Sexism hard-coded into languages creates sexist societies. This is why its important to co-opt problematic language

Sexism hard-coded into languages creates sexist societies. This is why it’s important to co-opt problematic language

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    impossible to reconcile with the fact that Sapir-Whorf is false

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    hungarian, my native language, has no notion of gender, nor did it or its direct ancestors have it for the last seven thousand years (eleven thousand if yukaghir is a relative, fifteen thousand at least if the uralo-siberian hypothesis is true). and yet explicit sexism is present at all levels of the culture. it's not in the language, it's in the culture carried by that language.
    also, I wonder why that character means 'women' and not just 'woman'. you aren't one of those morons who do not seem to be able to remember that 'woman' is singular and 'women' is plural, are you?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Japanese has a single form for nouns, no separation between singular and plural forms.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        so why the plural? very suspicious when this board is full of american posters confusing 'woman' with 'women' left and right. it's become more widespread than their/there/they're.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      wouldnt you agree that religion is the biggest factor in any culture that oppresses women? literal christianity is almost as harsh on women as islam
      but morons get hung up on the god part. forget that part, but adhere to the religion of your culture and make it priority. people dont question it and its the “excuse” to keep women in their place

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        you don't really need religion to know that women need to be kept in their place, i think that's self evident.
        That being said, i think that christianity does a quite a few good things for nonsensical reasons.
        The way i would put it is that it's easier to tell the plebs that women should be kept in their place because god says so than to explain the actual reasons why women's rights is a bad idea.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I don't think the sexism in my particular culture comes from religion. consider the following sayings:
        "a man has to be but a single degree more beautiful than the devil."
        "it is sufficient for a woman to have as much intelligence as a chicken, to know to seek cover when it rains".
        or: hungarian has the V/T distinction in addressing, which is actually a simplification of an earlier, even more complex addressing modes (to spare you the googling: V is the respectful and T the direct one). up to one or two generations ago (in my uncle's family, for instance) the wife addressed her husband as V, while the husband addressed his wife as T. children addressed their parents as V, parents obviosly addressed their children as T. boys and girls who were not related played separately, so that when it came to adulthood and marriage, they would not have a friendly past and the V/T addressing mode would come into function effortlessly. young couples 'dating' - such as it happened - were already following this pattern.
        or: husbands were literally referred to by their wives as 'my lord'. this extends to third parties, when people of both genders talk about the husband of some woman, they say 'her lord'.
        in almost all dialects, the word for 'human' doubles for 'man, male human'. in some dialects the word for 'child' doubles for 'son', so someone might say 'I have two children and a daughter'.
        none of these sound religion-related to me.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          perhaps I should have written "dialects", in scare quotes, instead of just dialects, because they mostly aren't the mutually unintelligible sub-languages like for instance the german or french "dialects" of yesterday. perhaps 'local cultures' would have been better, but there's really no good term for the phenomenon of people from different parts of the country speaking the exact same language with noticeably different accents, some minor differences in specialized vocabulary and major differences in preferred turns of phrases.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why shouldn't they be kept in their place? the moment we stopped we had society degenerate into this mess.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You know women were more in favour of christianity when it was first introduced.
        For example, having their own names was a thing they got for from christianity .

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Sexism hard-coded into languages creates sexist societies
      Factually wrong moron. Languages can't be sexist, Japan historically was very "progressive", before the 10th century you had the average peasant man adopting the surname of his wife, and living in her house. Eventually the culture shifted drastically to become "sexist", with women relegated to the background until the Americ**ts dropped the onionsnukes and pissed feminism all over the country. Why did women's place in society change so drastically? Because of Chinese philosophy, especially Confucianism, which the Tokugawa shogunate(moronic Black folk) heavily relied on to keep itself stable despite it's braindead management. They're also responsible for the slave mentality in modern Japan.
      Also what said, Japan has no concept of gender either and neither does mine. "Sexism" still occurs nevertheless.

      • 2 months ago
        H

        Don't know if this is what he meant, but as I read it - the existence of seixst language facilitates the growth and prevalence of sexist thought.

        Not a sole reason, but a catalyst

        Do you not agree with that? I find it very easy to imagine

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I doubt "sexist language" even matters at all. Even if one country does not possess any at all and does not have any sexism as a result, it is bound to end up being just as sexist as other societies due to mutual interactions with said societies influencing it's own.
          Also, I am assuming from OP's picture that he was referring specifically to the "sexism" in kanji, which also seems to me completely irrelevant as nobody is ever going to look at a certain kanji, see that it has a tiny little 女 as a part of it, and end up thinking of women as prostitutes or whatever as a result. Just memorise the kanji and head on to the next.

