Quote from Zed

Ok. I retract my statement as irrelevant.

However, do people regard men as dominant and superior? There are physiological facts like men being naturally stronger and having a slightly more developed visuo-spatial sketchpad but besides that it all seems fairly equal. Or are you arguing that men are, in fact, inferior, and it's only the English language that lets us keep any dignity at all?

Quote from alive

I'm arguing that there is a dominant male focus in the english language, and I'm proposing that that might contribute to us being more inclined to regard men as dominant and superior.

...

I'll try to explain it in simpler terms.

1. Do you agree that there is a male dominance in the english language? I would assume yes.

2. Do you agree that language has an influence on thought (though it is unknown to what extent)? I would assume yes.

3. Then, doesn't it seem reasonable for said male dominance in the english language to influence our thoughts in favour of male dominance?

It's the second premise that I take issue with, and as evidence I am pointing out that the hypothesis presented in the third does not appear to occur as predicted.

Quote from Zed

It's the second premise that I take issue with, and as evidence I am pointing out that the hypothesis presented in the third does not appear to occur as predicted.

Please elaborate, what is wrong with the second premise?

Although I have just been taught in philosophy class that appealing to authority is a fallacy, I'd like to point out that prominent thinkers in the 20th century, such as Ludwig Wittgenstein and George Orwell, as well as a vast majority of linguists from what I gather, agree that language does have a huge influence on the way we think.
One of the main points in 1984 is that the party limits people's ability to think and form their own, coherent thoughts through limiting the English language.

My problem is that I'm not sure how much influence it does have. Yes, it can limit thought if the word for what you want to think does not exist because the train of thought is tracked through the short term memory which is acoustically encoded (translation: you think in your own language), however I don't think that what the word is and what it is comprised of has that much impact.

Quote from alive

It's not the words themselves that are oppressing, the words just reflect a history of male dominance. Question is; is that male dominance just of the past?

Also, there's no such thing as just the language. We think in language, and the way it is formed is therefore obviously very important. Thus, due the fact that the English language reflects male dominance, and that we think in language, aren't we inclined to unconsciously think of men as superior, and then in turn act oppressing to women?

No, it is just the language. Stop deciding what exists and what doesn't just by yourself. As I have put (and you have obviously ignored that), Slovene for instance is adjusted for both female and men equally, though some words are reserved for men or women only, but it was already stated that trying to fix that would be uneccessary.
I agree on one point though, language reflects what we think, but nowadays women are equal to men, at least de iure. Of course one says "the chairman", but it doesn't mean it's for men only.

Quote from Zed

My problem is that I'm not sure how much influence it does have. Yes, it can limit thought if the word for what you want to think does not exist because the train of thought is tracked through the short term memory which is acoustically encoded (translation: you think in your own language), however I don't think that what the word is and what it is comprised of has that much impact.

Ah, I see. Well, obviously I don't know that either, which is why my arguments have mainly bee idle thoughts, and not any sort of evidence.

Quote from Mantha

No, it is just the language. Stop deciding what exists and what doesn't just by yourself. As I have put (and you have obviously ignored that), Slovene for instance is adjusted for both female and men equally, though some words are reserved for men or women only, but it was already stated that trying to fix that would be uneccessary.
I agree on one point though, language reflects what we think, but nowadays women are equal to men, at least de iure. Of course one says "the chairman", but it doesn't mean it's for men only.

What do you mean, me deciding what exists and what doesn't?

Aha, I think I misunderstood your slovene argument. Well, you might be right that it's only like this in english (though you're not. Many latin and germanic languages have it the same way), but that doesn't really change anything, as this topic was about english. Even if you don't have it in slovene, which I think is good, the 400 million native speakers of english will still be affected by it (assuming it does affect them at all).

How does it matter that women are equal de iure, if they're not equal de facto. Isn't that all that's important? The equal pay pact was issued in america in 1963, but women still only earn on average about 78 % of men, in the same job. Sure, they have a law stating that it shouldn't be like that, but it still is like that.

I'd argue that, but you'll disagree on everything I say anyway. I'm finished with this debate.

Jesus mantha. I won't disagree on anything you say. I'll agree on what I agree with, and question what I don't, what do you want me to do? It's just stupid of you to make such a noncontributing post.

If I had remained silent, you'd think I agree with you. So yeah I felt like I should make it clear. Don't sweat it.

If you had remained silent, I'd think that you couldn't be bothered to debate the topic anymore, because you were pissed.

Quote from Mantha

But you'll disagree on everything I say anyway.

That's how debates work. If everybody agreed with each other, there would be nothing to discuss.

Anyway, I find it hilarious that more than half of this thread has been alive explaining what he's debating about.
Personally, I'm not sure about this. I mean, the structure of words isn't really important in the english language, like in say, Japanese (where two words that are pronounced the same can mean completely different things depending on what kanji they're written in). So, in that way I don't think the individual parts that form a word have much meaning - it's the entirety that matters.

huh, those cows only exist for us to eat.There would be no more earth-destroying-farts if people were all vegetarians :pmay I add that the english are especially to blame, breeding farting machines and cooking them until they dont have any taste left, whats the point

секс спб author message

много порно

1. That's about as far off topic as you can go while still posting coherant words.

2. Try to arange thoese words into coherant sentances.

3. Don't bump old threads.

4. You're French aren't you?

Yes, you are right it is a gender free language and its possible to improve easily. so, Everybody can communicate Latin english language.