English, gender and God

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

So the response to Paul's response to what he might have thought was MP's political game is to accuse someone of being sexist or insincere?

---

​

Clearly Schraf didn't think so; she accused the language of being sexist, not Paul.

---

But she called the sexism in the language "ingrained." That would mean that by Paul using it, he, too, is being sexist.Or at the very least, a sloppy thinker.How is that any better?

quote:

---

I probably would have made a more direct challenge. I find the summary dismissal and ridicule of a position as "a political game" rather rude.

---

I didn't say it wasn't.In fact, I distinctly recall directly stating that I wasn't defending Paul.More than once.How many times do I have to directly say something before it gets remembered?You seem to be of the opinion that I'm thinking one of you is in the right. Let me disabuse you of this possibility:You're all wrong. Paul was wrong for rolling his eyes. Schraf was wrong for bringing up the bugaboo of sexism. You and MP are wrong for defending schraf's accusation. It is nothing but an escalation of insults and it serves no purpose.If you want to discuss the issue of why Paul is insisting god is male, that's a completely different issue. It may, indeed, involve questions of sexism. But to infer sexism and/or sloppy thinking on the issue of a single word is simply inappropriate.Just because somebody behaves poorly in reaction to somebody else does not mean that said somebody else was behaving well in the first place.

quote:

---

Your argument was that statements were leveled at Paul; the text doesn't support this.

---

I disagree. I claim the text clearly indicates Paul as the target.

quote:

---

Language was the target, not Paul.

---

But Paul was the one using the language. Are you seriously saying that there was no intention of tarring Paul with the same brush? That there wasn't something wrong with Paul's insistence on using "he" to refer to god?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Not in the least. Schraf's language clearly indicated that she (to whatever degree of seriousness) meant to give Paul the benefit of the doubt - to suggest that Paul's sexism might not have been deliberate and concious, but rather a simple oversight allowing (in Schraf's view) English's natural sexism to rear its ugly head.Everyone makes mistakes. It's not an insult to suggest that someone may have made an honest mistake in not correcting a language's inherent sexism (if that sexism exists). I guess I missed this the first time. I honestly thought you were somehow defending Paul's rolling of the eyes. My mistake, obviously.So, uh, whose side are you on in this? Support this from the text, then. I honestly don't see it. She's talking about the language, not Paul. Language exists outside of Paul, right? And therefore it's possible to talk about Paul's use of language without suggesting anything beyond "Paul might have used language without realizing it's implications"? Which would be a common mistake that any of us could have made. Schraf's words clearly imply that she was willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt; that the sexism inherent in his language may not have been of his concious choice, but rather a genuine oversight. I don't think that says anything bad about Paul; we're all obviously capable of such mistakes.

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

Language exists because people use it. Please explain how one can separate the usage from the language.

---

I thought I had.For example, take sarcasm. That's all usage. If I make a point and you respond with "Yeah, yeah," are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? There is nothing about the words, the order in which they appear, inflections of form, or anything else to let me know if you're being sarcastic. It's all vocal inflection."Yeah, yeah" is language. Said in a sarcastic manner is usage.

quote:

---

I remember being told as a child that "he" included both genders, but I also remember thinking, "That's stupid. "He" means "male". It's not as if I can EVER walk up to a woman and start referring to her as a "he" and have her understand that I am using a gender-neutral pronoun. She will look at me strangely and perhaps protest because I am referring to her inappropriately. That's because "he" isn't a gender-neurtral pronoun in common usage.

---

You've completely ignored context.By your reasoning, a "theory" is "educated guess" no matter what scientists think. The "theory" of evolution is "only a theory," has absolutely no solid evidence, and is nothing more than a desperate throwing up of hands.

quote:

---

I don't buy that "most people" understand it to be neutral, as you say they do.

---

But they use it as if they do...even people who claim they don't.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So how do you manage to keep the distinctions of "theory" meaning "educated guess" and "theory" meaning "analysis of a set of facts"?

---

​

It depends upon the context. I really don't see how this is terribly relevant.

---

Doesn't context help determine whether or not "he" is neuter just as it helps determine whether or not "theory" is "analysis of a set of facts"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

For the umpteenth time. You said that the language was sexist. Not the person using the language but the actual language, itself, as if somehow the language forced a definitive meaning.