          I wont stand for Tokugawa slander, they managed to keep an internally peaceful Japan for over 250 and had a very high literacy rate.

          >they managed to keep an internally peaceful Japan for over 250
          But at what cost? The hierarchical society was terrible for everything but retaining a stable, peaceful society. I will commend them for the literacy rate and population growth, sure, but these were byproducts of the peace and nothing else. Literacy was because of the printing press + merchant guilds, merchants being able to travel freely due to the shogunate, population growth basically only because of the peace. By the start of the 18th century the shogunate had already become weak to any possible foreign incursion, and also faced severe problems with the economy, starvation, and peasants wandering into the cities in search for work, which made the problem with starvation even worse. The Tokugawa had it's own benefits, but from my perspective they mostly mismanaged the country from 1650 or so onwards. Japan would have been better off if it had a second sengoku period in the early 18th century or so, it would have shoken up the society a bit and allowed further adaptation to foreign elements. Probably end way faster than the first sengoku period too, due to all the daimyou having a clearer picture of Japan and the various factions in it, courtesy of the period of peace the Tokugawa brought.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If they had been opened to the world then they would have ended up either colonized like the Philipines, been broken into a dependency like the Chinese were or turned into something too far removed from their nature, by having a tight grip on the foreigners that could enter and trade they managed to remain true to themselves and develop their culture, thier greatest error in this was choosing the Dutch as their window into Europe instead of a more developed power like Britain (though the Brits are entirely untrustworthy.)
            As for the problems they faced towards the end of their rule I will not deny them, but having declined does not invalidate what they did accomplish, Rome too did decline after all but they are still well respected.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think they could end up in a situation like the Philippines. The population is just far too large and the existing civilisation too advanced for that. There is a chance that they might end up like China, but I doubt that too. The first thing the Japanese did when they saw western rifles was to acquire the means to produce them domestically, and according to one of the books I read at some point one of the leading states in rifle production were making over 10k every year. I think that in the case of a situation like a second Sengoku in the 18th century they would manage to cleverly acquire Western technology for the purpose of fighting eachother, which would also better prepare them against foreign invasion. Regarding the English, I'm not exactly sure if I agree. The Dutch never possessed the power to economically or militarily dominate Japan, nor the ability to use religion for political benefit like the Spanish and Portuguese. On the other hand, the English were a bunch of colonialist c**ts who, at least from the 19th century onwards, had quite a lot of power in their hand, economical and military, so I think if they were the window to Europe they may have acted far more aggressively to the Tokugawa in the 19th century than the Americans ever did. Doesn't help that Japan has a decent amount of silver and gold, and that they can export a lot of fabric and clothing.
            >As for the problems they faced towards the end of their rule I will not deny them
            I do not hate them because of their decline, I hate them because to me the whole reign of the Tokugawa feels like a waste. They could have been far stronger and internationally relevant far earlier, even if only by dumb luck, aggressive trading in east and southeast Asia, and sheer power of population, but instead they spent it all waiting under a mediocre government. It just feels like they could have done far better in an alternate universe.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        I wont stand for Tokugawa slander, they managed to keep an internally peaceful Japan for over 250 and had a very high literacy rate.

  3. 2 months ago
    H

    Yes! More threads like this please. THIS is legit new and interesting shit to discuss, frick arguing the same points with theists all the time.

    Good stuff OP, writing a proper post in an h but wanted to bump so thread doesn't die

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s not interesting if you have any formal education in behavioural genetics or adjacent fields, it’s embarrassing nonsense that was falsified 20+ years ago. That such things were even left to the humanities at all to discuss is a stain on academia in general.

      • 2 months ago
        H

        Wow, really? I did not know this. could you send me on my merry way of exploring the falsification?

        >This is hilarious for real. Please explain why female rights are a bad idea as compared to male ones

        they are a bad idea because men and women are not the same and therefore shouldn't have the same rights, gender equality has never existed and never will, there wouldn't be two sexes in the first place if we were meant to be equal.

