Order of Kilopi
Are you saying that it's OK to call a group of women loud cows and it's their fault they're offended?
It may not be a racial slur, but it was still quite clearly intended as an insult.
That it was handled as a problem of race rather than gender is actually demonstrating part of the problem.
Last edited by HenrikOlsen; 2012-Aug-28 at 02:02 PM. Reason: Adjusted emphasis for less confrontation.
__________________________________________________
Reductionist and proud of it.
Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain
Order of Kilopi
I understand what you're saying, Henrik, but I don't think that's a good example. The treatment for shell shock (in WWI Canada, at least) was to tell the soldiers to man-up and get over it before sending them back to the trenches. And it wasn't really before it was widely referred to as PTSD in the 1990s that people at all started taking it seriously in North America. I think the decision to formalize the descriptor (and add it to the DSM) was the wiser call.Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
/ Also want to add, I'm not going out of my way to pick on you, Henrik. You're just saying some stuff I disagree with right now, and I know you know me well enough to not hold that against me.
Order of Kilopi
Yet by your logic that meaning of the word is biased in favour of women (it is the first meaning in the O.E.D., which was revised by a group of mostly females, meaning that it is biased in favour of women by your logic earlier).
Established Member
The insult is used to refer to a "loud, roudy, person." It has nothing to do with gender. A buffalo is not a cow, and the word is not gender-specific. It merely refers to a type of bovine. It wasn't an issue of race or gender. Maybe it was rude, but so what? Some would argue that, in this case, the people who were the object of the insult were being rude. Regardless, that's not the point. The insult was a gender-neutral race-neutral insult that was treated as a race issue when it was not, and was not corrected even when the error was pointed out because those in power felt it could be "perceived" a certain way.
The simple fact is that it doesn't matter one bit what you "perceive". What matters is the truth. If you find out that your perception of an event is incorrect, that's when you should drop the issue. You can't just make everything safe for the perceptions of every person on the planet because there will never be an end to it. If twenty people hear someone speaking, you will get twenty different interpretations of what was said. There's no way to make language "safe" for everyone. There will always be rude people. That will never change. But to contort yourself to give people a perception of you that is not true (like most politicians do-hence the term "Political Correctness") is dishonest.
ETA: This is where I think the OP had it right. At some point, common sense has to win out here. Just be polite. If someone misinterprets what you say, then explain it to them. If they continue to misinterpret after you have given an honest explanation, it is their problem and not yours.
I've stuttered since I was about four years old. I still do today, though not nearly as badly as I used to. I can laugh and joke about it and not be offended. If someone is ignorant about the issue with me, I just consider that person to not be worth my time. Whether or not I take offense to it is not the issue. The issue is whether or not I want people to conceal their contempt so that I am hurt more when I find out about it or if I just want to know up front that person is a jerk. I would rather just know.
Last edited by primummobile; 2012-Aug-28 at 02:48 PM.
Administrator
Actually, I think it does.
I run into this problem all the time as a moderator. Someone will write something that can be perceived as insulting or inappropriate, and they will be warned or infracted about it. They will then claim that this was not what they meant, that they meant the non-insulting interpretation, and they should not be punished because I perceived it incorrectly.
Well, I'm sorry, I am not a mind-reader. If you write or say something that can be mean both a bad thing or a non-bad thing, then maybe you need to rephrase it before you hit the Enter key. I have no doubt that there is always a safe way to phrase anything. And it often seems to me that the after-the-fact "OH!, that's not what I meant" are entirely too convenient and self-serving.
Yes, there is no way to make language completely safe, particularly on a global forum. But that is our goal, at least on CQ, and I will work to continue toward that goal.
We all make mistakes, on language, and other things. And a lot can be gained, when one does make such a language mistake, from owning up to it and apologizing, rather than making it a battle.
But that's just my thoughts...
