New report warns of dangers of trashy avatars

Possibly. There is at least some evidence that giving nouns genders (as some languages do) influences the perceptions of the objects.

http://edge.org/3rd_culture/boroditsky09/boroditsky09_index.html



Well the problem is that there is no way of knowing whether a lot of people are just using those two words interchangeably. A search for "mankind & humankind" returns only returns 640,000 results. I expected the results to be littered with articles on this controversy, but only 2 of the results on the first page seem to support that idea.

Those results are just what is out there on the web. To see what people are actually searching for, I looked at Google trends and came back with this:

http://www.google.com/insights/search/#q=mankind%2Chumankind&cmpt=q

It appears that the only significant searching for the word "humankind" is coming from South Africa. What the reasons are for this I am not sure.

You will also notice that searches for the word "humankind" have not been trending upwards.



Oh, Scylla... Well, you flirt with it!!! I suspect your heterosexuality might be holding you back from your destiny as a true radical feminist )))))

I am sure that's true. However, I'm also sure that the women who are most successful refuse to acknowledge or accept that it's "a man's world."



Don't get me started on our fabricated trips to the moon



So I guess I can really only count on offending those with a background in etymology

Not, it DOESN'T mean JUST more effective manipulation. Only a dysPEPtic misanthrope would think so.


TY for exemplifying my point so beautifully. I guess I owe you one.


So pronounceth the Karl Lagerfeld of Llansteffan.


Amity is pretty much brilliant.

Cool!!! Not sure I buy it, but that won't prevent me from pelting MCPs with it!


Well, ok . . . not sure how to read this, but I'm not personally wedded to the word anyway, sooooo . . .


Oh, that is such a cliche . . .

Ohh pffffffttt!

What an utterly bogus and unprovable point!

That said, there is a pretty well-known phenomenon, unfortunately, of older women who have "made it" being unsympathetic, and ultimately unhelpful, to younger women struggling to break into their profession. Part of that is generational, I suspect. Part is psychologically understandable, I think . . .

Don't miss this part, for LOLz: "...some Australian Aboriginal languages have up to sixteen genders, including classes of hunting weapons, canines, things that are shiny, or, in the phrase made famous by cognitive linguist George Lakoff, 'women, fire, and dangerous things.'"



Just cuz it's a cliche don't make it untrue

I'm not interested in proving it... People gotta prove it themselves!



Well, not everyone sees things in terms of gender, which, yeah, is kinda my point.

Yeah, well, the thing is that there is actually something of an ideological divide in some quarters of the LGBT community from the feminist community. Not universally true, of course, but many lesbians identify more strongly with the larger LGBT community than with feminism. And the political aims of each group, not to mention some of the fundamental beliefs, are by no means always complementary (remembering, of course, that there is enormous diversity of opinion within these admittedly overlapping groups).

And, there is no history of older men being unhelpful to younger men who are struggling to break into their profession?

Seeing issues through a narrow lens of academic feminism can blind one to more universal imperatives, such as a tendency of older tribal leaders to bar younger tribe members from getting power until the younger ones are strong enough to *take* it themselves. It's a survival trait in many species, ensuring that tribes/herds/flocks etc. generally are led by experienced individuals.

I'm not saying it's a good trait in modern societies; I'm saying it is not confined to women, and, further, is deeply ingrained in most beings on this planet that live in groups.

The thing I find interesting is that the folks most into putting the pro look back with the professional are people my age, the just about-early 30's. I hazard the speculation that this is because as children we remember newscasters, sales people, business people in suits. We saw them dressed to suit their profession. But, by the time we were in our early teens that had become passe, and we saw newscasters and the others dressing in casual (and in the case of Fox news anchors, sometimes verging on slutty) dress. Now that we're adults we're sick of seeing the unprofessional look. I'm sure there are a number of folks who will disagree, but that's just my observation so far.

You're entirely right, Nika: I wasn't trying to suggest that this was a peculiarity of feminism. I think, however, that feminists take it "harder" or are more upset about it because feminism is supposed to be built upon support, collective action, etc. A male (or, yes, a female) who has bought into the notion of competitive individuality is much less likely to be shocked or upset by this kind of thing.

Yes, some forms of feminism, and certainly some feminist, can frequently be a bit naive.