        Oh so by this reasoning you and I shouldn't have the same rights neither due to genetic, physical or cognitive differences? Or does the line gets drawn where you have the least risk of abrasions? Like, if I can beat you or am smarter than you, does that now give me power to hurt you or choose for you? Genuine question

        >Lmao, casual sexism. Anyway I think, and I might be wrong, but what you're seeing as a loss of sexual control between genders. If thats the case I'd argue the opposite. As a feminist, you don't need to be a filthy, unwashed "lib". You can speak and act in a way completely congruent with feminism but still frick babes while having them call you daddy on the regular. It's really a choice of being a choice for women. They shouldnt have to experience a society forcefully mistreating them in anyway, same goes for us men or whatever else gender in question. Don't you agree?

        Knowing that men and women are fundamentally different and acting accordingly is not mistreatment in my opinion but i see why sex egalitarians might disagree.
        The go-to example i give as to why women's rights are a bad idea is that they overwhelmingly voted for prohibition (by "women's rights" i mean the ones they gained with 1st wave feminism and later, the rights they had before that were reasonable)

        I seriously do not get this logic. It's quite easy to construct an example of people voting against something that'd benefit them. See Brexit for instance. I do not see how acknowledging the differences between men & women should somehow place the rights in favour of men.

        I too see how we act, think and prioritize differently but I do not see how that should affect their access to the same rights as me. That's just preposterous. Could you elaborate on your reasoning, I must be misunderstanding you somehow..

        • 2 months ago
          H

          Oh, shit I see now it might look like I'm implying Brexit was a good idea. I meant is as "people voted the inverse of what was actually a good choice". Idiocy of Englishmen voting to leave EU should not act as grounds to remove their voting rights is what I'm saying

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, shit I see now it might look like I'm implying Brexit was a good idea. I meant is as "people voted the inverse of what was actually a good choice". Idiocy of Englishmen voting to leave EU should not act as grounds to remove their voting rights is what I'm saying

          brexit was indeed a bad idea, people shouldn't have their voting rights removed based on how they vote, voting rights should be removed because democracy with universal suffrage is a bad way to run a country.
          and yeah, most women as well as most men should not have voting rights, i think that giving every featherless biped a say in how a country should be run is a bad idea.
          The democracy issue aside, the worst effects of feminism have only manifested since 2nd wave feminism in the 60s and 70s, while we can argue about the suffrage issue, i think that it's much harder to argue in good faith that the effects of 2nd wave feminism were positive for society or even just for women.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    therefore we should all start speaking languages with sexism hard-coded into them in pursuit of a more based society, interesting point anon.

    Jokes aside, i love it when leftists say stuff like this, because we agree on the facts and the only difference is that i think that whatever they are whining about is actually a good thing.

    • 2 months ago
      H

      Lmao, casual sexism. Anyway I think, and I might be wrong, but what you're seeing as a loss of sexual control between genders. If thats the case I'd argue the opposite. As a feminist, you don't need to be a filthy, unwashed "lib". You can speak and act in a way completely congruent with feminism but still frick babes while having them call you daddy on the regular. It's really a choice of being a choice for women. They shouldnt have to experience a society forcefully mistreating them in anyway, same goes for us men or whatever else gender in question. Don't you agree?

      you don't really need religion to know that women need to be kept in their place, i think that's self evident.
      That being said, i think that christianity does a quite a few good things for nonsensical reasons.
      The way i would put it is that it's easier to tell the plebs that women should be kept in their place because god says so than to explain the actual reasons why women's rights is a bad idea.

      This is hilarious for real. Please explain why female rights are a bad idea as compared to male ones

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >This is hilarious for real. Please explain why female rights are a bad idea as compared to male ones

        they are a bad idea because men and women are not the same and therefore shouldn't have the same rights, gender equality has never existed and never will, there wouldn't be two sexes in the first place if we were meant to be equal.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Lmao, casual sexism. Anyway I think, and I might be wrong, but what you're seeing as a loss of sexual control between genders. If thats the case I'd argue the opposite. As a feminist, you don't need to be a filthy, unwashed "lib". You can speak and act in a way completely congruent with feminism but still frick babes while having them call you daddy on the regular. It's really a choice of being a choice for women. They shouldnt have to experience a society forcefully mistreating them in anyway, same goes for us men or whatever else gender in question. Don't you agree?

        Knowing that men and women are fundamentally different and acting accordingly is not mistreatment in my opinion but i see why sex egalitarians might disagree.
        The go-to example i give as to why women's rights are a bad idea is that they overwhelmingly voted for prohibition (by "women's rights" i mean the ones they gained with 1st wave feminism and later, the rights they had before that were reasonable)

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    In india, almost languages are gendered and nouns are masculine, feminine, or sometimes neuter. Despite the neuter gender existing in so many languages the word for 'hijra' is always masculine. Even in ancient texts, they are called third gender but male pronouns and male grammatical rules are used. In most languages the words for this/that when referring to a person are gendered, so if you say 'that(female) transgender' not only does it sound awkward, but also grammatically incorrect.

