Oh Noez! What about Teh Menz? -Patriarchy isn't a dude's friend EITHER!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

I was born in 1990, so most of the plane trips I remember were post 9/11 airline industry crash. There was nothing sexy about airlines then, unless being dominated by security turned you on. You filed into your seats and tried not to make any funny moves or say anything that the deaf lady might mistake as violent-sounding. There's no money for any actual service - a flight attendant might bring you a tiny bag of peanuts if you were lucky, for a total of one interaction. I have no idea what they were doing the rest of the flight.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

To gain a better understanding of where many of these confusing terms came from, it might be helpful to watch some of the films from the 70's-80's that address the cultural climate change going on at the time. Actually, it might sound strange, but I think some of those films would probably help a lot of people understand feminism a little better.

Also, I'd like to throw something in for a laugh, and maybe an interesting take on perspectives. When I was about 15-16 (mid 1980's), I TOTALLY thought that there was no point to feminism anymore because women had already achieved equality. I thought it was dumb and outdated.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

I mean, I'm not sure how old you are, but I remember that back in the 80s, being a steward was supposed to be funny, and it made your masculinity/sexuality questionable. Same thing with being called a male nurse. It's like, bwahahaha, that's a girl's job. So, actually, it's offensive to both genders at the same time. It basically calls one a homo, and the other less than respectable. So, no, it doesn't castrate a male flight attendant. I mean, just think that through for an extra second.

I was born in 1990, so most of the plane trips I remember were post 9/11 airline industry crash. There was nothing sexy about airlines then, unless being dominated by security turned you on. You filed into your seats and tried not to make any funny moves or say anything that the deaf lady might mistake as violent-sounding. There's no money for any actual service - a flight attendant might bring you a tiny bag of peanuts if you were lucky, for a total of one interaction. I have no idea what they were doing the rest of the flight.

Come to think of it, I don't think I've ever really encountered the "sexy stewardess" trope outside of sketchy costume shops. (And James Bond movies, but he fucked everything so that doesn't really mean much.) All the airlines were competing to be seen as economical and least-inconvenient instead of exotic and sexy, so the difference in advertising tone is probably contributing.

It's old as fuck. There was an old Continental Airlines TV ad that went "We really move our tail for you" that freaked everybody the fuck OUT and probably started the whole switch to "flight attendant".

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/zippy/3153849427/

A letter from the 1930's discussing using women as 'stewardesses or couriers"... a very interesting bit of history on the current topic.

According to eytmologyonline.com in the 1800's Stewardess was used in reference to female members of a ship's staff that waited on female passengers. Also interesting they link the -ess ending to ancient Greek and find early usage in the Church to refer to female deacons. In the 1600's it was used to refer to a female steward (dictionary.reference.com).

The 1930's letter has overtones of sexism "Good PR to have young women on board". The 1800's usage also have strong overtones of sexist... the Church having female Deacons is just funny and ironic.

As a side note, I get really torqued by the people that think the word "history" is patriarchal.

[Juana]

I think its hilarious. It's not like historigraphy is taught in schools, though.

[Golden Applesauce]

I think I figured out what's bugging me about explicitly non-gendered job titles. For my generation, women have always earned less than men holding the same job title. Which is subtly but importantly distinct from "women have always earned less than men for doing the same job."

I suppose at least getting the same title is a step up from before, but if you take that step for granted, it comes off as the corporation acknowledging the problem (workplace discrimination) and trying to pass off a name change as a substantive fix. At least when they denied that men and women were doing the same job, pay discrimination had a certain internal logic to it. Admitting that they are both doing the same work but refusing to compensate for it is being aware of evil and refusing to work against it.

edit: and on steward / attendant specifically, "attendant" sounds like they're supposed to be hand feeding me grapes, which is ofc exactly what the airline companies wanted to convey when they pushed the name change. What they actually do, in my experience, is apologize for delayed flights and lost luggage... while the thing that the fear-industrial complex wants us to want is someone to keep the plane from exploding, a literal steward. My issue wasn't even the title, I just wanted an actual steward rather than an apologist for budget cuts.

Nigel, that may be true, but he has a habit of being contrary just to be contrary.

The only way I learn is to get people to explain to me why I'm wrong. Sometimes this requires being aggressively wrong. 

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

I think I figured out what's bugging me about explicitly non-gendered job titles. For my generation, women have always earned less than men holding the same job title. Which is subtly but importantly distinct from "women have always earned less than men for doing the same job."

