Words and Gender: Does Gender Differentiation Matter?

[Individuality-ness]

Actor vs. Actress. Hero vs. Heroine. Steward vs. Stewardess. President vs. female President. Etc.

One of the nuances in the English language is this need to have different words to differentiate between genders doing what is essentially the same thing. For example, a male who acts is called an actor, a female who acts is an actress. A male who does heroic deeds is a hero, a female who does this is a heroine. And the list goes on and on.

My question is whether this is necessary at all. Do we need to have separate terms for male and females?

I personally do not think that we NEED separate words for males and females doing what is the same thing. To me, it's sexist, implying that a female cannot aspire to be an actor, a hero, etc, but instead must settle for a female version of it. Gender should not matter, and it doesn't matter. To me, suggesting that it makes a difference is part of patriarchy.

But what do you think?

[Gallifrey Express]

It's not necessary. There are instances where it's conceivable that your gender will matter (the hospital) but there aren't really all that many.

[Vorshka]

Actor vs. Actress. Hero vs. Heroine. Steward vs. Stewardess. President vs. female President. Etc.

One of the nuances in the English language is this need to have different words to differentiate between genders doing what is essentially the same thing. For example, a male who acts is called an actor, a female who acts is an actress. A male who does heroic deeds is a hero, a female who does this is a heroine. And the list goes on and on.

My question is whether this is necessary at all. Do we need to have separate terms for male and females?

I personally do not think that we NEED separate words for males and females doing what is the same thing. To me, it's sexist, implying that a female cannot aspire to be an actor, a hero, etc, but instead must settle for a female version of it. Gender should not matter, and it doesn't matter. To me, suggesting that it makes a difference is part of patriarchy.

But what do you think?

That....that looks ultra-feminist.....

DENIED SWINES!

[Menassa]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender

[Avenio]

I'm curious. Do you have the same opposition to masculine and feminine forms in non-English languages? ie 'la Presidente' or 'le President' in French.

[Individuality-ness]

Actor vs. Actress. Hero vs. Heroine. Steward vs. Stewardess. President vs. female President. Etc.

One of the nuances in the English language is this need to have different words to differentiate between genders doing what is essentially the same thing. For example, a male who acts is called an actor, a female who acts is an actress. A male who does heroic deeds is a hero, a female who does this is a heroine. And the list goes on and on.

My question is whether this is necessary at all. Do we need to have separate terms for male and females?

I personally do not think that we NEED separate words for males and females doing what is the same thing. To me, it's sexist, implying that a female cannot aspire to be an actor, a hero, etc, but instead must settle for a female version of it. Gender should not matter, and it doesn't matter. To me, suggesting that it makes a difference is part of patriarchy.

But what do you think?

That....that looks ultra-feminist.....

DENIED SWINES!

Of course I'm a feminist dear. And don't worry, I'm sort of tired of swines anyhow.

[Mike the Progressive]

No.

[Individuality-ness]

I'm curious. Do you have the same opposition to musculine and feminine forms in non-English languages? ie 'la Presidente' or 'le President' in French.

I would rather not have that kind of differentiation at all, in any language. I understand that it's pretty much built into the Romance languages, but do we really need "el policia" and "la policia" (in Spanish) to describe a police officer? One of them is male, the other is female. So what? They're both doing the same job.

[Cannot think of a name]

This is one for linguists because I don't know enough to know if this is true or not or whatever...


But English is kind of a genderless language. Like, I remember when I was completely failing to learn French there were 'masculine' and 'feminine' articles and objects etc in a way that English doesn't really have...like a car is a genderless object (even if we treat vessels as women etc), a table is a genderless thing but in other languages there is a difference in the way the word is modified or whatever...some polyglot right now is freaking out about how I'm describing this...

So, I wonder if this is one of those things that is unique to us in that we can change these things, but I also wonder what gender politics in language etc. works in languages where you really can't take the gender out of the language.

[Menassa]

I'm curious. Do you have the same opposition to musculine and feminine forms in non-English languages? ie 'la Presidente' or 'le President' in French.

I would rather not have that kind of differentiation at all, in any language. I understand that it's pretty much built into the Romance languages, but do we really need "el policia" and "la policia" (in Spanish) to describe a police officer? One of them is male, the other is female. So what? They're both doing the same job.

But at the end of the day... one is a man and one is a woman.

[Individuality-ness]

I would rather not have that kind of differentiation at all, in any language. I understand that it's pretty much built into the Romance languages, but do we really need "el policia" and "la policia" (in Spanish) to describe a police officer? One of them is male, the other is female. So what? They're both doing the same job.

But at the end of the day... one is a man and one is a woman.

And so what? One of them is male, and the other female. They are both police officers. Gender does not affect your job description.

[Page]

Actor vs. Actress. Hero vs. Heroine. Steward vs. Stewardess. President vs. female President. Etc.

One of the nuances in the English language is this need to have different words to differentiate between genders doing what is essentially the same thing. For example, a male who acts is called an actor, a female who acts is an actress. A male who does heroic deeds is a hero, a female who does this is a heroine. And the list goes on and on.

My question is whether this is necessary at all. Do we need to have separate terms for male and females?

I personally do not think that we NEED separate words for males and females doing what is the same thing. To me, it's sexist, implying that a female cannot aspire to be an actor, a hero, etc, but instead must settle for a female version of it. Gender should not matter, and it doesn't matter. To me, suggesting that it makes a difference is part of patriarchy.

But what do you think?

I agree with the principle, I also think gender neutral language should be promoted to be inclusive for all of the non-dyadic people who identify as neither male or female.