---

​

Language is as language is used.

​

Please explain how they are separate.

---

I thought I had.Isn't sarcasm a meta-function? Something that isn't part of the actual language but is all in how it gets put forward? Isn't the fact that a direct statement can mean the exact opposite of what it appears to mean an indication that there is something other than the language at play?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So even though it may be true that many if not most people skew male when seeing "he" as a generic term, does that mean everybody does? That it is sufficient to say that the language is sexist and forces everyone to do so?

---

​

Well, if the majority skew male when seeing "he" as a generic term, then the language is skewed towards male bias.

---

You're ignoring context again.And you're ignoring that language and the people who speak the language are separate entities. The strong conception of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is wrong. Yes, language can influence how you think, but how you think can also affect the language. If a person who has a hard time thinking of a generic person as female is the one speaking the language, then he will bring that bias with him as he uses the language.But what of the person who doesn't have a hard time thinking of a generic person as female? Wouldn't he also bring that egalitarianism to the table?Given that "he" is widely recognized to be neuter in certain contexts, why the assumption that there is some sort of bias somewhere?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Yes...and? Your point? You do realize that you're talking about two different words, right? You do understand that "guys" is not the same word as "guy" and that nobody uses "guys" when they really mean "guy," yes?

---

​

Nobody? Nobody at all? I seem to recall being talked to by you about making broad pronouncements such as this about word usege just a few posts ago.

---

Indeed. My apologies.That said, if we were to do a quick poll, asking people if "guys" could be considered singular, how many people do you think will agree?If we were to ask the same people if "he" could be considered neuter, how many people do you think will agree?

quote:

---

Anyway, you're wrong. "Guys" is used when meaning all males AND mixed gender (but only when being addresses by someone), but never all female, and one would never use a word like "girls" or "gals" to refer to a group of males.

---

Didn't I say that "guys" can mean a group of indeterminate gender? I know I did...you even responded to my direct statement below.And no, "guys" can mean a group of women not being directly addressed.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The word "guys" has a definition of a group of people of either a single, male sex or a group of people of indeterminate sex. The word "guy," on the other hand, is much more strongly attached to the masculine, though even then it can be used for women since there is the rhyming comment, "Hi, guy!"

---

​

Exactly. That is my point about the language being skewed towards the male.

---

There is a difference between "skewed towards the male" meaning that when a word has multiple meanings such that one is genedered and the other is neuter, it is the male/neuter pair that shows up and saying "skewed towards the male" meaning "makes you think of a male."

quote:

---

"One guy." = a single male.

​

"A group of guys." = a group of males

---

Or a group of females. Or a group of men and women. Context will determine what is meant.

quote:

---

"Hi guys!" = can be any gender in the group when addressing. However, one cannot then point to that same group and say, "look at that group of guys." and not expect confusion if there are women in the group as well.

---

I wouldn't be confused. In fact, I'd be expecting a mixed group because "guys" has become so commonly used to mean a group of any people, akin to "crowd."

quote:

---

"Guy" and "guys" are clearly singular and plural forms of a noun meaning, "male", except in the special case of addressing a group, in which there can be women also.

---

Or when referring to any group of people.

quote:

---

Like I said, what do you think whan I say, "Look at that group of guys over there."?

---

I think "people" until I actually look at the group and see what is specificaly being referred to unless I have some other contextual clues that would indicate what I am likely to find. F'rinstance, if I were at some sort of predominantly female function, I'd probably expect to see women. If the general makeup of the crowd is men, I'll expect to see men. If the crowd is primarily mixed, I expect to see mixed.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

schrafinator responds to me:

quote:

---

Look, I think that paul was quite sincere, and I do not appreciate you making up intentions that you imagine I had and then stating them as if you know my mind.

---

As I have directly stated elsewhere, I don't know your mind. I only know your words. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.

quote:

---

In my experience as a woman on this earth, I have experienced all sorts of suble and not so subtle sexism. It could be true that I misread Paul as sexist, and that is why I asked him "why can't God be female".

