All: in what ways are you masculine and in what ways are you feminine?

submitted by questioningtw from (self.GCdebatesQT)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 7 insightful - 5 fun7 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 5 fun -  (2 children)

Like, you use men you'd want to date as an example, but are "feminine/masculine" referring to body type? Or clothing styles (and how feminine/masculine?)

You answered your own question with your own question right there. How I describe a male I want to date or myself is context dependent.

And you shouldn't be offended at it because...? It's cool to "not care" about misogyny?

I assume you've never studied a non-germanic language and you're plain ignorant in understanding foreign language structure. Some Asian languages have a rule about how you address yourself depending on your sex (e.g. in Japanese, you're either allowed to say "watashi" or "boku" depending on the sex when speaking formally). To not follow these language rules would be utter disrespect to the culture and actually make things harder to communicate with other users of their respective languages across different generations (to people from current to past generations). They're just rules for people to address themselves or to address other topics, nothing more, nothing less. Should I be offended that in Italian there are feminine and masculine nouns too? I don't know the purpose of the distinction, but by some feminist logic, I should be offended and change some ancient rule in speaking.

Some of them maybe are borne out of sexism, but that does not mean the user is going to be sexist because of them. You're not going to fix anything by trying to change the language. It's like how people get offended when you call a female police officer "policeman" thinking that changes anything, but majority of policemen are male and if you want to knock it out of the local culture's psyche that "policemen = male" then you should educate the populace by showing that there are female police who can do the job. What many feminists do not understand that if they force a change in language, they're ironically making people focus on the sex of the person by labelling them differently. I don't need people to remember I'm a police "woman" if I'm working as a police officer, I need them to remember I'm a "policeman" (and "policeman" is much faster to say than "policewoman") who's job is to enforce the law and should be treated like any other police officer.

If there's anything I care about, it's the cultural attitudes and the methodology to counter them, because some of them ironically creates a different way for people to focus on the sex of the person and by putting that level of focus on the worker, it detracts from the original purpose of the worker, they're there to do a job, not to date, not to be some organisation's sign of virtue, but to work and get the job done properly. It's no different from TRAs forcing people to use their made up pronouns and keep saying how they just want "equality".

Edit: Wording

[–]adungitit 3 insightful - 7 fun3 insightful - 6 fun4 insightful - 7 fun -  (1 child)

How I describe a male I want to date or myself is context dependent.

So, you're relying on sexist descriptions that are going to be understood in a sexist society. And you see no problem with that?

I assume you've never studied a non-germanic language

I am literally not a native English speaker, and I speak a gendered language. Just because I won't lie through my teeth and pretend that sexism isn't sexist doesn't mean I'm ignorant of other languages. Also, your whole "non-germanic" thing betrays your ignorance - grammatical gender is a common feature of Germanic languages, it's just that English did away with that (and lots of other Germanic characteristics).

Some Asian languages have a rule about how you address yourself depending on your sex (e.g. in Japanese, you're either allowed to say "watashi" or "boku" depending on the sex when speaking formally)

lol congrats on having watched anime at some time, truly your linguistic understanding is off the charts with that. None of this addresses the fact that gendered languages exist and inevitably work in favour of men.

They're just rules for people to address themselves or to address other topics, nothing more, nothing less.

And sexism is supposed to be ok because it's "in the rules"?

by some feminist logic, I should be offended and change some ancient rule in speaking.

I don't give a crap that misogyny is "ancient" or "traditional" or "in the rules". It was "in the rules" that women can't vote. It was "tradition" to kidnap your wife. Ancient rules never cared about women.

Some of them maybe are borne out of sexism, but that does not mean the user is going to be sexist because of them.

No, it means that language is normalising and furthering misogynistic views among people.

You're not going to fix anything by trying to change the language

You're just not going to exclude half the population from a ton of professions and humanity itself by virtue of being female. Seems like a good deal to me.

To not follow these language rules would be utter disrespect to the culture

I don't give a crap about how normalised misogyny is in a certain cultures. Misogynistic cultures can go fuck themselves just like misogynistic religions and other human inventions.

and actually make things harder to communicate with other users of their respective languages across different generations (to people from current to past generations).

I don't give a crap about old people wanting to preserve outdated sexist norms. Language changes literally all the time and people did not forget how to speak just because the language became different. You keep trying to appeal to tradition, despite said tradition always being sexist as fuck and demonstrating throughout centuries that it did not care about women.