Order of Kilopi
[dry] Of course, the version of that argument (but... but... but... "female dog") we see/saw most often (and I hear it as a teacher from time to time, too), doesn't require mind reading to decipher. [/dry]
Established Member
I actually agree with you. But I think that "owning up and apologizing" is part of being polite. My point is that if I apologize for being rude, it shouldn't be turned into a race issue or a gender issue or a disability issue or whatever just because I was being a jerk... if a reasonable person wouldn't interpret it as one of those issues upon hearing the explanation. I think there is a difference between just being a rude person in general and being a racist or whatever. Being rude to you because you are annoying me is completely different than walking on you because you are a Browns fan. Do you see what I am saying? That's why I think the UPenn issue went way too far. They were even making fun of the thing in Doonesbury. For a time, the whole process became a laughingstock because of the lengths they went to to correct a perceived insult rather than just addressing the rude behavior of both parties. I remember it particularly well because I was a freshman in college at the time and I worked with the student paper. We were following it closely.
I've spent a little time abroad, mostly in Europe and Australia. I've never heard a black person referred to as an "African-<whatever>" anywhere but here. This sounds absurd to say, but what would happen if I saw an Australian Aborigine and referred to him as an "African American"? Would he be right to be offended? Some people would say that he would have that right. But the question is if it had just been okay to refer to him as "black" would the issue have even been an issue? When you make something too complicated it causes problems of its own and you have to wonder if those problems aren't worse than the problems it was meant to correct.
And I wholeheartedly agree that you and the other moderators should do everything you can to make the language on CQ safe for all. I, and I imagine most other people here, come to this site to have fun. I find a spirited debate very enjoyable, but not when it starts to get personal. If I had any concerns about it getting personal I wouldn't have made the personal admission I made above. So I can honestly say that I very much appreciate the job you and the other moderators do to keep this site enjoyable. I don't envy you. But I interpreted this thread as more of a commentary on the logic of using what I call "doublespeak" in society in general, not just here on CQ.
Established Member
My ten-year old niece tried to tell me that she was referring to her sister as a female dog when she called her that. I didn't buy it.
Order of Kilopi
Primummobile's posts 60 and 64 superbly nail it. Very well put.
Calling someone a water buffalo because they are choosing to behave in an antisocial manner reminiscent of that animal is no more rude than asking someone to stop being a pig when they are greedily eating the food that was meant to be shared. Making a political issue of it is a disgrace.
The trouble with "perceived" insults is that they depend on the knowledge and intelligence of the perceiver, and these things are sometimes dangerously lacking. We've already had the "niggardly" example; instead of the perceiver thinking, "Ah yes, he's used the word correctly and appropriately," the perceiver thought, "That word (which I don't know) sounds a bit like a bad word (that I do know) so I will ensure that the speaker's career is destroyed."
And the trouble is, because PC people are (by definition) correct, there is no chance that they will consider that they might have got it wrong.
Here's a true story (which unfortunately requires me to remove the names). A young woman from another country was working at a large corporation. Her given name happened to resemble a mildly condescending term for a young woman. Her boss, a man who had plenty of respect for her, addressed her by her given name.
He was summoned to a disciplinary where he was asked why he was calling her by this particular name. The people at the disciplinary hearing felt pretty stupid when he explained the reason.
Now, where perception is concerned, what was to stop them from simply asking her if she was okay with being called that? (Leaving aside the fact that they could have just found out what her name was.) As a teacher, I've occasionally heard students call other students nicknames that I wasn't sure about, so my first step is to check with the potential offendee. If the "victim" is offended, then further steps may be taken. Otherwise, commonsense should be allowed a look-in.
Order of Kilopi
In the US, the technical term for a female dog is always an insult when used as a noun, except by dog breeders. It also seems to be much more commonly used as an insult than when I was a teenager. Similarly, the word for a bundle of dry sticks is almost always used as an insult in the US. I'm sure that most people are not aware that the four-letter synonym for "rooster" is a synonym for rooster, as opposed to a crude term for a human anatomical feature. I'm also sure that there are neutral words in common use in the US which usually insulting in parts of the Commonwealth.