I suppose at least getting the same title is a step up from before, but if you take that step for granted, it comes off as the corporation acknowledging the problem (workplace discrimination) and trying to pass off a name change as a substantive fix. At least when they denied that men and women were doing the same job, pay discrimination had a certain internal logic to it. Admitting that they are both doing the same work but refusing to compensate for it is being aware of evil and refusing to work against it.

Hints of General Semantics, ITT, You change the words on the map and everyone thinks the territory has changed.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Har!

In Arizona, custody is separate from child support (meaning deadbeat dad pays nothing, still gets to see the kids)

I'm fairly sure that's the case in most states...and I pretty much agree with it.

It's not like the kids are an amusement park to be visited and child support is the ticket. The kids should benefit from a relationship with both their parents. I think it's kind of an outmoded and backwards think that says if a non-custodial parent is a deadbeat they should also be forced to be derelict.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Also, I would argue that due to an ever constant fear or rape or assault present in many women, it makes it difficult for men to just be people around women, at times. I've started to notice recently just how many women refuse to make eye contact while walking, or even biking in public. This isn't so much harm to men in our society as much as its a shame. For example: I am totally fucking harmless. I'm still a pacifist at heart. And yet I evoke this same reaction because I am a guy. Again, this is less a tragedy and more a damned shame that women have to live in such fear without the ability to tell who is harmless and who is not.

When I read the topic of this thread, this is the very first thing that I thought of. It's like we're stuck in this scenario that in the whole fucked up order of things, is "Exactly as it should be"^(TM), but it truly just sucks for everyone involved.

There's the woman who is in the vulnerable position, the man who is in the potentially dangerous position--that dynamic in play...but underneath it, just two human beings thinking how much the whole god-damned thing is a crying shame.

[Phox]

So the answer was yes, i see. Grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. English does not make use of grammatical gender. Having words with a gender marker serves no purpose other than otherizing one gender and normalizing another.

Didn't see this before the last post.

Alright, I'm actually angry at you now. Congrats, you trolled me.

I'm well aware that grammatical gender and "gender gender" are not the same thing. That's why I explicitly used the term "grammatical gender" instead of just gender, and made the frankly ridiculous "gender gender" construction to further emphasize that it is distinct from grammatical gender. The relation "linked to" signifies that the topic of the question is restricted to those languages for which there is a relationship between the two, which is only material if there exist languages excluded by the where clause, i.e., there is at least one language for which grammatical gender and social gender do not correlate.

Further, I never implied that English uses grammatical gender. That's rather the point of the question, actually - I know a thing about a social movement as mediated by a grammatical gender free language, does that thing extend to that same movement in a different context?

I ask questions because I recognize that there are areas in which I am ignorant, and I want to learn things from people who are knowledgeable on that topic. I asked those questions specifically because I know that you know more than I do about Romance languages. I even threw in the linguistic jargon "gender marker" because I knew you would get it and wanted to establish this relationship as "friendly peer."

I exposed weakness in good faith, and you called me a retard. Twice. That's not communication, that's raw primate posturing. You skimmed my posts exactly enough to come up with a response intended to elevate your social status at the expense of my own.

Here's the problem: I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to explain the interactions of gender markers and syntax in Romance languages when typing from my phone, nor even now, when that bears no relevance on the topic at hand. If you want to know about French feminist movements and how they relate to language, you are talking to the wrong person anyway, because I have no idea what European feminist movements are doing. When did I ever imply I did?

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

I would agree with jail time for failure to pay child support in many instances. I know too many douches who just flat out refuse, and have done so for years. Sure they can't pay child support from a cell, but if they've demonstrated that they are willfully neglecting that obligation, what's the difference?

Colorado yoinks driver's licenses for failure to pay (or in one case that I'm aware of paying under the table in violation of a court order  ). Driving pizza for a living and losing your driver's license for failure to pay child support...that's some catch.

[Juana]

Yes.  That's your prerogative to not like it when people cry, and I don't blame you in the least. 




