Feminism out of control?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

God God, man, are you now completely incapable of admitting you're wrong?

This is now the second time in one thread.

My point was that the word "homocide" was no more or no less sexist that the word "chairman".

You argued that I was wrong in this point because my etymology for the word "homocide" was wrong, your evidence for this was a faulty etymology from Greek, you argued that "homocide" was not "man killing" but "same killing" and likewise that "hominids" are not "man like" but "like us."

All language is inherently gendered with reference to people, all "gender-neutral" language tends to take a different word (usually from another language) and use that to replace the supposedly sexist word.

Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.

However, there are gender-neutral words, those that are derived from verbs instead of nouns.

In the case of "Chairman" you have two options -

1. "The (one who is) Sitting (in the) Chair"

2. "president" - from Latin "Presidi" - one who presides.

As regards the word Vagina, in the Iberian Peninsula (except Basque country) the word for "scabbard" is "vaina" and their word for "vagina" is, shockingly "vagina"; the difference in pronunciation is a half-sounded "h", essentially a glottal. So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.

[Montmorency]

All language is inherently gendered with reference to people

But it's not.

Then "Chairman" becomes not "chairman/chairwoman" but "chairperson" even though "person" is a feminine gender noun and "human" is a masculine gender noun. So we're not really any better off, we just think we are.

The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.

So your argument there only really holds up in a monoglot English context. It doesn't work in Iberia, or for anyone who learns Latin - which is still a lot of people in Classics, Medieval history, the Church or Law.

Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It seems to me that you both (at least PFH) mix up grammatical gender and gender as a social construct. In the case of the former languages don't manifest a universal pattern. There are languages which don't have this grammatical category (like modern English which has lost it as an aftermath of the Norman conquest) while others have it. The number of genders also differs - some languages have a three member gender opposition (Ukrainian or German -
feminine::masculine::neuter) others only two (like in Spanish - feminine::masculine). Moreover, the term "grammatical category" is erroneously applied in relation to nouns while it is quite accurate in relation to adjectives.

Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.

Seamus made this point above - really we should be more offended by "vagina" than by **** but I can't even bring myself to type the latter word.

My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.

Peeves, you hold a pretty strange view, so as a trained hermeneute of the Latin language back it up with some exegetics and explain why it is wrong to consider homo a substantively inclusive word, and rightly a synonym of vir.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

An interesting tidbit from an essay on femina vs. mulier:

Assumed in another paper:

I don't think many support your version of humanus as a portmanteau of homo + manus; they're just cognate, distinct. They've meant a few things, but not that.

I apologise, I got a little over-excited replying to Beskar and took is a step too far deriving "humanus" directly from "homo-manus", which I had read somewhere. However, it remains true that "humanus" is the adjective form of "homo" just as "feminine" is the adjective for "muelier" and "masculine" for "vir". I was correct in the meaning "the thing a man holds/the quality of a man" because it's an adjective, not a noun, in Latin.

So in any case, Beskar's derivation for "homocide" etc. was still utterly wrong.

The original English word for "man" was "wer" cognate Latin "vir", hence "werrior", also "werewolf".

If "homo" is found in Plautus in the context of "man" as a gendered person than that put the usage as far back as the Middle Republic, which supports my point that "homo" had the same meaning in Rome as "man" does today, it depends on the context.

"Mankind" is in no way a gendered term, although some like to argue that it is, it simply means "all of humanity" - both words ultimately derived from the same Latin root, except that the first is more anglicised than the latter and as a result has acquired more baggage through longer usage.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But it's not.

We've back-formed "man" from "human" - and it is - or we wouldn't be worried about it.

The real question is, why do you think we're not? You are muddled on two separate points: first, that the form in another, ancient, language has any present significance in the context of de-sexing language; second that grammatical gender is a form of sexed language in the way that we care about.

As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it.

The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man. People like the word, though, because they don't understand it. By contrast they dislike English words such as cwim which I tried to find a reputable reference for and can't because it's relegated to "slang".

Presumably these people speak languages and lead lives outside Classics.

Ja, some of them speak Spanish or Catalan. The defence that the word is so divorced from modern English that it's origin is no longer relevant only works in English​. Which was the sole point of those examples.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...As I have already said, people are happier with the language they're more ignorant of - because they feel it's de-sexed. They don't fully understand all the connotations of the word they're using, so they're happy with it....