[Menassa]

But at the end of the day... one is a man and one is a woman.

And so what? One of them is male, and the other female. They are both police officers. Gender does not affect your job description.

Right, but it does affect who they are as people, for instance, you and your brother (if you have one) are not the same, you are a female and he is a male.

Sister and Brother, Mother and Father, Son and Daughter.

[Gallifrey Express]

And so what? One of them is male, and the other female. They are both police officers. Gender does not affect your job description.

Right, but it does affect who they are as people, for instance, you and your brother (if you have one) are not the same, you are a female and he is a male.

Sister and Brother, Mother and Father, Son and Daughter.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Stop that.

[Menassa]

Right, but it does affect who they are as people, for instance, you and your brother (if you have one) are not the same, you are a female and he is a male.

Sister and Brother, Mother and Father, Son and Daughter.

You're being intentionally obtuse. Stop that.

Not the way I'm leaning.

[Battenburgia]

I personally do not think that we NEED separate words for males and females doing what is the same thing. To me, it's sexist, implying that a female cannot aspire to be an actor, a hero, etc, but instead must settle for a female version of it.

i'm confused here, you seem to be implying here that "settling for a female version" means that the female version is somehow inferior and by accepting the male term women will somehow upgrade

I don't think we need seperate words either, so let's get rid of them and make everyone actresses and heroines etc...

[Gallifrey Express]

You're being intentionally obtuse. Stop that.

Not the way I'm leaning.

She and I are saying that for all intents and purposes in the professional world, gender-specific terminology is not important.

[Menassa]

Not the way I'm leaning.

She and I are saying that for all intents and purposes in the professional world, gender-specific terminology is not important.

You mean... only for jobs and things of the like?

What if I'm shy around women and would like a male doctor for my examination?

[Avenio]

I'm curious. Do you have the same opposition to musculine and feminine forms in non-English languages? ie 'la Presidente' or 'le President' in French.

I would rather not have that kind of differentiation at all, in any language. I understand that it's pretty much built into the Romance languages, but do we really need "el policia" and "la policia" (in Spanish) to describe a police officer? One of them is male, the other is female. So what? They're both doing the same job.

Of course, it's built into English as well - or at least, it was, until the gender-neutral 'the' began to be used in Middle English. And because of that early Romance influence, we keep some of the same terminology associated - like actor ('acteur' in French) and actress ('actrice' in French).

Either way, I really don't see the point of caring overmuch about it. There's no real value judgement over what constitutes feminine and masculine designation in the language itself, so I would imagine it would be better to focus on just what makes an actress apparently less valuable than an actor, rather than quibbling over grammar.

[Menassa]

I would rather not have that kind of differentiation at all, in any language. I understand that it's pretty much built into the Romance languages, but do we really need "el policia" and "la policia" (in Spanish) to describe a police officer? One of them is male, the other is female. So what? They're both doing the same job.

[...]
Either way, I really don't see the point of caring overmuch about it. There's no real value judgement over what constitutes feminine and masculine designation in the language itself, so I would imagine it would be better to focus on just what makes an actress apparently less valuable than an actor, rather than quibbling over grammar.

And that's thank to Monty Python.... and the French Theater until the Revolution I believe.

[Individuality-ness]

I personally do not think that we NEED separate words for males and females doing what is the same thing. To me, it's sexist, implying that a female cannot aspire to be an actor, a hero, etc, but instead must settle for a female version of it.

i'm confused here, you seem to be implying here that "settling for a female version" means that the female version is somehow inferior and by accepting the male term women will somehow upgrade

I don't think we need seperate words either, so let's get rid of them and make everyone actresses and heroines etc...

In our society, it's already implied that male = better and female = inferior. Women are reduced to irrational, boy-crazy, weak, and otherwise utterly blithering idiots, whereas men are upheld as leaders, as strong and rational and intelligent. To be a female in what is otherwise a male-dominant field is seen as exceptional, as something that doesn't happen everyday.

Hence, the problem with gender-specific terms.

[Individuality-ness]

I would rather not have that kind of differentiation at all, in any language. I understand that it's pretty much built into the Romance languages, but do we really need "el policia" and "la policia" (in Spanish) to describe a police officer? One of them is male, the other is female. So what? They're both doing the same job.

Of course, it's built into English as well - or at least, it was, until the gender-neutral 'the' began to be used in Middle English. And because of that early Romance influence, we keep some of the same terminology associated - like actor ('acteur' in French) and actress ('actrice' in French).

Either way, I really don't see the point of caring overmuch about it. There's no real value judgement over what constitutes feminine and masculine designation in the language itself, so I would imagine it would be better to focus on just what makes an actress apparently less valuable than an actor, rather than quibbling over grammar.

I'm just quibbling over whether we actually need those terms at all. I'm saying that we don't need gender specific words for the same thing, that we only need to have one version, especially in the professional context.

[Cannot think of a name]

She and I are saying that for all intents and purposes in the professional world, gender-specific terminology is not important.

You mean... only for jobs and things of the like?

What if I'm shy around women and would like a male doctor for my examination?

Take a second, think really hard about the example you chose. It might answer itself.

[Gallifrey Express]

She and I are saying that for all intents and purposes in the professional world, gender-specific terminology is not important.

You mean... only for jobs and things of the like?

What if I'm shy around women and would like a male doctor for my examination?

Why do you even remotely need to ask this question?

[Gallifrey Express]

You mean... only for jobs and things of the like?

What if I'm shy around women and would like a male doctor for my examination?

Take a second, think really hard about the example you chose. It might answer itself.

So I'm not the only one who's baffled by the needlessness of the question?