Do you think Language is inherently sexist?

Words in and of themselves, you are right, are neutral. But no word can be uttered without its conotation being understood.

You are right about the terms for old men, thank you. But it's interesting to note that all the examples you cited have come to depict men who are old-fashioned in their thinking. Whereas, the term crone and hag imply a woman who is old and ugly. Does this show that women are still judged solely for their looks while men are judged based on how they think?

I take issue that spinsiter was ever value neutral. Yes, at one point it decribed an unmarried woman who spun wool. However, unmarried women have always been valued less than their married counterparts, with very few exceptions. Bachelor is value neutral, it doesn't imply anything positive or negative. However, no woman in the world would enjoy being called a spinster.

Wise words, thinks I

all the best urban

I don't want to rewrite the language. But if we ignore the stigma that is carried by these words, aren't we in some way perpetuating it?

Just because something shouldn't stigmatize, doesn't mean it doesn't. I agree with you, there should be no value judgment. But there is.

That's my question, is it unfairly weighted against women? And if so, does that make a woman's struggle for equality more difficult? We can't change it. But we can recognize it.

The point is, language reflects not creates our values. Change the value attached by changing the culture.

all the best urban

Language can create our perceptions. Granted, it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem. But, language is not merely a tool, it's also an active participant.

Yes, it is true that language may influence our values but that is small compared to the reverse process

all the best urban

Respectfully, I disagree, Urban. The words we use as children carry into our perceptions as adults. Those perceptions then color the values we use to make decisions. To say that language is a side-line in the development of a human is trivializing it. Words are powerful. They impact more than we truly realize. If you grow up in a household that uses racial slurs to describe people, whether or not you are innately racist, that will color your feelings to people of other races. As you mature, that will always be there.

Again, language is not a mere tool. It is active.

Sorry, that is a myth, sh1t is not a acronym derived from medicine or anywhere else. In fact the origin of this word is well understood and can be traced back through Middle English, Old English, Proto-Germanic to Old Norse.

all the best urban

Fat still is a descriptive term. They're all descriptive terms, which is why removing them does a disservice to our language. They're all useful, but my question really comes down to the fact that in over however long the English language has existed, why isn't there more of a balance? Look at the past ten years and how much language has changed. Words that didn't exist are now commonly used. Language is dynamic. If that is the case, and you accept that the negative perceptions exist, why haven't they changed too?

Glad you enjoyed it. It's an interesting issue, to say the least.

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

This confusion of 'chair' and 'chairman' is based on a misunderstanding. Many words have multiple meanings in English and 'man' is one of them.

The original meaning of 'Man' was person. Males being referred to as wapmen and women as wifmen. 'Man' of course has a second meaning, namely a male person but the two meanings should not be confused. Therefore, it is not sexist to use the term 'chairman' since here man means person.

Nor is it valid to argue that using 'man' in this manner, prioritizes males since it makes as much sense to say that retaining a prefix on 'woman' prioritizes women.

Abuses of English such as 'chair' should be avoided like the plague and a merely a symptom of ignorance.

all the best urban

You make a very good point and one that has long since been lost along the way by the feminist/politically correct anti-male movement.

Many thanks for your comment.

"I also object to the suggestion from the media that domestic abuse is only by men against women (and children). This misinformation does not match the reality that domestic abuse is probably roughly equally practiced by both men and women. When I queried this I was told that they were starting on tackling the 'bigger' problem!"

There was a recent study conducted by a feminist group that asked only women whether they had suffered physical assault by their partner and whether they had physically assaulted their partner. The results surprised them somewhat since they concluded the majority of domestic violence was carried out not by men but by women!

There is of course a great taboo on men not to report domestic violence, and we as a society need to radically reconceptualise our notions about men and women.

all the best urban

Urban:

It is not ignorant to recognize that "man" has come to mean more than "person." There is a reason why the term has come to have the dual meaning. And it goes to the whole point of the question I asked. Calling someone a chairperson may be less objectionable to you, however, I sense that any lingual modifications would find resistance. So, call a woman a chairman, it makes no sense on the face of it. As times change, so does language. Calling someone a name that superficially appears incongruous goes against logic. Just like holding on to archaic words just because they were words once loses the vitality of an ever evolving language.

So, you don't feel that words carry weight? Granted, every word is an arbitrary sound we equate with a meaning. However, as part of human cultural development, I think, we have attributed value to those various terms. Thus a culture and its language are intertwined. So, the values of that culture are tied up in the language the culture uses. Spinster is a two syllable sound, but its meaning has weight. I don't see many women considering the title a compliment. But the male equivalent does not carry the same weight. Most men do not object to the term bachelor.

Words carry weight if you let them. I'm not saying that the word "spinster" or any of the other examples don't have negative connotations, but it's not a language issue, it's a cultural issue. Replace "spinster" with "aged goddess" and a few years from now that will have a negative connotation! That's the reason I have trouble with looking to nouns for clues about society's judgments, whatever connotations they carry, they still are neutral because it is the available word.