Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 65 of 90 (345032)
08-30-2006 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by FliesOnly
08-30-2006 11:19 AM


Re: What's at stake?
don't get me suspended..
Actually I didn't mean to get a certain someone suspended, and I hope I didn't. I was surprised to see that was allowed, and only asked NWR if I was going to have that flexibility. Admittedly it probably wouldn't raise level of debate.
let's say 1% of women involved in the feminist movement secretly want to be men...does that mean nemesis-juggernaut's blanket opinion of the movement is valid?
Absolutely not! I totally agree that to label the entire movement, or even the majority of it the way jug did was not correct. I was merely trying to point out that some feminists, and indeed they often think of themselves as the true feminists, can be described the way jug did.
Perhaps that's the only experience jug's had of them? Not an excuse, only an explanation.
I am not personally aware of any of the women I know that have chosen to raise a family (as opposed to seek a career) being looked down upon. Quite the opposite, as a matter of fact.
You haven't heard anyone suggest even subtle disappointment when a women decides to have a kid, esp if it means leaving behind a career? It may not be rampant as jug makes out, but I have seen it. Of course anecdotes and a buck won't get me anything at starbucks.
So the bullshit about women being somehow terrible mother’s cuz they also chose to work is just that...bullshit.
Oh that was completely wrong, and I called him on that part. Even if some fems are "masculinists" as jug put it, that does not come close to validating that working mothers are somehow worse at it. Then again maybe I'm biased since my mom worked.
I definitely did not mean to validate much of what jug was saying, or discount your overall argument. I was just trying to pull out some of the elements which have a trace of truth to them, and would be interesting to discuss within the context of this thread which can arguably contain changing roles via change in language/perception.
And I certainly do believe what I think has a trace of truth can be argued against.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by FliesOnly, posted 08-30-2006 11:19 AM FliesOnly has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 66 of 90 (345061)
08-30-2006 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Hyroglyphx
08-30-2006 11:24 AM


Re: What's at stake?
If I'm not mistaken a few people have complimented you on that.
I think my writing gets a mixed result. I'm opaque to some. I do need to improve and I keep trying. I stand by my compliment of your style.
fighting fire with fire is the best method to resolve a conflict.
You know I have to say that that's a good rule of thumb, but sometimes one must fight that way. It depends on the circumstance and someone better show some damn good evidence to back up such a suggestion. I agree that it doesn't work in this case.
But there is this underlying pressure for women, judged by their female peers, that if Susie Q isn't out in the workforce instead of the soccer field with her son or daughter, that she must be worthless. That's absurd to me.
I think everyone here can agree that this kind of pressure isn't worthwhile. The question seems to be more about how common that is both to feminism as a movement, and in the culture as a whole. I agree with you that it exists, but perhaps more so with flies that it is not to as great a degree as you are suggesting.
It seems that more evidence is necessary to back up claims regarding its popularity.
I think if we were to juxtapose latchkey kids to kids that come home to parents who immediately care for them, you'd see a vast difference in their attitudes-- of course there are always extenuating circumstances.
I take your point that kids that are neglected or have less support may suffer from disadvantages that those who are well cared for and have full support would not face. But I think it is much more complex than to equate being a latch key kid to that former group, even as an inherent potential.
What I have an aversion to is the Feminist movement which basically covets masculinity and repackages it under the guise of femininity.
If you change that to "the portion of the feminist movement" you'd probably find more people willing to agree with what you are saying.
I have an aversion towards certain hard-charging, stiletto wearing,
Heheheh... what in particular do you have a problem with these elements? And will you be at least partially satisfied if they take off their high heels?

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Hyroglyphx, posted 08-30-2006 11:24 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 74 of 90 (345349)
08-31-2006 4:48 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 1:37 AM


feminist control of language
The same applies to feminism. Feminist women fight for the right to define their own lives as women, not as men say they should be defined. This includes word usage and representation in politics and cultural life.
I think you are making the same mistake as jug has... overgeneralizing the feminist movement. In particular the portion dealing with semantics issues, attempting to control language, apppear to be exactly what jug is suggesting.
Lets separate pure word usage from representation, and lets take the specific example of being offended at using "man" to mean "humanity".
Semantic concerned feminists created a fictional story, or at least highly speculative one, regarding the origin of "man" as "humanity", and seek to replace it by attempting a level of control on language they ascribe to males in their own fictional story.
There really is nothing holding women back because the word "man" has two separate meanings, yet they believe so and covet what they believe males have as some semantic advantage.
If they were confident, and not attempting some role reversal, they could deal with the facts instead of creating the fiction, or even if buying into the fiction, champion their identity without having to manipulate rather innocuous parts of our language.
And indeed in their quest they create another fiction as well, that they speak for other women, and that women as a whole feel weakened or demeaned by hearing and using "man" to mean humanity. They talk for, and over, other women to assert their will just as they claim men do.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 1:37 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 5:39 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 90 (345359)
08-31-2006 6:12 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 5:39 AM