That's a problem in perception from someone who probably hasn't faced a lot of discrimination in his life. If your life is pretty good, if you have a reasonable amount of power over your surroundings, then probably not much offends you. So you can't understand why someone else would have an emotional response of offense, and so applying some sort of logic you say, "Choose not to be offended." Those with true power often have the luxury of informing those without that they should just get over it and not be offended by anything.

Historically, women have had trouble being recognized as human beings just like men. It's still more trouble than it should be. So refering to humankind as "mankind" is quite the statement on where society is when it comes to deciding who is human.

If there weren't so many real social disadvantages to being female the real women really experience every day, then a male gender bias in language probably wouldn't be so offensive. If our society gets to the point where women make equal pay for equal work, and everything women do were not judged through a perspective of sexuality, then the word "mankind" really wouldn't be a big deal. If there were substantial equality, then "mankind" would be less offensive and more of a linguistic quirk. But that's not where we are.

Really well put Amity, and I totally agree.

To be honest, I think it's about time we did all decide on a gender-neutral version of our languages. If for no other reason than it would remove the whole pronoun/periphrasic issue which I wrestle with every time I write the shortest memo.

Although, in my heart of hearts, I have to admit:

"That's one small step for a human, one giant leap for humanity."

Just doesn't cut it for me.

I feel that it is important to avoid annoying people, if possible, in order to achieve a larger goal.

Odd as it may seem given my lack of knee-jerkiness, an important part of my work involves manipulating language in the service of social change advocacy. In my experience it's easier to get politicians and bureaucrats to change what they say than it is to get them to change what they do. In fact, they will often seize an opportunity to change their language and claim they've done something significant while they continue to do the *actual things* that hurt people. Even worse, they will use their "concession" to language as an excuse to avoid doing anything more substantial. They will say, in so many words, "Hey, we changed our language for you. We are dealing with lots of competing interests. You got something you wanted. It's time for you to go to the back of the line now and wait your turn while we toss some crumbs to everybody else."

So my experience teaches me that it is not beneficial to waste time, energy, or resources on issues of language when attempting to achieve social change. We don't have any of those things in the kind of abundance that our opponents have, so we have to make every use of them count. I prefer to focus my resources on changing people's behavior rather than their language.

The exception, of course, comes in debates about strategy--about the most efficient and effective ways to use our limited resources. That's not about people's "feelings"--or at least, it shouldn't be. It should be about hard-headed, realistic assessment of reality.

Semiotics has yet to prove itself as an empirical science. At this point is it far more in the realm of philosophy, and it seems to carry a distinctive ideological component. I, on the other hand, have watched oppressed people go through several attempts to change the names they are called without seeing any evidence that those changes affect how they are perceived.

You say "reductive" like it's a bad thing. Sometimes things really are as simple as they seem.

/me applauds, and wishes she was Amity's alt, so that she could express herself this clearly

Well, again, you'll get no argument from me concerning the suggestion that real substantive change is the main point of this whole exercise.

I just don't see this as an "either/or" proposition, although, again, I'll agree that the focus should be upon changing behaviours. I will still maintain that inclusive language is a useful tool to that end. And I don't entirely agree that such changes that have been effected in the way that we refer to disadvantaged groups have had no effect at all: at the very least, allowing such groups more say over how they are characterized increases their self-confidence in their ability -- and right -- to determine their own identities.


I don't know that semiotics needs to prove itself as an "empirical science" to increase our understanding of how communication works. Your implied privileging of "empirical science" is, in fact, itself rather tendentious.

And you really didn't address my point about connotation. Should we shrug off pejorative employments of a term like "n***er," merely because connotation "doesn't matter," or isn't substantive enough to worry about? Surely such language -- and yes, I've chosen an extreme example, but "bitch," "whore," or "slut" come close enough -- IS hurtful and disempowering in a very real, quantifiable sort of way? The use of exclusive language is clearly less dramatic in its effects, but the same principles and mechanisms are at work.

It shouldn't cut it for anyone because it's an example of political correctness gone mad.

We all have the power to determine how we react to things - unless you choose to give that power away or just not take it and use it.

We will never get their totally, nor should we, as there are some very basic differences in the sexes.

Like many racism cries, I think the feminist suppression cry is often overdone and actually helps to perpetuate what little inequality is still hanging on.