It's like how people get offended when you call a female police officer "policeman" thinking that changes anything

It does. Not having "men" literally in the name of the profession is not excluding every woman in the profession by virtue of being female, and sending a message to every girl and woman that she's an aberration, an exception, a stranger in something distinctly male.

you should educate the populace by showing that there are female police who can do the job.

OR you could stop putting "man" into the word signifying the profession, instead of trying to convince people that female exceptions can happen too in something reserved for men.

majority of policemen are male and if you want to knock it out of the local culture's psyche that "policemen = male"

While there are practical reasons for men overwhelmingly being police officers, your argument claims that something being male-dominated justifies it being treated as exclusively male, failing to consider that maybe it's male-dominated because it's treated as exclusively male even down to the word itself.

What many feminists do not understand that if they force a change in language, they're ironically making people focus on the sex of the person by labelling them differently.

So, literally putting "man" in a word for "police officer" is not focusing on the sex at all...but removing the gendered word or saying "woman" is focusing on the sex?

The fact that people don't even perceive "man" as gendered, but suddenly hyperfocus on anything that even suggests a woman is a result of androcentrism, and it goes way beyond language. It's even apparent in medicine, where men are overwhelmingly used in studies, leading to ignorance of some facets of female biology. "Man" being equated with "human", while women are excluded as aberrations is the norm in most societies, because excluding and disregarding women has been so normalised through this "tradition" you keep mentioning.

I need them to remember I'm a "policeman"

So...it's important of everyone to remember you are a male police officer, but if you say you're a female police officer, then suddenly you're making it about gender and all your credibility disappears.

who's job is to enforce the law and should be treated like any other police officer.

Because "policewomen" couldn't enforce the law or be treated like other police officers unless she was treated as literally male?

Also, feminism advocates "police officer" instead of "policeman".

If there's anything I care about, it's the cultural attitudes and the methodology to counter them

Right. Normalised misogyny and androcentrism aren't problems, the ReaL PrObLeM is actually trying to counter them.

it detracts from the original purpose of the worker, they're there to do a job

  1. We do not live in a meritocracy. Men constantly benefit from sexist norms which characterise women as objects for their amusement/lust and themselves as competent and worldly. Stereotypes, language and presentation all play into that. And given how hostile male communities are towards women, no, they're not there to "just do a job".

  2. The fact that literally the same exact thing (gendering words) makes us "hyperfocus" on the woman, but treat the man completely neutrally is a problem, not some cute linguistic feature. In fact, even de-gendering words is seen as "focusing on the gender", anything that challenges the masculine norm is seen as "hyperfocusing on the gender", because men are seen as the norm, and women as aberrations.

[–]TheOnyxGoddess 1 insightful - 6 fun1 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 6 fun -  (0 children)

congrats on having watched anime at some time, truly your linguistic understanding is off the charts with that.

I see you've noticed my high level of linguistic expertise.

None of this addresses the fact that gendered languages exist and inevitably work in favour of men.

Your victim mentality and lack of culture is showing here. By your logic, this shouldn't have happened:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/12/queensland-police-discriminated-against-200-potential-male-recruits-in-favour-of-women-report-finds

If it makes you feel better, maybe the sexism in our language has given women an overwhelming advantage in their applications /s.

I'm glad I never worked with them.

So, you're relying on sexist descriptions that are going to be understood in a sexist society. And you see no problem with that?

People are already saying "Gender non-conforming" which implies gender stereotypes exist. You said in another post "non-conforming woman" in another post") by the looks of it you have no problems using a sexist word to communicate. There's no need to be sensitive, it's just communication. None of the descriptions themselves are actually oppressive, unless you want to see it that way.

While you're at it, you might as well start being offended by the words "la nina " and "el nino" in meterological language, because "el nino" means "little boy and "la nina" means little girl and is sometimes called "anti- el nino" (maybe implying that it's evil because it's "female"? who knows) and the spanish fishermans and meterological researchers think about women and men when talking about climate changes /s,

I'm literally not a native English speaker, and I speak a gendered language. Just because I won't lie through my teeth and pretend that sexism isn't sexist doesn't mean I'm ignorant of other languages. Also, your whole "non-germanic" thing betrays your ignorance - grammatical gender is a common feature of Germanic languages, it's just that English did away with that (and lots of other Germanic characteristics).