    I don't think western leftists know this

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't think western leftists know this
      I don't think anyone cares, or should care. what is it with you pajeets and this fixation on these 'hijra'? it has reached the point of being mere spam.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Leftists always point this out as an example of transgenderism being accepted in asian cultures before colonialism

        The people who spam it on this board are not indians

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Call me crazy, but I think there are more important issues with women in Japan than how a word is written.

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    what OP said isn't true but if it was it would be a good thing and i would learn languages with sexism
    >"hard-coded"
    into them

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    What the frick is this image trying to convey?

    That some of the symbols on the right look a little bit like the one on the left?
    They are literally from different scripts even if they actually looked alike (they don't really) it would be a coincidence

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I couldn't figure it out either.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't understand the image.

      I couldn't figure it out either.

      It's one of those shit in-club memes where you have to know a bunch of other information in order to get it.

      女 means women.
      うるさい means noisy, it is the typical word for noisy and in 99.99% of cases when you want to say "noisy" this is the word you will use, that's the meme.

      The additional piece of information that you need to know in order to understand the meme is that there is another literary word for "noisy" in Japanese that is almost never used, it's English equivalent would be "unloquacious", THAT word is 姦しい, the kanji for which is three 女.
      There's also a set phrase pertaining to this word in Japanese shown in this image,

      Nice kuso thread.

      , 女三人寄れば姦しい, when three women assemble it is noisy.

      I assume it's parodying an original meme that just had 女 and 姦しい, because as I've said it is not a common word at all.

      Fun fact: That character also means betrayal and rape.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thanks for the explanation.

        I don't think anything can be considered discriminatory or problematic if no one knows wtf it means.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >I don't think anything can be considered discriminatory or problematic if no one knows wtf it means.
          >Aunt Jemima Uncle Ben racist apologist
          disgusting

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        So even in context, the meme makes no sense? Got it.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I've seen it with chinese characters, woman once on the left, woman thrice, meaning noisy, on the right. someone thought that a badly retold joke is funny.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    it’s almost like there’s two genders. wow, very interesting

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don't understand the image.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nice kuso thread.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >be sexually dimorphic
    >language reflects this biological fact
    What a shocking revelation, this is why Gender Studies pay top dollar at Starbucks.

    • 2 months ago
      Sage

      sexual dimoprhism and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race, unironically.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Unironically yes. This is one of the strongest arguments for English/American imperialism. Though English has some sexist elements in it too (mostly buried in the etymology of words), and there are other languages from other cultures across the globe that are also neutral, English is already one of the most widespread languages and is mandatory in almost every foreign school system, so we already have a head start. The romance languages are irredeemably fricked in this regard because they are inherently sexist and they cannot be reformed, replacement is the only answer.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >English has some sexist elements in it too (mostly buried in the etymology of words)
      Can you give a single example?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Husband is one example. The word “wife” just means woman and it comes from old English. The male equivalent should be “wer” (which is where we get “werewolf” from). Husband means householder. So right there in the marriage contract you have a householder and his woman. This in my eyes is obviously patriarchal notions of men being providers/breadwinners and the sole property owner baked into the word. You can argue that the conventional meaning of the word doesn’t carry this connotation, but I did say it was in the etymology.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          etymology does not matter at all. words mean today what they mean today, not a iota more. all those people fighting to call indians 'native americans', eskimos 'inuits' etc. are just creating grand causes for themselves to fight for and feel like a white knight in the process (white knight gotta be sexist language btw).

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Defining traits of each sex is not "sexism". It's just basic pattern recognition.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Making judgements about those people before you even meet let alone get to know them (prejudice) because of their genitals is sexism. This is the mental moral failing.
      Discriminating against people and treating them differently based on nothing other than their genitals is sexism in action.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, are you really so desperate for human contact that you'll post obvious bait to get angry replies?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        No one makes conclusive judgments about anyone. Probabilities are different than conclusions about somebody individually. Understanding those probabilities is perfectly reasonable. Making decisions based on those probabilities is also perfectly reasonable.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most African languages don’t use gender. But they do use noun classes like humans, plants, liquids, animals, abstractions, diminutives, mixed categories, and locations in/on/under/near/far from.

Comments are closed.