---

But you did more than just that. You went on to say that "the sexism is so ingrained in the language." What is the point of that if not to talk about Paul as a person? Either he, too, is sexist or he is engaging in sloppy thinking.If all you meant was to probe his justifications for describing god as male, why wave the flag of sexism?

quote:

---

Since we have not heard from Paul, I think the jury is still out.

---

I know. That's why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping to sexism on the use of a single word.

quote:

---

Anyway, as a woman and a feminist, one learns to watch out for misogyny.

---

Even when it might not be there?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM![This message has been edited by Rrhain, 05-11-2003]

quote:

---

"Yeah, yeah" is language. Said in a sarcastic manner is usage.

---

This is getting a little bizarre. Are you really saying that diction, intonation and other vocal effects are not part of language? Incredible.[Added by edit]BTW, in your example "Yeah, yeah", is the comma part of the language? Is the capital letter part of the language?[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-11-2003]

crashfrog responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But she called the sexism in the language "ingrained." That would mean that by Paul using it, he, too, is being sexist.

---

​

Not in the least.

---

How could it not be? If you use a sexist tool, aren't you being sexist? How can you not if the tool is "ingrained" with sexism?

quote:

---

Schraf's language clearly indicated that she (to whatever degree of seriousness) meant to give Paul the benefit of the doubt

---

That he didn't understand why he was describing god as male?That's "giving someone the benefit of the doubt"? Sounds to me like it's accusing him of being a sloppy thinker.And that isn't better.

quote:

---

to suggest that Paul's sexism

---

Wait a minute...didn't you just say that he wasn't being sexist. Now you're saying that he was. Well, which is it?

quote:

---

might not have been deliberate and concious, but rather a simple oversight allowing (in Schraf's view) English's natural sexism to rear its ugly head.

---

But your argument rests on the premise that there was sexism involved.What if there wasn't?What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

Everyone makes mistakes. It's not an insult to suggest that someone may have made an honest mistake in not correcting a language's inherent sexism (if that sexism exists).

---

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

quote:

---

So, uh, whose side are you on in this?

---

Does it matter?Perhaps I'm on the side of those who wish to have a discussion without insults being tossed about.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I disagree. I claim the text clearly indicates Paul as the target.

---

​

Support this from the text, then.

---

I did. What was the point of bringing up sexism if not to make a statement about Paul? Either Paul is being sexist or Paul is a sloppy thinker.If schraf really meant to probe the reasons for why Paul thinks god is male, then why raise the flag of sexism, even if it is couched in terms of talking about the language?

quote:

---

She's talking about the language, not Paul. Language exists outside of Paul, right?

---

Indeed, it does.But what was the point of bringing up sexism if not to make a point about Paul? Paul is the one who used the language, yes? The language is "ingrained" with sexism, yes? Therefore to use it one is necessarily being sexist, yes? And thus, Paul is being sexist, yes?If Paul wasn't being sexist, then what pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?So we're left with a couple possibilities: Either there was an accusation of sexism/sloppy thinking on the part of Paul or schrafinator simply uttered a complete non sequitur. However, I would like to think that schrafinator was trying to make a point that was related to what Paul said.

quote:

---

And therefore it's possible to talk about Paul's use of language without suggesting anything beyond "Paul might have used language without realizing it's implications"?

---

So you're saying Paul can't think coherently.That's somehow a nicer thing to accuse someone of? "I'm sorry...you're not sexist...you're just an idiot."

quote:

---

Which would be a common mistake that any of us could have made.

---

Completely misunderstanding how you conceptualize the god that you have been worshipping for years is a "common mistake"?

quote:

---

Schraf's words clearly imply that she was willing to give Paul the benefit of the doubt;

---

Yeah...Paul's an idiot. That's really giving somebody the benefit of the doubt, isn't it?

quote:

---

that the sexism inherent in his language may not have been of his concious choice, but rather a genuine oversight.

---

That is predicated on the assumption that there was sexism involved. I thought you just said that there was no implication that Paul was being sexist?What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?

quote:

---

I don't think that says anything bad about Paul; we're all obviously capable of such mistakes.

---

You're assuming that there was a mistake to be made.What pronoun would you suggest one use to describe Mr. Einstein?------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

Are Spanish and French strongly inflected?

