. What's the relevance here? We're not talking about what Paul thinks about god, but what is appropriate for Paul to say about others who think differently about god.

quote:

---

How could it not be? Paul responded in English, did he not? If it's ingrained, he cannot help but think that, can't he?

---

So you go with Sapir-Whorf on this one? Very curious.

quote:

---

It's simple logic: If you claim that 2 + 2 = 5, then you must necessarily also be claiming that 2 = 3.

---

Wouldn't you be claiming that 2 = 2.5? I do hope your logic is better than your arithmetic!

quote:

---

If you claim that someone is using sexist language, then you must necessarily be claiming that the person is sexist since there are plenty of ways to avoid sexism in speech, are there not?

---

Not if they are unaware that the language they are using is sexist. You seem determined to dance around the point of this particular pin. For my part I am beginning to find it contrived and tiresome. I suspect schraf and crashfrog feel the same way.

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

How could it not be? Paul responded in English, did he not? If it's ingrained, he cannot help but think that, can't he?

---

​

So you go with Sapir-Whorf on this one? Very curious.

---

No! I don't! That's the point I'm making!The language isn't sexist, it's the person using the language that is!------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

It's simple logic: If you claim that 2 + 2 = 5, then you must necessarily also be claiming that 2 = 3.

---

​

Wouldn't you be claiming that 2 = 2.5? I do hope your logic is better than your arithmetic!

---

You would be claiming that, too. Here's what I was getting at:Suppose 2 + 2 = 5.
Then (2 + 2) - 2 = 5 - 2.
Then 2 + (2 - 2) = 5 - 2.
Then 2 + 0 = 5 - 2.
Then 2 = 3.It is a necessary result of the fact that 2 + 2 = 5 that 2 = 3.Similarly, suppose 2 + 2 = 5.
Then (2 + 2) / 2 = 5 / 2.
Then (2 / 2) + (2 / 2) = 5 / 2.
Then 1 + 1 = 5 / 2
Then 2 = 2.5.You get a whole bunch of problems that fall out by saying that 2 + 2 = 5.So if someone is making a claim of sexism, it necessarily follows that a person is involved since things, being inanimate, cannot discriminate against either sex. Things aren't sexist...people are.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you claim that someone is using sexist language, then you must necessarily be claiming that the person is sexist since there are plenty of ways to avoid sexism in speech, are there not?

---

​

Not if they are unaware that the language they are using is sexist.

---

If they are unaware, then they aren't being sexist.Sexism is a motivation. Things can't be sexist. People can be, however. How can a non-sexist person make a sexist comment?Again, I can easily understand misspeaking...where a person mistakenly uses "black" when he really meant "white," but that happens when everyone agrees that the terms used don't mean what they were thought to mean:"He didn't fall? Inconceivable!""You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."But if there is recognition of a definition and the word is used according to that definition, why the claim that what is really meant is this other definition?"Yeah, you said 'theory' and I know that 'theory' can mean 'analysis of a set of facts,' but when you said 'theory' right then, I heard 'speculation.'"

quote:

---

You seem determined to dance around the point of this particular pin. For my part I am beginning to find it contrived and tiresome. I suspect schraf and crashfrog feel the same way.

---

Strange, I was going to say the same thing about you three.Why else have you all refused to directly answer my direct question?What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?I'm not asking it for my health. It was even asked, by you if I recall correctly, why I keep asking it and I told you why.And still, you don't answer.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM![This message has been edited by Rrhain, 05-14-2003]