We do not have the power to choose how we react to things. Human beings have emotions, which are not under our complete logical control.

It is also disingenuous to, in one sentence, assert that power is there for the taking and completely a matter of choice, and then in the next sentence to criticize feminists for doing the one thing that is in their power to try to change the world, that is, using their voices to point out inequities. If the fact of inequity of disappears, then so will the voices. Unless you are suggesting that the one thing preventing equal pay for equal work, for example, might be that those damn feminists keep talking about it, and if they would stop talking about it, pay inequality for women would cease.

Even if this were true -- and I think it doubtful -- we certainly cannot control how other people respond to things. For me, this is less about being "offended" or "hurt" by certain uses of language (although that is an issue too) than about the way in which language can legitimate certain exclusive attitudes in society as a whole. If someone uses exclusionary language, I can perhaps shrug it off, but I can't prevent others from reading it as a confirmation of their own biased attitudes. Language, in other words, is a larger cultural force that does have an impact on the way people think about things.


Quite possibly true. But I don't think feminism is insisting that women are the SAME as men. It insists that they should be given the same opportunities as men. Are you suggesting that women are, in some way at least, "naturally" inferior to men?


It is certainly true that not all cries against sexism are as effective as others; some are certainly counterproductive. Speaking personally, for instance, I think Andrea Dworkin is a brilliant woman who has added much of value to the gender debate, but I wince every time she opens her mouth because she is equally capable of saying something so outrageous that the media leap on it, and right-wingers start quoting it as representative of "feminism" as a whole. Oh well, she has every right to say what she wants.

But there is a basic Catch-22 in your suggestion here. To speak out against sexism or racism is often counterproductive, you say. So, it is more productive to be silent?

Philosophy is glorified personal opinion. It is capable of flights of rhetoric that can literally "demonstrate" that anything is nothing, nothing is everything, and anything in between. It employs pure logic in a system where no one is required to prove the validity of their assumptions. Reason untethered to verifiable realities is useless. It is not science. Only the scientific method is capable of revealing truth in a way that all reasonable people can accept. Philosophy can be interesting, even fascinating--but it proves nothing, and is not a credible basis for policy or action.

"Connotation" is also a matter of opinion. It is not inherent in what is uttered; it is part of the filter within the recipient of the utterance.

The purpose of language is communication--a way of obtaining mutual understanding. Some terms have agreed-upon meanings; others do not. Some terms have a particular meaning within certain in-groups; those terms have other meanings when used by people who are not members of those groups. Using terms with the intent of conveying a meaning other than the one that is generally accepted among one's audience will produce misunderstanding, confusion, and/or hostility. It will not change the audience's beliefs. It is a waste of time at best, and an active cause of trouble at worst.

Yes language changes, but only in response to conditions on the ground. The map is not the territory. I cannot cause Chicago to be east of New York City by moving it on the map. Once circumstances have moved Chicago, I can accept a map that shows it floating in the Atlantic--not before.

I manage to pretty sucessfully, as you have found out.
Of course they are, in many ways.
If not silent, at least not excessively long-winded and boring.

Pep (And sorry, Amity, you started off so well here, but you too have allowed emotion to get in the way of logic. That may be fine in bed, but not in an argument.)

So because I state a fact emotionally, it is no longer a fact? You are saying that the only facts are the ones that can be expressed without any conviction.

In any discussion about equality, the ones who think they are not being treated equally are naturally more likely to get emotional about the subject than those who think the status quo is fine and dandy. Denying someone a place at the discussion table for an issue because they happen to care intensely about the issue is an age-old tool of oppression.

Anyway, when did human beings cease being creatures of emotion and morality?

And when did logic become infalliable? Last I studied logic- and it wasn't too long ago- it was pretty much an accepted fact that no system of logic could ever be self-contained. It always starts with a base assumption that is not self-validating.


What I have to say doesn't matter because I'm too emotional. Yeah, that's not the first time I've heard that. Not by a long shot.

So it's a regular occurrence then?

Pep (This forum must feel like a support group for you, I suppose. )

PS If you studied logic then you would know that non sequiturs destroy the credibility of any argument, and your recent post was full of them.

It could be argued that in SL your avatar is as much a linguistic construct as what you say, so what you wear is as important as whether you say "mankind", "humanity", or "those transitional meatsacks we shed in the singularity".