They enact the meaning of the word(s) they use through their use of it and the acceptance of same by the message receiver. The word of itself is an arbitrary symbol with an ascribed meaning that alters as the mass of language users come to alter it based on their shared sense of what that symbol should signify.

I find the history of a word and how it developed interesting, sometimes fascinating. But I am an academic and history buff who plays alternative military history games for entertainment.

Most language users really don't give a hoot. They are content to use some form of the "f-word" as virtually any part of speech and it has little or no connection to its original denotative meaning. It is used like some kind of flavor enhancer to conversation.

Disrespect was seldom used as a verb -- and now it is commonly used so, and has generated an abbreviated version for quick use since three syllables are so much work.

Humongous is now in the dictionaries, though when I was in high school it was a slang neologism.

Gay used to be the term for hedonistic heterosexual behavior, but now the term is used almost exclusively to indicate same sex sexuality.


All the meanings exist only in our heads anyway.

[Montmorency]

Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.

Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":

I.1 A human being (irrespective of sex or age); = L. homo

English "man" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.

It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.


Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?

Just for fun:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The best Greek linguist that now exists does not understand Greek so well as a Grecian plowman did, or a Grecian milkmaid; and the same for the Latin, compared with a plowman or milkmaid of the Romans

Well, most languages I'm aware of originally have three genders, they tend to lose Neuter first irrc - like Spanish. The point I am arguing is that in the fight for "gender neutral language" we inconsistently apply the rules of grammatical and semantic gender. In general terms, it's often the word of which the people are more ignorant which is found to be more acceptable.

It's not predominant.

My bugbear is, these arguments annoy me because they are almost always trivial, made over small gramatical or linguistic points and the basis for the argument is fundamentally wrong.

What do you think you are doing?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Let me clear this up on homo and "man" as an aside.

Here's what the OED has to say about the Old English sense of "man":



English "man" is from the PIE root, not from Latin or Romance.

It's not a contraction or back-formation of "human". It doesn't even seem to be cognate.


Now, whether in English, a Romance language, or other, etymological descent still does not matter, and you have not explained why it should. It's bizarre to allege ignorance, when clearly language is self-contained and doesn't depend on history. Turn it around, and you might well argue that "nigger" is not a slur since it derives from a word merely meaning "black" or "dark-colored". Either way, why?

Just for fun:





It's not predominant.



What do you think you are doing?

OK, my Latin is better than My Old English, but Wikipedia also says this:

"In Old English the words wer and wīf (and wīfmann) were used to refer to "a man" and "a woman" respectively, while mann had the primary meaning of "adult male human" but could also be used for gender neutral purposes (as is the case with modern German man, corresponding to the pronoun in the English utterance "one does what one must")."

The fact that I fell into the "Latin, everything Latin!" trap isn't actually germain to my point, because "man" and "homo" still mean what I said they did.

[Husar]

The word "vagina" is just a great example, because it's so inherently sexist, reducing a woman's intimate parts to their function with relation to a man.

But that's their primary biological function and biology is science.

I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender. In German a chair is male, a shovel is female and a baby is neutral because neutral is the third grammatical "gender". When we use English words like German ones, e.g. in Computer Science, we have to give them a gender for the article. There can be fights about that as some genders with some words just sound odd or wrong, but it's also hard to prove anything, at best you can derive the gender from a similar German word or so in some cases. By the way, a computer is male, a drive is neutral and a disc is female. A joystick is male, mouse and keyboard female, speakers are female, the screen is male and so on.

I find it quite odd to derive too much from that. Subconscious effects that are minuscule hardly sound like a reason to do a lot. In that case it would make more sense to spray our food with estrogene instead of or in addition to insect killers to solve gender issues.

And yes, I know you weren't saying the concerns are valid, but even the grammatical stuff you mention seems a biot overblown to me in general.

[Gilrandir]

I also find it odd to confuse grammatical gender with biological gender.

Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.

[Kagemusha]

I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.

[Greyblades]

Properly speaking, there is no biological gender. There is biological sex, while gender is a social construct.

No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.

[Beskar]

How the mail lists sex offenders in a list with consensual relationships and kinky consensual sexual behaviours.

[HopAlongBunny]

No there are just people who want to change genders meaning to "adherance to stereotype" and those foolish enough to believe it.

Take a deep breath and try to relax:

[CrossLOPER]

I wish we still had female members active at backroom. Im sure this discussion would be lot more interesting, rather then focused at sexual bias of IE languages.