---

Compared to English? You bet. They certainly aren't the most strongly inflected languages in existence, but they are much more strongly inflected than English or ASL. When every person has a unique form of verb, such that you often don't need the pronoun to indicate what person is being referenced ("Hablo frances" is just as typical and "correct" as "Yo hablo frances"), what would you call that?It is often mentioned that English is a difficult language, but it has one of the simplest verb conjugation systems. There are only four (and a half) conjugations and for regular verbs, two of them are the same thing. There is practically no use of the subjunctive. What makes English difficult is the number of irregularities, the cockamamie spelling, and the vastness of the vocabulary (all of which are greatly the result of the incredible amount of borrowing English has done).Is there more to inflection than conjugation? Of course. English, f'rinstance, practically doesn't have a concept of gender. That is, in English, you say "white witch" just as you would say "white boat." But in Spanish, you must inflect the adjective to reflect the gender of the noun: "La bruja blanca" as opposed to "el barco blanco."And then there is the concept of reflexion, which English doesn't really use. My favorite Spanish verb is "alumbrarse" which means, literally, "to enlighten oneself," or more colloquially, "to get drunk."

quote:

---

We'll agree to disagree?

---

Guess so.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

I think you're agreeing that the language of the poems by Youngquist is not just in the words but in the vocal characteristics?

---

No, I'm saying that the usage of the words affects the meaning of the language.I would agree, however, with everything else you wrote. The functionality of language is highly fluidic, very hard to describe, with nothing completely absolute.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

You're saying Paul could fairly assume I was being insincere! Playing politics, rather than expressing a deeply-held belief?

---

I think I need to tell you the same thing I told crashfrog:I'm not defending Paul. The fact that I think you're making a mistake does not mean I think Paul didn't. You can both be wrong.Even if Paul thought you were playing politics, he shouldn't have rolled his eyes.

quote:

---

It's becoming pretty clear that you have one rule of behaviour for Paul and another for me.

---

Not at all. I am not defending Paul's eye-rolling. In fact, I have directly stated that multiple times. How many times do I have to say it before you remember it?All I am doing is speculating as to why he might have rolled his eyes and how that justification had nothing to do with sexism and thus it would be inappropriate to accuse him of sexism. That doesn't mean he had license to roll his eyes. It simply means that the response to his eye roll was not necessarily accurate.

quote:

---

I don't think I would survive a day living in a community of such Byzantine niceties as you appear to live in!

---

Dunno. Are you prone to responding to insults with insults?

quote:

---

Was Paul's implication any more justified than Schrafs?

---

No.That doesn't make schraf's response any more justified.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So she's accusing Paul of being insincere.

---

​

No - she is suggesting that Paul may be reacting to an issue without giving it sufficient thought.

---

He's insincere. He doesn't really think that, he's just an idiot. He has no brain of his own, he hasn't given it any thought, despite the fact that he's been worshipping this god for years, and thus he has absolutely no idea what he's talking about when he refers to god as "he."Yeah...that's so much better than calling him sexist.

quote:

---

Whether that was fair or not is a different issue, but you seem determined to heighten it to an accusation of deliberate rudeness, when Schraf actually took some pains to ensure that was avoided.

---

She delibertely invoked sexism. How is that avoiding invoking sexism?

quote:

---

quote:

---

In other words, Paul is insincere. Paul hasn't thought about it. Paul is intellectually lazy. Paul is just a mindless drone parroting somebody else's words without actually believing it or understanding it for himself.

---

​

No such thing. If schraf had meant to say that, believe you me, she would have said it.

---

Then what was the point in bringing up sexism? If she simply wanted to question his theological justifications for ascribing a masculine gender to god such as mentioning the descriptions in the New Testament as compared to what Pope John Paul II has done in referring to god in the feminine, etc., then why bring up sexism?That pretty much assumes that Paul is being sexist. "Paul, I'm not sure you realize the sexism contained in your statement." That pretty much includes it all. It declares that sexism is necessarily there ("But what pronoun would you suggest one use for Mr. Einstein?") and that the person is incapable of putting together a coherent thought regarding the subject but is just parroting the words of someone else (who was probably a sexist bastard).Yeah, that's a really nice thing to say about somebody.Again, this does not mean Paul was right to roll his eyes. But just because he did something he shouldn't have done doesn't mean somebody else is justified in responding in kind. The conversation simply reduces to trading insults and that hardly furthers discussion.

quote:

---

When it comes to invective, she's one of the guys!