Modern PC is an attempt at avoiding deliberately insulting terminology used to designate people and groups of people who have been placed into socially inferior categories by factors out of their control.
Last edited by swampyankee; 2012-Aug-28 at 05:00 PM. Reason: removed non-pc sentence.
Established Member
She was ten years old. Of course it was an insult. I would argue that just being called a "dog" is an insult. She was just trying to get herself out of trouble.
Your interpretation of modern PC is your opinion. Others of us regularly see people referring to each other as synonyms of a female dog, synonyms of a bundle of sticks, or the shorter synonym for a cigarette, the N-word, and all other kinds of words as terms of endearment and affection. The three-letter colloquial slur for a gay person has taken on a whole new meaning for the younger generation, and to them it has nothing to do with being gay. To them, it means "loser". Yet, the pro-PC crowd vigorously resists losing that word as a slur. I really don't understand that because the idea of it becoming a word for something else means that those members of society who it originally referred to are gaining greater acceptance. The problem is that those of us who are older are assigning a darker meaning to their words than what is intended. Does that mean all people who use that word are meaning "loser" and not "gay"? Of course not. But words evolve. It started as slang for a cigarette, and I have heard it still used that way in the UK, though someone who actually lives there would do better backing it up. But the fact that I have seen on TV and movies, and personally witnessed, gay people (especially men) refer to one another with affection using that word indicates that for at least some of them, it is only insulting because someone else told them it is. It's time we stopped doing that and allow people who can decide for themselves what is insulting and what is not to do just that. Telling someone they should be insulted by something is insulting.
And, like I did before, I still take exception with your belief that anti-PC is merely an attempt to be rude without being called on it. It may be for some, but for most of us it is just a desire to not be subjected to endless rule changes that don't accomplish anything but reinforce the negative attitudes we are trying to eliminate.
Order of Kilopi
And i suppose you have firsthand experience with the use of slang in Jewish youth subculture to back that up? How else would you know the intentions behind using that specific word in the given context, unless you'd go so far as to presume that your Western-Europe centric interpretation of it is by fiat the correct interpretation that the rest of the world should abide by.
There is nothing to suggest that it was intended as an insult, within the Jewish youth culture where the term originated it may very well be commonly accepted without insulting connotations.
Order of Kilopi
It's used exclusively (and very frequently) to mean cigarette over here. When used with "got" as a second syllable, its core meaning is a processed meat-based meal. Of course, we all know the US meanings because of films and TV but we don't use the words with the US meaning.
Whilst strongly agreeing with most of this, I would point out that many believe that friendly-offensive words are only acceptable when used within the group in question. I tend to share this belief.
It's a straw man argument.
Order of Kilopi
I think it was intended as a criticism rather than an insult.
Established Member
I agree with that. I'm not saying that it's ok to use those words to refer to people outside your "group". I'm just pointing out that there are numerous examples of it being used without intending to insult. I get annoyed when women refer to one another as "synonyms of a female dog", but it dilutes the value of the word as an insult when you see people using it as a badge of honor rather than an insult.
Order of Kilopi
I'm also not understanding the entire issue with the word "man" in secondary meaning being used as a term for the human male. If anyone should be offended by that it should be males, not females. It is after all they that are not getting a term specifically meaning the human male, but have to do with the term for the human species in general.
To put it in different terms, suppose you have apples and oranges, both are subclasses of the main class "fruit". Now suppose that the oranges don't get their own term, but have to do with the general "fruit" term. Should it be the apples that are offended because the oranges don't get their own term? It seems more like the other way around.
It is then only natural that a bowl of apples is called "apples" but once you have a single orange (fruit) in there it is called a bowl of "fruit". Likewise it is only natural that a group of human females is called women but once you have a single human male it is called "men", because there is no specific term for the human male, only a term for the female and the species.
It is of course easy to silently change the primary and secondary meaning of the word (as defined by the OED - revised by a group of females) and then argue based on some perceived offense by that false premise. And then continue to argue that there is even more offense in the naming of mixed groups of human males and females.