Isn't frogwoman still around?

[Husar]

Isn't frogwoman still around?

In the Backroom?
Barely, that I remember. Magnoliawoman posted in the Backroom now and then but hasn't been around in a long time either.
The closest thing to women here are effeminate leftists like you, me and Fragony.

Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.

[Fragony]

How DARE you disrespect me in such a way I am extremily disapointed in a way you can't understand, I feel abused

How could you???? I am not feminime at all I ju-

wait

[CrossLOPER]

The closest thing to women here are effeminate leftists like you, me and Fragony.

I prefer to think of myself as centrist, but I suppose I can't argue with effeminate. I spend more time on my hair than most of the women I know, haha.

Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.

Gee I wonder why.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Perhaps some are lurking, but the more we call them out of control, the less likely they are to say anything I'd guess.

Really? A dearth of women in the 'all-politics-all-the-time' sub-forum of a website devoted to an electronic game series with "Total War" featured prominently in all its titles? Shocking...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...29&FORM=VDRVRV

[Husar]

Really? A dearth of women in the 'all-politics-all-the-time' sub-forum of a website devoted to an electronic game series with "Total War" featured prominently in all its titles? Shocking...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q...29&FORM=VDRVRV

Didn't we just talk about gender stereotypes?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Didn't we just talk about gender stereotypes?

NOT stereotyping. While there are as many if not more women playing electronic and online games as men, women do not tend to favor games centering on strategic warfare. Source Source2 Source3 Source4

And I am not the one resorted to a flogging reference.

Been deprived of your needed 'discipline' of late by mistress?

[Beskar]

Renata, Prole, Scienter, Frogeggbeast...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Rineta, Prole, Scienter, Frogeggbeast...

And a sharp lot they are....but that's 4 of how many backroom frequenters over that same time frame?

[spmetla]

To take the topic away from just the gender in language...

So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?

Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?

Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.

A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.

[Beskar]

So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?

Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?

Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.

A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.

You have to remember that Frogeggbeat and Secura were admins, Prole was a moderator of the Backroom (of all places). They got those positions based upon merit, their gender/sex was never a issue or hindered their choice. There is no stigma on the organisational side of the Org (which is great).

As for the Backroom, it is not comparable to the issues such as female CEOs, etc as the Backroom has a significantly smaller sample size and interest from females in general. On the otherside, there are many females who are interested in becoming CEOs for example but they are limited by essentially by stigma. One field with a lot of stigma is Software Design and Development. I remember reading a post by one of the most qualified females in the field and she is constantly challenged to prove that she deserves to be there, as she is a female, with males using excuses (cognitive defences) to explain her existence as someone simply letting her in due to being female rather than having actual talent. It is rather shocking how the world can be.

Though if you want to apply to the Backroom. There was a time a female poster put forward their opinion and another member mentioned their partner and said "I think she escaped the kitchen". That said poster ended up with a big infraction and unfortunately that female poster didn't return as she felt uncomfortable due to hostilities. Sometimes it only takes that one person to be nasty and it tars opinions greatly.

[spmetla]

Oh, I don't doubt their qualification at all, this was just a thought exercise. Frog was a great admin of the Arena and I'm well aware there is no discrimination in the Org. Having seen enough other forums (gaming, politics, military) this is the only one I return to after all these years due to the civil atmosphere brought about by good moderators.

The point was why do people think that the demographics at the top must be representative of society's demographics. Not everyone is qualified for the top and those skills are not distributed evenly either. Ambition is a key part. The fact that men don't get pregnant is also another leg up in pursuing a career which maternity leave will not fix. There will be discrimination of course but it works two ways as well. When that discrimination is systematic of course it needs to be opposed but constantly seeing the status quo as problem due to demographics causes discrimination in reverse.
I have friends that didn't pursue nursing or administrative careers because they weren't manly enough careers. One of my friends is the stay at home husband and dad while his wife is active duty Army and he gets crap from the wives in the FRG (family readiness group) for doing the woman's job.