Re: feminist control of language
The usage of "womyn"
But I wasn't arguing about the creation of new words. In fact I thought my posts have supported that kind of behavior.
I was primarily addressing the removal of words, the suppression of what others say, by certain feminist factions. In that capacity I think they are coveting the fictionalized male role they invented.
"Black Power" has nothing to do with white people personally. It is just white arrogance to think so. "Feminism" has nothing to do with men personally, it is just male arrogance to think so.
Since there are many blacks and women in those movements that would say quite the opposite, I think that's a bit stretched to claim.
Indeed its a bit convenient (somewhat of a no true scotsman fallacy) to claim those elements don't count, or that people who take those elements at their word are showing bias?
I get your point though. One cannot say what either must be and that it is necessarily trying to create role reversal.
because of the mental images suggested by such phrases
Why should they unless you have bought a wholly fallacious argument. It's like a person saying I can't work (or must work) with anything that's the color red (or has red in the name) because it conjures the image of communism.
Indeed its much like expecting people who have used swastikas for ages to stop using them, because Hitler's Nazi movement used them. Bhuddists and others used them as symbols of peace long before the nazis did.
The word MAN has two different meanings. Only the willfully ignorant can state that it appears that when one uses man to mean "humanity" one seems to be saying male.
In fact I will throw your own argument right back at you. How are the visions you are claiming regarding "man" not any more a biased media product, than a person who views statement of "black power" meaning black dominance? Man never was meant to mean male originally, and later man could also mean male, and presently it has two meanings defined totally by usage... just like any other word with two meanings.
Certain feminists created this concept that when a person says "man" it must be viewed as male or male centered, and it seems you cannot shake it? How does that make you any different from Jug?
The study Schraf mentioned in another thread which mentioned "Industrial Man"
I don't know what that was, and am curious, could you provide a link? In advance, if it is based on the idea that the general label "industrial man" and "pre-historic man" is sexist in connotation because it downplays the role of women and children, then I'm not going to agree. Again it is based on the idea that the fictional definition of "man" is correct and so must be read a certain way. Just as false as reading feminism and black power to mean something it historically never meant, and not used today for except by "male" extremists.
making mounds of money on the backs of working people.
Uhhhh... The fat rich cats tended to have fat rich wives that made mounds of money on the backs of working people. In fact they had fat rich kids who lived off of the backs of working people. For every fat rich man you were likely to find more than one rich woman and child.
Heck the fat rich women and kids didn't even have to put in time overseeing anything. They were just raking in the dough.
It seems we are using economic class struggle issues to try and cover/legitimate a false feminist semantic claim.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 5:39 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 7:58 AM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 83 of 90 (345640)
09-01-2006 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by Jaderis
08-31-2006 7:58 AM


Re: feminist control of language
I don't see how you can say this...
However, my original point had not alot to do with arguments within movements, but with the interpretations of those "outside" the movements.
... which I should say I do agree with... and then say...
I also think that certain other historical uses of man should be changed (i.e. chairman, fireman, policeman, congressman, etc). There are acceptable changes for words that blatantly imply a "man's" job and some that are completely neutral. The etymology of man has alot to do with common usage, but certain words do still carry a certain meaning.
The "meaning" as you call it, was derived by people "outside" the creation of that language. I am fine with using "woman" or "person" at the end of those if a person wants that, or my knowledge of that person suggests they might want that, it's just a title after all. But the idea that there is an implication is based solely on recent cultural pressure to view it that way. It really means police person, fire person, chair person. It is not just the etymology heading back 100s of years one has to look at. That really was how it was used in language up till recently, when pogroms of language were introduced to support a specific feminist interpretation.
And again I am going to call you back to your own argument. I people outside the feminist and black power movements come to view those terms as meaning something and so feel there is an implication, why can't they make that claim?... regardless of etymology and current usage.
When did I ever imply that I cannot "shake" an extremist feminist phraseology?
When you say certain terms "still carry a certain meaning", when they actually don't beyond feminist revisionist history of language, I get the above impression.
That said you have greatly clarified your position which is not as radical in nature as some within the semantic feminist movement. Can you see how your position may be viewed as a point on a gradient regarding the use of man? Extreme feminists on one end, you pretty close to center, me on the other side of close to center, and perhaps some extreme male sexists on the far end pretending there never was sexist us of language at all?
Here's the message link. I will not argue for Schraf's position
Thanks. The study is not only pretty old, it also looks pretty flawed. I'm not going to call on you to defend it or her position. I will say that I disagree with your stated position that Industrial man "inherently have different and significant ramifications".
I'm not sure what evidence could be brought to bear on that, but I guess I'd like to see something. I see how you can claim that for yourself. That is you FEEL an inherent weighted difference. But what about those who don't?
Workers' rights and women's rights and then black rights stemmed from the same tree. Recognition of work and dignity. That's all it is in essence. Words and definitions play a huge role because they define the struggle, but some people get too caught up in semntics, which I believe your thread is all about.
I think we are in severe AGREEMENT on this point. Heheheh.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Jaderis, posted 08-31-2006 7:58 AM Jaderis has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 86 of 90 (348081)
09-11-2006 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Jaderis
09-11-2006 2:27 AM