---

Uh-oh! I thought you couldn't use "guys" to refer to women without directly addressing them!

quote:

---

quote:

---

I guess I'm even nicer: I took Paul to be sincere in his beliefs.

---

​

Sincere in his belief that I was not sincere in mine, but playing politics? Charming.

---

No, not the same thing. I'm unsure if the line was penned by Sondheim or Lapine, but as the Prince said to Cinderella in Into the Woods, "I was raised to be charming, not sincere."In other words, I read the discussion as follows:Paul refers to god as he.
You refer to god as she.
Paul senses political game-playing (which does not mean it actually is) and, rather than keeping it to himself, makes a dig.
Schraf, recognizing the dig, responds in kind.Notice this does not make Paul the good guy. There are no winners here. Paul, in thinking you're not sincere, provokes commentary from schraf that he's not sincere. And now we've wound up spawning a completely separate thread to discuss the issue that should never have been raised in the first place.Now, were you actually playing politics with Paul, knowing that he has a "thing" about god being male? I have no idea and I'm not going to assume so. He shouldn't have rolled his eyes unless this is a long-standing thread between the two of you about god is male/no god is also female at which point both of you are in on the joke and thus, it isn't politics but a joke.See, there are lots of places that one could say, "He started it!" and thus all the people afterward really should have stayed out of it. It could very well have been me since the three of you might have been through this together for a long time at which point y'all should say, "Relax, we have a history. It's not as big a deal as you think."------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Mister Pamboli responds to me:

quote:

---

This is getting a little bizarre. Are you really saying that diction, intonation and other vocal effects are not part of language? Incredible.

---

It's part of the usage. We all know that it's "-ing," but a good number of us say "-in." F'rinstance, once aspect of spoken English is that "r" becomes unvoiced after an unvoiced stop in the same syllable. That is, the "r" in "try" isn't actually voiced like it is in "dry." But that vocal trait is not actually informational. Accent isn't really linguistic, is it, at least not in the sense of providing communicative meaning?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.Question, if everything about language is usage, why do we have the word "language"? Why not just call it "usage"?If you use a screwdriver as a chisel, that doesn't mean the screwdriver really is a chisel. It's simply being used as such (and might even be somewhat effective as a chisel).

quote:

---

BTW, in your example "Yeah, yeah", is the comma part of the language? Is the capital letter part of the language?

---

Yes and no. The conventions of capitalizing and punctuation do convey information, but they don't exist in spoken language. They are arbitrary conventions created to reflect the spoken inflections that we use.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Isn't language just any structured method by which information is conveyed?

quote:

---

I think Schraf was responding not to that particular instance, but to it's context of a greater, inherent sexism found in male conceptions of god.

---

Correct.

quote:

---

The proverbial last straw, perhaps. Anyway, I don't see anything eye-rolling-worthy about the idea of a female god, and it was that summary dismissal that Schraf was responding to, I believe.

---

Also correct.

quote:

---

I could be wrong; I don't claim to read her mind. But I found her comments very appropriate, because I also was slightly offended by the idea that a female aspect of god is something to be rejected outright with a roll of the eyes.

---

Bingo.

quote:

---

If something is "ingrained," how can it fail to be deliberate? Isn't that the point behind an ingrained trait? It happens whether you want it to or not?

---

"Deliberation" implies conscious choice, doesn't it?Something that is ingrained is done automatically, or is part of the whole.That sexism is ingrained in the English language is my claim.

quote:

---

At last - the point of the discussion. Took a while, didn't it?

​

Schraf - was implying that Paul may have been so conditioned by the traditional usage of he for God that he was surprised to see she written.

​

She was generously suggesting that it might not be Paul who was being sexist, but simply that he was so used to the sexually-biased term that he was astonished to see a different term used. I thought it was quite nice of her - I had a much harsher line of attack planned.

---

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.I am glad that some folks here recognize that.Thanks. I'm feelin' the love.