To further the discussion, I agree that while men don't lose as much as women do in the grand scheme of things, I think as people they get a pretty raw deal.  They have to be just so, fit in this box, or -gasp- LOSE YOUR MAN CARD!  If you MUST get touchy-feely, you may only indulge in a short, furtive side hug (btw FUCK YUO ALTY), after which you have to make a rape or sexist joke lol, or talk about boobs or sports or whatever it is you men talk about.  You can't show emotion, cuz that's actin' like a pussy, dawg.  You got worries?  Shit, I don't wanna hear about worries you have about the future!  Talk about tits and ass instead.  You got some deep thoughts on feminism, or what you find to be beautiful in the world, or maybe want to bounce some poetry off me?  FUCKIN' FAG! 

Honestly, I'm running through all the things that guys are supposed to like to do, and I can only come up with some of the most shallow, vile crap that is untrue, I hope.  I mean, like Nigel said upthread, that can't be good for their spirituality or humanity.

Been thinking a bit about this and I'd say that, speaking as a guy, a lot of macho shit is fun and totally suits me, as long as it's not taken seriously. There's a switch in my brain that gets a buzz out of challenging one of my mates to do something mental or he's a pussy. Likewise - to rise to a similar challenge and make a dent in that lamp post, using the power of my head, to earn "man points". I see no reason not to indulge flicking that particular switch, from time to time, in the right company and setting.

I see no harm in it but, if that's all you have, like there's no intellectual, or emotional side to you then you've pretty much overdosed and become a walking cliche.

I just wanna take a second to point out that "pussy" is a gendered insult.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It also prevents the custodial parent from using the kids as a pawn in child support negotiation.

And, prevents the child from being deprived of a parent if that parent loses their job.

On the other hand, in Oregon you can be sent to jail for not paying your child support. Which creates its own catch-22.

I would agree with jail time for failure to pay child support in many instances. I know too many douches who just flat out refuse, and have done so for years. Sure they can't pay child support from a cell, but if they've demonstrated that they are willfully neglecting that obligation, what's the difference?

Colorado yoinks driver's licenses for failure to pay (or in one case that I'm aware of paying under the table in violation of a court order  ). Driving pizza for a living and losing your driver's license for failure to pay child support...that's some catch.

Yes, I do agree that it's called for in some cases. Maybe even a lot of cases. I think the main problem with it is that the family court system here has little money for investigating/prosecuting, so they've instituted a fairly straightforward rule system that can result in unintended consequences.

But the alternative is no enforcement, and that's probably worse.

Of course, what I'd like to see is a better-funded family court system with better investigation and more judge/mediator involvement in individual cases, but that's unlikely to happen anytime in the near future.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

The idea that any person should be considered in any way different from any other person on the basis of anything other than what they do is perplexing and foreign to me, even submerged in a culture that is fraught with these kinds of assessments.

"The fleshy package your personality is wrapped in is in some ways dissimilar, and in other ways similar, to the one mine is wrapped in."

That is the most meaningful statement that can be made concerning the differences between male and female. But the same statement can be made to distinguish any two people, so it is ultimately meaningless.

We can't expect to arrive at any real gender neutrality when we leave the social structures of patriarchy in place. Matriarchy would be the same thing in reverse, so that's a no-go. "Feminism" is probably something closer to the right way, but the fact that its root word is specifically and exclusively female pays too much lip service to this illusion of some inherent distinction between a person who is a woman, and a person who is a man.

I really, really hate repeating myself, but, Vex, women and females are an oppressed group even still. We need a specific movement that denotes who it works for because the work feminism started out to do, way back when, is still not done. Its work won't be done until the kyriarchy has been dismantled because an injury to one oppressed group is ultimately an injury to us all.

I don't disagree with you at all. I just question the usefulness of a movement that specifies females as its intended beneficiary. Even if that benefit is deserved, which it is of course, I'm asking if that goal might be better met by a truly and thoroughly gender-neutral movement at this point. "Feminism," which I agree with, is often written off by those who oppose it simply because it is "for women," and they're dumb enough to be "against women." That feminism is beneficial to both men and women is lost on the vast majority of simpletons who are too dumb to look at a word like "feminism" and see anything beyond the first 3 letters.

If the point is to continue the fight until the last breath of the last die-hard patriarch just so we can all show the world that "ha! women ARE strong!" then Feminism is great. But if the point is to completely eliminate gender as a consideration in the math of a person's value altogether, then why not switch to gender neutrality?

Because to the point that there are issues on the ground that need to be addressed--issues that are overwhelmingly oppressive to one specific class in our society--simply removing the label "woman" from that oppressed class basically reads like "Three Pounds of Flax".

--Not disagreeing with where you're going, just saying that there's a lot of in-between to getting there.