Re: What's at stake?
I knew I was different in elementary school and even had little kid infatuations over girlfriends of mine, but sex, of course, never entered my mind until I was a teenager, just like everyone else.
I'm sorry but most kids engage in sexual play and fantasy from very young ages. That a kid may not be given knowledge or language skills to express or identify it as well as teens and adults is not to say that they do not have them. That's what infatuations and things like "playing doctor" were about.
It is only in trying to sterilize our language about children, to create a myth of "purity", that it is said not to be sexual.
I do not understand when people think it is appropriate for children to be taught about respecting other sexualities, then deny more conservative people suggesting children should not, when both are agreeing children aren't sexual and should not be exposed to sexual concepts when young.
It seems to me the conservatives are more consistent in their argument, even if I disagree with their position.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 2:27 AM Jaderis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 4:27 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 89 of 90 (348301)
09-12-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Jaderis
09-11-2006 4:27 PM


Re: What's at stake?
Last things first...
How is the "liberal" argument inconsistent? Even if I had said anything of the sort, how am I a spokeswoman for the liberal camp?
I'm not saying you are a spokesperson for the liberal camp. However you are clearly arguing for educational policy (and I might say ideology) that is "left" or "liberal" compared to say Jug's position.
Liberal arguments on this subject tend to be for educating children, and that means promoting the education of OTHER people's children, that mandates tolerance for certain sexualities. Yet at the same time embrace allowing the same bigotry or exclusion for other sexual possibilities. And in this case you seem to argue that details of sexual conduct should not be taught because of age appropriateness.
Conservatives argue that parents should be the arbiters of what is appropriate for their children, and that they don't believe what you find tolerable should be taught as tolerable to their children. That is actually pretty consistent in comparison to the above. They treat all alternative sexualities as worthy of exclusion, and leave it up to the parent to give such instruction.
What I meant by my statement was that sexual desire or sex as something applicable to me never entered into the picture until I was a teenager.
I'm sorry, but after describing your own history you added "just like everyone else". If this had been purely personal anecdote I wouldn't have said anything at all.
Sexual desire definitely would have been applicable to me and many other children I knew throughout childhood. We did not have a language or skills or experience to understand the full meaning at the time, but that was true of a lot of things besides sex.
they were more outlets for curiosity and not sexual (as in desire) in nature.
This is exactly what I am talking about... and fits in well with the thread's topic. Outlet for "curiosity"? Its exploring sexuality, it's sexual curiosity. Its the same drive that makes me want to play "doctor" with grown up girls today.
Only its not polite to talk about our childhoods like that. Kids must be viewed as some sort of sexless, "innocent" drones that turn into sex machines when the hormones hit. Thus the same play in teens and adults is sex, when kids its "curiosity" and "exploration". When it has to do with sex, its sex.
Hormones only drive people to explore faster.
I never read fairy tales as a child and automatically jumped to "Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming are gonna have sex now," did you? I don't think that 5 year olds are going to assume sex in any of these types of stories, either.
Given that children aren't told about sex why would they? But on some level many kids get that SOMETHING important and exciting is underlying what is going on. When I heard the above story (or others like it) I understood there would be kissing and holding each other, and imagined very tight holding and something... something exciting... something else that I wasn't sure. Something I might want and I would become aroused.
I didn't know what it was at the time because I did not have the education nor the language. But I can sure as heck look back from where I am now to recognize what was going on in my body and what I wanted.
Maybe this isn't the same for you, but I've met plenty of people for which it was true.

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Jaderis, posted 09-11-2006 4:27 PM Jaderis has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024