Is the English language sexist?

[nclib]

Of course it is. I wonder if anyone will deny this.

[Joe Republic]

Not as much as many other languages that have separate genders for every word.

Anyway, so what if it is?  What exactly do you plan to do about it?

[Emsworth]

Yes, it is. However, I do not believe that linguistic sexism is problematic. There are more pressing issues than whether one should use "he" or "he or she."

[A18]

No.

[J. J.]

Of course it is. I wonder if anyone will deny this.

I vote no, as a comparison.  Some languages have no neutral pronoun, like "it."  It would be "she" meaning a chair, or "he" meaning a table.

[Gabu]

The language itself is not sexist; it simply is what it is.  The origins of certain things, such as "he" being the "default" pronoun to reference an undefined person, however, do stem from a patriarchal society that could reasonbly be called sexist.

[7,052,770]

no, it's not

[2952-0-0]

No, comparing to French or any other Latin language.

[Alcon]

The question is not whether it is sexist relative to other languages, in which case the answer would be no.

On its own, though, yes.

[Gabu]

No, comparing to French or any other Latin language.

I'm not sure French is sexist so much as just plain weird, as is any language in which inanimate objects have gender.  I would personally say that French is less sexist than English due to the common usage of genderless word on.

[Hatman 🍁]

I voted yes, but it really is a difficult question to answer. It's not as obvious to me as the name change debate we had. And, I would add it's not as big a deal. And certainly, English is not as bad as French is.

[Ebowed]

No.

The English language does not state any sort of superiority or inferiority of either of the sexes; it is an emotionless system of communication that can only be made sexist by the people who use it.

[Hatman 🍁]

No.

The English language does not state any sort of superiority or inferiority of either of the sexes; it is an emotionless system of communication that can only be made sexist by the people who use it.

This is partly true, but I think he was referring to words like "woman". Why is woman at woman, and man just man? This is why some women have decided to adopt the word "womyn" like the Womyn's Centre on campus. However, I don't see it as a big problem, not with the English language anyways. Words are words. However, when it comes to names of professions, gender neutral terms may seem politically correct, but they are necessary. I'm not going to call a woman a "mailman" for example.

[Richard]

Of course it is. I wonder if anyone will deny this.

Yes.  Proof:

"He" and "she."  These words indicate sex.  I don't offhand remember a language that isn't sexist.

[Ebowed]

This is partly true, but I think he was referring to words like "woman". Why is woman at woman, and man just man? This is why some women have decided to adopt the word "womyn" like the Womyn's Centre on campus. However, I don't see it as a big problem, not with the English language anyways. Words are words. However, when it comes to names of professions, gender neutral terms may seem politically correct, but they are necessary. I'm not going to call a woman a "mailman" for example.

I don't see how the similarity of the words "woman" and "man" is sexist in any way, shape, or form.  Words with similar meanings (i.e. the two types of sexes in the human species) should have similar spellings and pronounciations so that children who are learning the language understand the similarities and the differences; it is a cornerstone of basic civilized language, not sexism.

I agree with you that it is unwise to call mailwoman a mailman; and there is nothing politically correct about using accurate words to describe professions.

[Hatman 🍁]

This is partly true, but I think he was referring to words like "woman". Why is woman at woman, and man just man? This is why some women have decided to adopt the word "womyn" like the Womyn's Centre on campus. However, I don't see it as a big problem, not with the English language anyways. Words are words. However, when it comes to names of professions, gender neutral terms may seem politically correct, but they are necessary. I'm not going to call a woman a "mailman" for example.

I don't see how the similarity of the words "woman" and "man" is sexist in any way, shape, or form.  Words with similar meanings (i.e. the two types of sexes in the human species) should have similar spellings and pronounciations so that children who are learning the language understand the similarities and the differences; it is a cornerstone of basic civilized language, not sexism.

I guess some women don't like having the word "man" in their word. It's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not going to explain.

[Gabu]

This is partly true, but I think he was referring to words like "woman". Why is woman at woman, and man just man? This is why some women have decided to adopt the word "womyn" like the Womyn's Centre on campus. However, I don't see it as a big problem, not with the English language anyways. Words are words. However, when it comes to names of professions, gender neutral terms may seem politically correct, but they are necessary. I'm not going to call a woman a "mailman" for example.

What women should really be pushing for, if they want to really get to the root of the problem, is to make "man" into "werman" or "waepman".  Originally, in Old English, "man" referred to a person whose gender was unspecified.  A "wifman" was a female man and a "werman" or "waepman" (the latter being more common, from what I know) was a male man.

Words like "mankind" are not actually excluding women at all - it's just that the meaning of "man" by itself has changed from what it used to be.

[??????????]

No, of course not. As Gabu sort of explained not that long ago the word "man" meant every human being. Not just males.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Of course it is. I wonder if anyone will deny this.

16 of us did.

[Hatman 🍁]

This is partly true, but I think he was referring to words like "woman". Why is woman at woman, and man just man? This is why some women have decided to adopt the word "womyn" like the Womyn's Centre on campus. However, I don't see it as a big problem, not with the English language anyways. Words are words. However, when it comes to names of professions, gender neutral terms may seem politically correct, but they are necessary. I'm not going to call a woman a "mailman" for example.

What women should really be pushing for, if they want to really get to the root of the problem, is to make "man" into "werman" or "waepman".  Originally, in Old English, "man" referred to a person whose gender was unspecified.  A "wifman" was a female man and a "werman" or "waepman" (the latter being more common, from what I know) was a male man.

Words like "mankind" are not actually excluding women at all - it's just that the meaning of "man" by itself has changed from what it used to be.

Yeah, but unfortunately man means both the gender and humans in general. Not much we can do about language, though. It is an evolving process.

[Everett]

Yes, the English language actively discriminates against womyn, showering attention and bias towards men.

[minionofmidas]

Yes, and it should therefore be banned. The same goes for all other languages, so the use of language should therefore be generally banned.

[Joe Republic]

I don't think there's a single language in the world that doesn't offend certain sections of people.  Therefore, I recommend we all convert to a more basic system of grunts and whistles.  All agreed?

[minionofmidas]

I don't think there's a single language in the world that doesn't offend certain sections of people.  Therefore, I recommend we all convert to a more basic system of grunts and whistles.  All agreed?

Harumph.

[??????????]

Yes, and it should therefore be banned. The same goes for all other languages, so the use of language should therefore be generally banned.

Thank God. Now you can shut up for once.