OFF TOPIC


I guess I must be a "rabid feminist". I really do not care if some others choose to continue the outdated use of "he/him/his" to stand for all humans, but it is outdated and it is not harmless. I don't care (too much), because this is hold-out terminology. It has been passed-by by most of the current generation and essentially all of the future generation.

Percival is old enough, and I know I am, to remember (vividly) the round of feminism in the late 1960s, but mostly in the 1970s, which brought about the use of gender-neutral language. RubyMoon, I am unsure whether you are old enough to remember this or not.

The most striking thing about the transformation in language (one still in the process of taking place) was/is, surprisingly, not the struggle to find gender-neutral terms. There are a few situations where it is still awkward, usually involving possessives. Most sentences, however, are extremely easy to say in gender-neutral terms.

Gender-neutral construction has never been wrong. It has never been that difficult. It is simply that for a very long time it didn't make sense, because women weren't real, adult, people. Women were quasi-children, possessions first of their fathers and then of their husbands. "Everyone" (male) "knew" women couldn't own property/run a business/make legal decisions.

Women, it was "known" had weak minds, which would become fevered with too much (or any) reading or intellectual exercise. Women, it was "understood" were delicate flowers, who would be destroyed by physical labor.

(It is fascinating to me how the latter must have applied only to the upper classes. I doubt there are many men or women, today, whose occupations afford them the same physical stress and effort of any female domestic, farm wife, or field hand in the pre-electric, pre-combustion-engine days; which classes encompassed most of the population.)

The lack of women-as-people (i.e. gender-neutral language) had its roots in a world which didn't consider women "real people".

The most striking thing about the change was the jarring sensation when you heard the gender-neutral language. (Thought I'd forgotten, didn't you.)

That sensation is important and it tells you why gender-neutral language is important.
Chairwoman ....... Chair
Policewoman ...... Police officer
Firewoman ........ Firefighter
Congresswoman .... Representative
Mail woman ....... Mail carrier

Many of the initial stabs at gender equality involved clearly differentiating the woman who held the position as a woman (first terms). This has, in most cases, settled down to a true gender-neutral term, which represents both men and women.

The jarring note caused by the use of these terms is the reason they are important: The terms were/are jarring, because they cause the listener to picture women as well as men (or instead-of with the earlier terms). The fact that this is noticeable is evidence that women weren't really included in those male-only referents.

Not convinced? QUICK:
Waiter
Waitress
Server

I'll lay you money:
Waiter: Black suit, white shirt, white or black tie; serving from the left; removing from the right. High class dining; dignity.
Waitress: "Flo" in her bib-front uniform, popping gum and dealing 'em off the arm. Diner; inadequate income, pink-collar.
Server: Probably depends upon where you last ate: your local coffee shop, or the men and women in black suits white shirts and ties who served at the last charity dinner you attended.

It does make a difference. And, as one of the sex which was left out and as one who is not now, never was in the past and never will be in the future male, I will take it very badly if I am, in person, referred-to as male simply because I am a part of a group. I shall gladly be labeled either the chairwoman or the chair of a committee; I will not tolerate being the chairman. And, if you will call him the chairman, then you will call me the chairwoman. Truely gender-neutral language is only appropriate when it is gender neutral: it applies to all.

For all those for whom neutrality is too complex: If you are female, then your "neutral" single-sex terminology for the world should be female. It should be "women" and "hers"; those can include men as well. And, if men cannot be subsumed in humanity, as represented by "women" and "hers" and "she", well, then, it's pretty unreasonable to subsume women in "men" and "his" and "he".

Dear women, sincerely ask your pardon that typed the word without careful consideration about possible reaction onto a single word which definitely stands for both sexes.

---

What goes around, comes around.

I understand where you are coming from RuthP and of course you have a right to your view as I have mine, but I fundamentally disagree with you. Mankind and man are fine terminologies to denote all humans.... we all understand what they mean and there use does not denote chauvinism at all.

What is much more important is for the sexes to treat each other properly and not give lip service. In my book there is no room for chauvinists, misogyny or misandry.


The feminist movement has long been discredited and abandoned by forward looking women, who are confident in themselves, and was full of misandrists.

Perhaps you would like to move the goal posts further? After all we have wo-man and wo-men... does that offend you too? What about the expression manhole? We know what it means. Spotted Dick is now Spotted Richard... brainstorming = thought showers ... policeman or police person? Blackboard now pen board and it goes on and on ... it is all so daft and shallow.

Over-sensitivity to such use of Mankind and man to denote all, reveals in my view a lack of personal worth or insecurity.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

I respect and understand all your feelings, all your opinions.

_______________________AKA RubyMoon, Professor Emerita, Department of Natural Sciences and Mathematics & former Chairman of The Department of Natural Sciences______________________College, New England, USA.

Cheers!

I think this topic uncovered and showed for each of us particularly where is located that true person everything understanding, but who is that person an introvert or an extrovert?

---

What goes around, comes around.

Actually I want to know whom you consider your self, I can only see your posts and wonder who is author of these lines and who are other participants of this topic then I could conclude my investigation is over. Thanks
In respect of an introvert or an extrovert

---

What goes around, comes around.

Thank you very much , intelfam, I'm only glad to get a lesson I very appreciate your efforts. It's true, to compose a correct sentence is a problem for me so far, but I try and try so as I think the best method of all is to go down to business at once don't know maybe you could make me a hint please what I should do mainly to have learned to compose correct sentences? After your correction I can see now how many shortcomings I have to smooth. Thanks

And where can I take such test, intelfam?

---

What goes around, comes around.

Yes of course Peter, but even if it were true that I did, it is only because I fell for one of your verbal gambits I now remember you being so fond of. Consider the following post which precedes the above riposte.


percivalpecksniff wrote:
Introvert and extrovert are to do with personalties and not learning ability. One could posit that the extrovert is more questioning and therefore uses his enquiring mind, whereas the introvert is timid or the more settled and studious... but it is impossible to quantify it.
Be ever so wary of 'experts' who claim otherwise.

I replied with this query... Just to be clear, are we to understand that you are dismissing over 50 years of exhaustive studies, and literally hundreds of thousands of studies, concerning the quantifying of individual differences in personality and intelligence, and that the entire field of psychometrics is a sham?

To which you replies thusly;
You do slavishly depend on those you call experts... wasn't Jaynes supposed to be one? I stand by every syllable. My point is quite clear. Being an introvert or an extrovert is a matter of personality... not intelligence nor learning ability. Intelligence itself is hard to quantify as you should know. Of course if you so wish you may take issue.

So you begin your reply with an insult, and overall appear to be tacitly agreeing with what I said, very nice verbal fencing skills Peter, but not what I would call an attempt at authentic communication.
Regardless you are still wrong, it is impossible for personality to have no effect on learning. I very clearly stated in my first post to this thread that intelligence (cognitive abilities) and personality are definitely separate phenomenon of the mind/brain; however, I went on to say that there is clear evidence that personality, particularly introversion/extroversion, do play a significant role in learning styles, i.e. they effect learning ability due to the prejudice they affect on how well differential presentations will be absorbed. This is not avoidable in a triune mentality, emotional states also can have an effect on learning. My response more thoroughly addresses the original query.
I naively followed you down this fencing path under your Peter Hewitt nom de plume, I'll not do it again.
Fare well Peter.

---

Thanks, percivalpecksniff

You're right that it is seen better from aside the external than the internal, if I am an extrovert then they could define it, anyway I will have known

---

What goes around, comes around.

It occurred unexpectedly.
The server at the Imagecave(free image hosting) has crashed.
Someday those pictures will reappear.