Established Member
All I did was to refer to grammatical gender and to point out what the word 'man' actually means. I would have thought that a set of men includes just men, so I fail to see the point. I suppose somehow that means you score another point.
Order of Kilopi
Indeed. When ascribing insulting intentions to the use of a word, it should be analyzed within the context of the subculture that the word originates from, not the context of the receiver's subculture.
Order of Kilopi
Given that the primary meaning of "man" is "human being" the statement reduces to "there is no right context where the word for the set of human beings includes all females...".
Order of Kilopi
My contribution to the "man = human" argument...
Nobody seems to have pointed out that when "man" is used to mean "humanity" (or in any other genderless sense), it is always in the singular without an article ("the" or "a") or in the form of an adjective ("manned").
Many words that begin with "man" are referring to the Latin "manus" meaning "hand", not "male human". Besides hand-based words such as "manipulate", we also have "hand" used to mean somebody capable of handling things (e.g. "All hands on deck!").
Beyond that, I'm lost. I really don't understand why the gender-inclusive meaning of "man" should be offensive to one gender or the other. I've read accounts of time travel paradoxes that were easier to follow.
Bad Post-Doc
The primary meaning of "man" is "male human." The secondary meaning is "human." However, that means it is possible to refer to a group of women as "men." Or a group that is predominantly women, because I would hope that no one would be quite stupid enough to use "men" to refer to an exclusively female group. However, throw in a single male, and the female nature of the group is overwhelmed. The women no longer count, and it's a group of men. As opposed to being something different--a group of people. We have multiple words which mean "a group of Homo sapiens of both male and female," so why continue to use one which means "male Homo sapiens except when it's both male and female"? Come to that, why aren't more men upset at it? And why is it that we're able to limit words that other groups find offensive, but it's hardest to limit words that women find offensive?
You should know that I refer to myself as "legally crazy." I am not legally insane, but I am seriously mentally ill enough so that the Social Security Administration considers me too disabled to hold a job for six months. That's too long to say. I think "crazy" is a perfectly acceptable term provided the attitude behind it isn't insulting. The word is not the most important part, but I think the word should meet the attitude halfway.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Established Member
My take on the whole thing, including the "man=human" thing is that it is an attempt by well-meaning (though imo misguided) people to right injustices of the past. Unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about the past. We can't change it and we can't pretend it didn't happen. All we can do, as a species, is to go forward and try to prevent further injustice. That doesn't mean they won't happen, and we shouldn't expect them to not happen. That is an unfortunate fact of life. But I think that trying to change the meaning of words or invent new words (or combinations of words) to avoid offending someone only serves to strengthen prejudicial attitudes. Morgan Freeman gave a nice little lecture about this a few years ago, I believe in an interview with Mike Wallace.
In my opinion, the best way to lessen prejudice and hate is to quit talking about it so much. All it does is help those who hate to hate even more, because it divides us into groups when what we need is less division. I know that's simplistic, but realistically, what are we supposed to do now about slavery or the holocaust? What are we supposed to do about the fact that women couldn't vote in America until the 1920s? The answer is that we can't do anything but move forward. We shouldn't forget, but we should give up on the idea of trying to make it right because nothing we can do now could ever make any of that stuff right.
Order of Kilopi
Apparently that's not what the O.E.D. says, see post 38.
I know that your argument is predicated on the assumption that the primary meaning is "male human" and the secondary meaning is "human", however that assumption seems to be (at least if we take the OED as an authoritative source) false.
If we use the meaning of the word "man" as it is defined by the OED, the entire argument disappears. A mixed group of males and females is referred to as "human beings" because that is the primary meaning of the word "man".As opposed to being something different--a group of people.
So for your argument to hold, you have to change the definition of the word (or argue that the OED is not an authoritative source).
In any case, what would be more likely, that the inclusion of a single male somehow changes the group to being male, or that the inclusion of a single male changes the group to be "human beings" in general rather than "females"?
