Yes, and that would be the popular definition of "sexist" rather than the literal definition of it.zehydra said:
Poll: Do you think this is sexist?
- Thread starter Mandalore_15
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i think its mainly that you seemingly called her on it. Otherwise id say no, its not. But no one really wants to be corrected
I agree that this was probably part of it. I don't think that it is sexist, and in this specific case I can understand why it would be acceptable to use either term to recognize a female landlord.Daystar Clarion said:
For you to call someone a woman, you would have to take their gender into account.zehydra said:
You can call a woman a woman, but you can not call a man a woman. Something applies to one group, but not the other, thus discrimination based upon sex.
Sexism.
Like I said, not a big deal.
I don't think it's sexist. You're not insulting them or treating them second-class citizens or anything. You're just failing to use the "proper" gender of whatever their title is. Calling Anne Hathaway an actor instead of an doesn't change what she does, and nor is it change the significance of her title.Mandalore_15 said:
I don't get what you are saying. This is the definition of sexism:DarkRyter said:
The only way acknowledging a difference in gender is sexist is if it is discriminatory or restrictive. Otherwise, it's just acknowledging a trait, no different from acknowledging that someone is a certain height, age, weight, or race.
First of all, English tends to use masculine as the gender-normative term for neuter for people, but the feminine for objects. That's just how English works.
Secondly, landlord and landlady are differing terms. It depends on which one you mean. A woman can still be a Lord, but a man can't often be a Lady.
(Excepting Little Britain)
So, it's not sexist...just a case of prejorative terms being used for multiple gender states. In the same way that Pilot is a masculine term, but can apply to both genders. Same with Chaps.
Toaster tends to be feminine. As does Pen, Hammer and Sword - despite being thought of as "Masculine" items. Guns are almost always feminine, despite the obvious phallic nature.
While you weren't being sexist...you were probably wrong. Her Landlord is Chloe.
Secondly, landlord and landlady are differing terms. It depends on which one you mean. A woman can still be a Lord, but a man can't often be a Lady.
(Excepting Little Britain)
So, it's not sexist...just a case of prejorative terms being used for multiple gender states. In the same way that Pilot is a masculine term, but can apply to both genders. Same with Chaps.
Toaster tends to be feminine. As does Pen, Hammer and Sword - despite being thought of as "Masculine" items. Guns are almost always feminine, despite the obvious phallic nature.
While you weren't being sexist...you were probably wrong. Her Landlord is Chloe.
Landlord is traditionally a male role. A female landlord must be something other than a landlord. Attitude based on a traditional stereotype? Yep.Lilani said:
One may also infer that the distinction is important because of some positive or negative trait landlords do not share with landladies.
I'm not arguing for this position, but that answers your question.
Even if Landlord is gender neutral this still isn?t a sexism issue. It?s just confusion cause by the English language being weird.
People seem to be very picky over what is and isn't acceptable when it comes to gender specific terms. Sure, you say landlady is sexist in place of landlord... but you wouldn't refer to a ruling female monarch as King now would you?
People can't have it both ways, this sort of thing is just ridiculous when you break it down. If it was the case that woman wanted to be completely equal to men in terms of labeling, perhaps we should just start, I dunno, calling them men too?
People can't have it both ways, this sort of thing is just ridiculous when you break it down. If it was the case that woman wanted to be completely equal to men in terms of labeling, perhaps we should just start, I dunno, calling them men too?
Urgh, the reason I was "taken aback" is that I had been going under the misapprehension that she was phoning a MAN only to find out his name was "Chloe". Seriously, it's not difficult to understand!Sober Thal said:
Political correctness and fake 'sensitivity' is destroying people's free will and individuality. It also seems to be only the predominantly 'white' countries that do this, where every white person should be made to feel guilty for living, especially white males.
Places like America and the UK really sport this attitude and new social conditioning. Be afraid to say anything, don't offend anyone, kowtow to everything someone 'different' demands of you, otherwise you're a pig.
Meanwhile, you can go to any other country thats not 'white', be it Japan, Mexico, what have you, and you will not see a political correctness movement like we see here in America or UK, and you will also not see any movements towards 'diversifying' the population of their home countries, either. In countries that task themselves with actually living, and getting things done, you will not see any bullshit about 'combating sexism', so as not to offend a woman by calling her an 'actress'. Nonsense. Orwellian trash.
This entire movement is destroying freewill and independent thought.
Places like America and the UK really sport this attitude and new social conditioning. Be afraid to say anything, don't offend anyone, kowtow to everything someone 'different' demands of you, otherwise you're a pig.
Meanwhile, you can go to any other country thats not 'white', be it Japan, Mexico, what have you, and you will not see a political correctness movement like we see here in America or UK, and you will also not see any movements towards 'diversifying' the population of their home countries, either. In countries that task themselves with actually living, and getting things done, you will not see any bullshit about 'combating sexism', so as not to offend a woman by calling her an 'actress'. Nonsense. Orwellian trash.
This entire movement is destroying freewill and independent thought.
What, what, WHAT?!? Since when did improper nouns in English have genders? I am legitimately confused...The_root_of_all_evil said:
Also, what is the difference between a landlord and landlady then, if not their gender?
I have just solved this entire threads arguments with perfectly reasonable, calm, logic.
Historically speaking, a Lord was male and a Lady was female. The term Landlord, since it includes Lord is assumed to be male by most. It's not sexist, in the derogatory sense, it's an automatic response.
Speaking in modern terms, Landlord has simply become a term used to identify someone 'Lording' over whatever plot of land you are inhabiting, and is not gender specific.
Evidently, roughly half of the Escapists on here are going by the historic term and equating Lord to male and Lady to female (Which is perfectly reasonable, and not derogatory in any form, by the way), while the other half prefer to use the more modern term, equating 'Landlord' with either gender.
In short, you were technically being sexist, in that you separated the modern, gender-neutral landlord into it's component gender-based progenitors Lord and Lady, but you weren't being deliberately insulting in any way.
You were, however, being rather rude by specifically correcting her terminology with your own because, as evidenced here, different people equate different terms to different meanings.
There, you see? Perfectly reasonable, calm, logic. Insult free and informative.
Why don't more people post this way? As opposed to instantaneously throwing around insults and assuming that, because their opinion differs, they are automatically right, and therefore better?
Historically speaking, a Lord was male and a Lady was female. The term Landlord, since it includes Lord is assumed to be male by most. It's not sexist, in the derogatory sense, it's an automatic response.
Speaking in modern terms, Landlord has simply become a term used to identify someone 'Lording' over whatever plot of land you are inhabiting, and is not gender specific.
Evidently, roughly half of the Escapists on here are going by the historic term and equating Lord to male and Lady to female (Which is perfectly reasonable, and not derogatory in any form, by the way), while the other half prefer to use the more modern term, equating 'Landlord' with either gender.
In short, you were technically being sexist, in that you separated the modern, gender-neutral landlord into it's component gender-based progenitors Lord and Lady, but you weren't being deliberately insulting in any way.
You were, however, being rather rude by specifically correcting her terminology with your own because, as evidenced here, different people equate different terms to different meanings.
There, you see? Perfectly reasonable, calm, logic. Insult free and informative.
Why don't more people post this way? As opposed to instantaneously throwing around insults and assuming that, because their opinion differs, they are automatically right, and therefore better?
He thought all land/lords/ladies/owners were men, in other words, that no woman was a landlord/lady/owner... did I make sense?zehydra said:
Did he mean to be sexist? I think not, that's all that matters (to me).