My point still stands and I've never made a claim about germanic languages, I made a claim about non-germanic languages and you should still respect the language and the culture. By your logic I should feel offended addressing myself as "woman" in other cultural contexts.

Assuming you're not lying (I doubt it based off the style of your syntax, but I'm not going to argue as it's irrelevant), your claim on authority on language expertise is invalid, ignorance is not discriminate to any group. The fact you're very ignorant of language and culture and considering you feel that feminism should focus on restructuring an entire language, you sound like an oppressor, you may be from a much more oppressed society (I don't know and don't care if you are, this needs to be said), but that doesn't stop you from being an oppressor.

OR you could stop putting "man" into the word signifying the profession, instead of trying to convince people that female exceptions can happen too in something reserved for men.

OR, you can stop being so sensitive about how everyone speaks. Putting "man" isn't signifiying profession, it signifies the individual in the profession. It really fits, woman, man, human, they all have "man" in it. By leaving the word the way it is and showing that "exceptions" happen, it's not forceful to the general populace so there's less resistance to accepting it and it makes feminism less of a joke.

I don't give a crap about how normalised misogyny is in a certain cultures. Misogynistic cultures can go fuck themselves just like misogynistic religions and other human inventions.

You should if you're for equal rights, a culture is a system, if you try to break down the system to put in an entirely different one, people are going to stick to their current culture more as they're more familiar with it (and their lack of education and experiences) and there'll be more resistance, unless you're out to oppress males, in which case, down with misogynistic cultures, whatever makes you happy.

Right. Normalised misogyny and androcentrism aren't problems, the ReaL PrObLeM is actually trying to counter them

If you do not see the humour of someone trying to police how an educated experienced middle class worker or a low-socio economic class jobseeker talks like and what they prioritise, then you're out of touch with society and you're part of the problem. On the brightside, your goals make people laugh, I'm not saying I was the one laughing, but I had friends who were laughing, the average woman and man who are trying to get by and suppported feminism, until a feminist decided to introduce your brand of feminism, which is getting sensitive over 21st century English.

Also, feminism advocates "police officer" instead of "policeman".

I'm still calling female officers policeman and male ballet dancers "Ballerinas" (not the correct term because they're male). Just because feminism advocates it, does not mean feminism is right and just ( e.g. Would you say it's right and just if feminism starts advocating the killing of all male babies? Or every women deserve to win every child custody cases?)

it's important of everyone to remember you are a male police officer, but if you say you're a female police officer, then suddenly you're making it about gender and all your credibility disappears.

At this point, it just sounds like you're imagining me self-victimising (projecting much?). No I'm just doing a job and the word "Policeman" is already in everyone's subconscious majority prefer to use the word. I was here to do the work, my credibility is only in being able to enforce the law properly, not because I'm a woman.

We do not live in a meritocracy. Men constantly benefit from sexist norms which characterise women as objects for their amusement/lust and themselves as competent and worldly.

You're not just ignorant about society and culture, you're also ignorant about the entertainment industry. Males are also portrayed as dumbasses who deserve to recieve abuse and rape too (e.g. there was very little public outcry when Francine tried to rape Stan in "American Dad"). I don't deny women in general have it worse, but men don't exactly have paradise either (I don't care, but those are facts).

The fact that literally the same exact thing (gendering words) makes us "hyperfocus" on the woman, but treat the man completely neutrally is a problem, not some cute linguistic feature.

Just because the language "hyperfocuses" it does not mean the speaker is "hyperfocusing". I doubt you have communicated with those native speakers of those languages, I asked them and they told me it's just there, they don't really talk or think about gender at all, mind you they told me they advocate for gender equality before I asked them. Judging by what you said and tour other posts, I'm not surprised if you were indoctrinated by feminazis combined with a hatred towards males (and not a feminist who cares about gender equality), but then again, maybe your goal is not for gender equality, but for female supremacy.

You are surprisingly sexist towards women, I've never met anyone who thinks that non-gender conforming women are just being gender non-conforming to escape "male objectification", most of us actually just become gender non-conforming because of our personality and interests which happen to be "masculine" (whatever society's perception of what is masculine at the time), not because of male influence. Feminism encourages self-development without the need of permission or validation from male influence. Some of us objectify males (I do it anyway, really out of some sadistic level of misandry).

Edit: Wording