To go back to the gender discussion and stray into the gender ID fray: Gender roles do exist, yes there are exceptions to the norm but they exist in every society with each have its own set of roles. Not all of them are are artificial constructs, to pretend that a man who wants to be a woman does not make him one. He may be very effeminate and get all the surgery to do so which is fine but he will never have a womb or bear children either (Life of Brian anyone?).
It would not surprise me to see in the future to see divorce lawsuits going into the discrimination realm because some man married a woman and then wants a divorce upon finding out his wife wasn't always a woman. While one would hope she would have informed him of that beforehand I'm sure the above situation will happen and she will claim she's being discriminated against for being transgender and in our society of litigation will probably get rewarded handsomely for the claim.
Germany's recent ruling which would let this person claim to be a man or transgender I guess is a solution but actually changing her designation to female seems disingenuous.

[Greyblades]

When that discrimination is systematic of course it needs to be opposed but constantly seeing the status quo as problem due to demographics causes discrimination in reverse.

In this age too many people consider the mere existance of an imbalance as proof of intent. It is a mix of people who believe in equality of the sexes requires equality of outcome and the ambitious women who want to exploit those beliefs to side step competition.

I rarely see campaigns calling for equality extend to menial jobs not considered glamorous or high status in society.

[Montmorency]

To take the topic away from just the gender in language...

So if we were to look at the Backroom as a government branch or business how should we *fix* this lack of female participants? Is there a culture that isn't allowing their participation, should female gamers be given special encouragement for playing historical strategy games?

Is the 'Babe Thread' so sexist that it discourages females from participating in the off-topic forum parts?

Is it wrong to just accept that there are differences between the sexes and that their interests and abilities may not be equal? There are already exceptions to the rule of course. Access, wages, legal rights etc... should of course be equal for females but why is a preponderance of males in any group considered something that needs to be fixed.

A lack of female CEOs, Generals or any leadership position always is presented as a problem to be fixed instead of just a reflection of interests, abilities, personal ambition.

Can't think of a policy for our situation since we don't have a real inflow here to manage. This is more like a rural village with all the young people moved out, the old ones dead or out to pasture, and the middle-aged ones left to bicker in the dank pub.

It is possible for our culture to reduce female participation, but I'm not sure how to assess it retroactively in the Org context. Most of the women here, and most of the newer arrivals overall, I have interacted with over games of Mafia.


In many cases, a preponderance has less to do with differences in interests than with differences in external messaging and stereotypes combined with exclusionary internal practices.

In living memory the fields of social work, nursing, and clinical therapy have been dominated by women. We have no reason to believe that women are intrinsically more interested or suited for these professions; it's mostly gerrymandering. We can change it over time, open up the fields for men - as has been happening to various extents.* In technical fields, especially Computer Science, men are the ones who dominate, and retrenchment in the late 20th century has regressed the ratio today. To repeat, both external (upbringing, messaging, and conditioning) and internal (professional and academic culture) factors can and should be addressed to even out the proportions.

It is not that having equal proportions in all things is ideal in itself, but that very frequently unequal proportions have more to do with harmful ideas and practices than with "choices and preferences".

*Note that even in these fields men have remained over-represented in the upper ranks, administration, and management.


A lack of female CEOs is not a problem from the standpoint that we should not be encouraging more people to be CEOs (or financiers, for example) - but the generic issue of power imbalance and representation in leadership remains. Leadership selection in business and the workplace, at least as much as in politics and the military, relies on networking over merit. We don't have much reason to reflect on "interests, abilities, and personal ambitions" while chauvinism prevails.

[rory_20_uk]

In this age too many people consider the mere existance of an imbalance as proof of intent. It is a mix of people who believe in equality of the sexes requires equality of outcome and the ambitious women who want to exploit those beliefs to side step competition.

I rarely see campaigns calling for equality extend to menial jobs not considered glamorous or high status in society.

Nurses are over 80% female
Human Resources is over 80% female
Midwives are over 95% female
Primary school teachers are over 80% female.

These are not menial and why is being a city trader making numbers move more "glamorous" than these other professions. Is it that men don't like them? But why should that itself matter?

[Beskar]

I have seen adverts to get women into plumbing, construction and other more hands-on typical male careers. Not exactly glamorous.

Then again, I am in a female dominated career and that doesn't bother me, neither does having female bosses. What is kind of interesting is that their bosses boss tends to be male though during the last couple of decades, they are now becoming females.

[CrossLOPER]

I have seen adverts to get women into plumbing, construction and other more hands-on typical male careers. Not exactly glamorous.

Then again, I am in a female dominated career and that doesn't bother me, neither does having female bosses. What is kind of interesting is that their bosses boss tends to be male though during the last couple of decades, they are now becoming females.

I think the alt-right would call it being "cucked".