Order of Kilopi
Don't get me wrong, i can perfectly understand the offence if "man" indeed means "male Homo sapiens except when it's both male and female", however it doesn't seem to have that meaning. It seems to have the primary meaning of "human being", and if we use it that way i don't see how there can be offence. Just replace the word "man" with its primary meaning, ie "human being", in all those statements and it makes perfect sense. A group of females is called "women", a mixed group is called "human beings" and a group of males is called "human beings".
The problem seems to arise because there is no term for the human male as there is for the human female (woman), so the term for the species gets used as the term for a male and thus acquires that secondary meaning. That's completely something else than that a mixed group somehow acquires a solely male character.
I'm not saying that there haven't been problems with females being put in subordinate positions, but in this specific case it simply doesn't seem to be the case. It can all be explained by the lack of a term for the human male so that the term for the species acquires the secondary meaning as a term for the male. Which makes a lot more sense specifically because of the mixed group terms, and is corroborated by the OED.
Order of Kilopi
I like bluntness and forthrightness, provided it's honest and tactful.
Order of Kilopi
I'd have said that the primary meaning of "a man" is "male human", and the primary meaning of "men" is "male humans".
Again, my observation is that "man" (singular, no article) means "humanity". "A man" or "men" only means "human/humans regardless of gender" when the speaker doesn't know the gender and assumes the people are probably male.
No, I don't think it does mean that.
I've never seen this happen. Maybe it does happen; my experience is not unlimited.
Established Member
I remember seeing a women's college basketball game with Georgia at South Carolina: The "Lady 'Dogs" against the "Lady Gamecocks."
Order of Kilopi
Maybe (like Paul) I don't have enough exposure to where it's a problem. I have never seen man as being a problem generically. What I mean by that, is that I always hear "people" for a group except in those cases where it is exclusive. (like group of thugs)
I see it more when there's no neutral equivalent.
For example, a handyman or handymen are workers the same as a handywoman or handywomen. But who says handypeople.
That's a simple example. We also get into stuff like Waiter/Waitress, steward/stewardess, Maid/??.
Other than that, I can't think of where the issue is. Usually, context covers it.
Bad Post-Doc
Would we be having this conversation if a person of a different group were saying "I don't like the way this language is used to describe my group"? Because you guys say you haven't seen it, but the perspective I'm getting indicates to me that you simply don't notice. I have seen it. Honestly, if the OED does give "human" as the primary definition, that's an example of the problem. In at least 75% of uses of the word, and probably much higher (with or without an article before it), it is used to refer to a male. If that's the case, how can the OED claim the primary definition is "a group of Homo sapiens which includes both males and females"? That's just bad dictionary-writing! In fact, it almost comes across to me as trying to defend the usage, though I don't think anyone did it consciously.
I think this is one of the reasons for political correctness, frankly. I think so much of it is based on people who have had their experiences denied for so long. I know you guys don't think the language is a problem, but the language supports your position of privilege on it. I'm trying really hard to avoid lecturing or using political buzzwords that probably won't help, but I'm also not sure why I have to defend myself quite as strongly. I am not shrill about this, or at least I try not to be, and I really work at not having arguments on the subject. However, I do see a problem, and it does bother me. What I am getting is "well, it shouldn't." Not an attempt to understand why it does.
_____________________________________________
Gillian
"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"
"You can't erase icing."
"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"
Order of Kilopi
We can also look at other languages that do have seperate terms for the species and the males. For instance in Dutch male is "man", female is "vrouw" and the species is "mens". A group of males is called "mannen", a group of females "vrouwen" and a mixed group "mensen". The same happens in French with "des hommes", "des femmes" and "des gens".
If calling the mixed group by the term for the male is indeed an extension of perceived male dominance over females into the language, then why doesn't it appear in other languages? Why isn't a mixed group in Dutch called "mannen" or in French "des hommes"?
It seems a lot more likely that this particular quirk exists in English because of a lack of an exclusive term for the male and thus the term for the species acquiring that secondary meaning rather than some vestigial perception of male dominance that women ought to be offended about.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote