Poll: Do you think this is sexist?

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

whats next, we have to stop calling women women and start calling everyone individuals? Lets get rid of he and she while we are at it. Because in the modern world having a stick up your ass about political correctness and getting offended on a hair trigger is the way to be!!!

 

[jopomeister]

I see nothing wrong in what you said.
If you heard someone calling a doe a deer, you'd correct them, right? Then why not with something like this?
It's not sexist in the slightest, if you ask me, it's used for clarity, and can be used to avoid awkward situations when you find out that that person you thought was a guy actually was a girl.

 

[Brandon237]

It acknowledges a difference in gender.

Sexist? Yeah.

A big deal? A huge social injustice? The sigil of doom for society? No.

You lost me, how is acknowledging something sexist???

If someone says: He is white, they are stating an observation.
If they say: I don't like him because he is white, they are being racist.

It is EXACTLY the same idea for sexism.

You say: he is male. Fine. Observation.
You say: I think he eats orphans (insert anything negative there) because he is male. Not Fine. Discrimination. Bold Assumption. Sexism.

So it is no big deal AND not sexist.
Although the OP handled the situation terribly.

 

[Scrustle]

That's stupid, of course it's not sexist. Sounds to me like that person doesn't understand what "lord" and "lady" really mean. It also seems to have the whiff about it of this paranoia people have nowerdays about being seen as prejudice to the point is lunacy, like the way people say "woman police officer". Why not just "police officer"? Why does "woman" have to be included?

 

[6_Qubed]

I tend to use male terms in a gender-neutral capacity, which is a very fancy way of saying I call everyone "Dude."

My niece hates it.

iv always wanted to go around calling everyone girl.

hey girl xD

At the risk of sounding like some religious conservative intolerant (i.e. my mom) I'm pretty sure the gays beat you to that.

 

[RN7]

Well, not really. To be racist/sexist/etc. there has to be real hate or prejudice behind it. The words themselves (actress/actor, landlord/landlady or whatever) have no such negative connotation based on gender. I think the person found it a little sexist because you took the time out to correct her, when in reality, what said person called her landlord is unimportant.

 

[nklshaz]

It's not sexist. Just because you're identifying someone as a man or as a woman doesn't mean you're discriminating against them for it.

 

[Sunrider]

Sexist? Not in the slightest.
Grammar-Nazi? Yes. (High five, fellow grammar nazi!)

 

[Benny Blanco]

As far as I'm concerned, the use of a term which implies a gender s fine, providing it's not in itself demeaning. If the woman in your example thought it was "sexist" to use the word "landlady" then it's equally "sexist" to use the word "landlord" and she could easily have gone with "lessor".

It's one thing to use a neutral word, but to use a word which has an implicit gender opposed to that of the individual just seems retarded. I'm not trying to pick on Americans specifically but have heard a number of people referring to someone who gives massages as a "masseuse" regardless of their gender. Also pronouncing it "mass-oos".

 

[Woodsey]

Not sexist.

Although why you were "taken aback" by that or felt the need to correct her is beyond me.

 

[intheweeds]

the reason we have these distinctions is that they relay useful information, i.e. your gender.

Uhm. how is it "useful" to know the gender of someone's landlord?

It's useful to know the gender of your ruler. When they stuck the term "lord" on the end of "land", so too came with it its gender-specific useage.

That doesn't answer the question though. How is it useful? What could you imagine doing differently with your male landlord vs. your female one that would make that information useful?

Well, why do we have a Queen and King? Waiter or waitress? It's a hold-over from the languages that English comes from/borrows from heavily, having gender-tensed nouns to give a more specific feel to the statement.

Okay, now I understand the history of the word, but I didn't ask for that. Again, what purpose could that knowledge possibly serve today? If you aren't about to treat your landlord differently based on their gender, HOW is that information useful? Damn it's a simple question.

Waiter or waitress is the same thing. It's a professional designation. In fact the truth is unless you are in a truck stop diner, the term that is used in restaurants is 'server' - for both genders. Why? Because its the name of a job. Its the same job whether you are male or female. Suggesting otherwise is sexist since the gender of your server is completely irrelevant.

If you can think of a non-sexist reason for needing this info, I would like to hear it. Knowing whether to say ma'am or sir is not a good reason. You will know that the second you meet someone, you don't need a special designation to tell you that.

 

[Hedonist]

Landlord is an interesting case, because a lady isn't just the female version of a lord. So yea, landlady is sexist.
But other ones like actress aren't.

 

[Mcupobob]

If it was firewomen or policewomen, or something like that I could see where your coming from. Even though that still feels like splitting hairs. Oh and my spell checker says firewomen is not a word but policewomen is so opera doesn't believe a women can be a fireman.


Anyways, landlord sounds pretty gender neutral as it is. I mean you don't have to man to be a lord right?

Well according to google, only in the U.K does the Lord title goes a long with being a man.

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=definition+of+lord&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest#hl=en&client=opera&hs=fbw&rls=en&channel=suggest&q=lord&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=pmyETv7_FYO4tgfhpNk3&ved=0CCgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=feb8a2613c7233be&biw=1920&bih=1088

So the U.K is sexist.

 

[General BrEeZy]

in that way, noooo. some people have a preference against that i assume, but id not worry about THAT. c'mon. lol

 

[KaiserKnight]

To be 'taken aback' and have to question it, after learning a woman holds a job you assume only men have, is sexist.

Clearly you didn't read my post properly. Try again.

Clearly you've already made up your mind. Why even make the thread? You have some need to call a woman who is a landlord, a landlady. The fact that you say you were 'taken aback' makes you sound sexist in this instance.

EDIT: land·lord
Noun/ˈlan(d)ˌlôrd/
1. A person who rents land, a building, or an apartment to a tenant.

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!

Because the point was made that you were sexist, and right now you are digging yourself in a hole. It really seems like you came here to prove a point that you weren't sexist, the plan is backfiring and you are getting quite annoyed with the fact that not many are agreeing with you and those disagreeing are proving you wrong. To prove this I just had four people read your main post and this little segment I just quoted. You are being ignorant. You had the misapprehension that a landlord MUST only be a man so when a female name was given then a gender that you thought not possible you reacted badly. Besides landlord, what ELSE did your neighbor say or do to prove it MIGHT have been a male? Ask for a manager, get a female, ask for a manager again, female says she is the manager, look dumbstruck. Same thing with landlord. Hell the bloody definition was given to you RIGHT THERE.

Right, I'm putting this to bed right now because you don't seem to be getting it and I can't be arsed running around in circles with you. It is not sexist to think that a landlord "must only be a man", because the term "lord" conveys maleness. It has nothing to do with men and women's ability to do the same job - it would only be sexist if I view a landlady as being somehow inferior, which I don't. Landlord and landladies are equally capable, the ONLY difference between the two is gender.

Would it be sexist if I was confused because someone was talking to me about a policeman and then told me her name was Sandra? No. What's the difference here? You can go on all you want about people having equal rights to be called a landlord, but if you don't know that it isn't sexist, and it isn't even true in the UK.

Your manager example is completely retarded - manager is a gender-neutral term.

As for reacting badly, read it again. I didn't correct her. It was a half-muttered comment to myself intended to clear up the confusion I was having, it wasn't directed at her and that was obvious from my body language. Due to medication I'm taking I often space out a bit, but it's obvious that's what I was doing. No-one in their right mind would have though I was being confrontational or trying to correct anyone.

Okay I must ask...WHERE are you from and how were you raised? Honestly. You mention Germany, UK, Canada and state you are Canadian but someone else here mentioned they are from Canada, I know a few Canadians and you are the only person to my knowledge that goes by Policeman/Women Landlord/lady. I have to say you are either full of yourself for knowing such trivial terms or are somewhat ignorant in that area honestly.

 

[KaiserKnight]

How is it not? It's useful because it conveys information that tells you something about the person. That can be useful in a whole host of circumstances.

Besides, the very use of the word "landlord" conveys maleness. I now know if I want to go over and invite them for a drink to get to know them, I'm safer taking beer than wine.

It's not useful because the title is a professional one. I.e it's work related, and we've been having enough sexism and gender-discrimination in professional settings as it is, so I really can't see the relevance in having to know the gender of someone being refered to by their work-related title.

It's like saying that instead of a woman being called a "boss" she should be called a "bossette" just so you controlfreaks can peg them on beforehand.

Get with the times and accept the fact that a work-related enviroment should be genderblind.

Also, you do know that the title "Firewoman" isn't even a word right? So how would a pedantic person like you refer to a female fireman? See the difficulty in insisting on gender nominative titles in work-related context, when some professions simply don't have gender nominative titles?

Yeah, but you know what? Women aren't allowed to become "firemen" in my country, so frankly it's not an issue. If they were, however, I'm pretty sure they would be called "firewomen".

And you honestly can't see any circumstances whatsoever where knowing someone's gender beforehand is remotely useful or even just convenient? Like you're expecting to meet your landlord and when a woman opens the door you ask to see him, when really it's her?

Seriously dude, I'm starting to suspect you're the Escapist's resident troll...

I think you deserve the troll title

"How many women are firefighters?
In the U.S., around 6,200 women currently work as full-time, career firefighters and officers. Several hundred hold the rank of lieutenant or captain, and about 150 are district chiefs, battalion chiefs, division chiefs, or assistant chiefs. [All of these numbers increase every year; for the most recent available statistics and a state-by state breakdown of the numbers, see our Status Report]. While accurate figures on volunteer firefighters are difficult to obtain, it can be estimated that 35-40,000 women are in the volunteer fire service in the U.S.

Women are firefighters outside the U.S. as well. The most significant numbers are to be found in Great Britain, where more than 200 women are wholetime (career) firefighters and approximately 200 others serve in a retained (volunteer) capacity. Women firefighters can also be found in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Germany, France, the Netherlands, South Africa, Ghana, Panama, Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Chile, and Brazil.

How many women firefighters have died in the line of duty? A total of 98 fire service women are known to have died in the line of duty, including 23 British firewomen killed by enemy action in World War II. See our honor roll for more information."

http://www.i-women.org/questions.php
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/03/04/women-firefighters-are-no-longer-a-novelty-2/

"WOMEN FIREFIGHTERS, not firewomen"

Back to my question, WHERE are you from mate? You don't seem to know much about the UK being there.

 

[Hipsy_Gypsy]

I just had a rather interesting encounter with my next-door neighbour. I was asking her if it was OK for me to get some building work done, as the house is terraced and it might inconvenience her. She said she had to call her landlord and ask if it was OK.

Well, she got back to me later on and said, at one point, "I called my landlord Chloe, and she said it's fine."

I was a little taken aback and, instinctively said, "Chloe? Oh, you mean your landlady," to which she replied "erm, that's a bit sexist don't you think?"

No. I don't think so.

Since when has it been "sexist" to use gender-nominative terms? The whole thing took be back to when Hollywood actresses campaigned to be called "actors" so they could feel "equal to the men." This is such rabid bullshit: the reason we have these distinctions is that they relay useful information, i.e. your gender. In the German language, every noun has a gender. You don't hear them going on about how it's sexist.

I will continue to call actresses actresses, landladies landladies, policewomen... well, you get the idea.

So Escapist, what's your opinion on the issue? Should we move towards gender neutral terms, or should overly sensitive women (and some men of course) just get over themselves?

EDIT - I posted this down below but I've moved it up here so everyone can see it straight off:

I wasn't really "correcting" her, as my statement wasn't really aimed at her. It was more just my inner-monologue coming out of my mouth involuntarily. It does that a lot!

How in the hell is that sexist? Not at all; particularly in this instance. For one thing, you can't have a female lord, can you? My landlord is a woman so I call her my landlady because... well, she's a lady, isn't she?

Anyroad, I quite like how you pointed out that, "The whole thing took be back to when Hollywood actresses campaigned to be called "actors" so they could feel "equal to the men."" which is something that we were discussing just this week actually about feminism. Now, there's nothing wrong to say, for example, "Headteacher", "Police officer" if one really must be politically correct if you can call it that, because those terms are all unisex. Well, that's how I see it. I also really liked your point of gender nouns in other languages. Some, like Finnish and Chinese, don't have any at all which is fair enough.

In short, if the term is unisex, then it's alright. However, like your own real life example, it is in no way at all sexist. She implied that her landowner was a man if you look at it one way. Now that I think about it, I would be quicker to call a female a landlord than a male a landlady, haha. Then again, that is the right term for her; landlady. All that happened to you was that you assumed she had a male landowner (landowner sounds a wee bit odd...), you realised and said to yourself, "Ah, she meant her landlady." because you thought she was a man at first. Erm. Does that make sense? I knew upon reading that line straight away that you were not, indeed, correcting her. I don't think it was sexist at all. To be fair, I probably would have done the exact same!


x

 

[Psychedelic Spartan]

It is not sexist as it just clarifies whether or not you are talking about a man or woman.

Why did the gender need to be clarified though?

Well, I guess it's not essential but if you look on almost every language that isn't english, everything has a form for masculine and feminine, you could say it's just following roots.

 

[Daffy F]

I think you're supposed to use the Male equivilent for everyone, although I don't think it's wrong to say the female one, but I think it's wrong to correct someone on it.

 

[DarkRyter]

It acknowledges a difference in gender.

Sexist? Yeah.

A big deal? A huge social injustice? The sigil of doom for society? No.

You lost me, how is acknowledging something sexist???

If someone says: He is white, they are stating an observation.
If they say: I don't like him because he is white, they are being racist.

It is EXACTLY the same idea for sexism.

You say: he is male. Fine. Observation.
You say: I think he eats orphans (insert anything negative there) because he is male. Not Fine. Discrimination. Bold Assumption. Sexism.

So it is no big deal AND not sexist.
Although the OP handled the situation terribly.

For someone to be identified as a woman, there must be some grasp on the concept of men and women being different. The word "woman" applies to, well, women, but not to men.

This is inherently a discriminatory judgement. Doesn't matter if it's true, if it's negative, or if it's positive. It just has to, in some way or another, imply that men and women are different.

It may very well be true, especially in the biological sense, but it is sexist nonetheless.

For something or someone to not be sexist, it would have to ignore sex and gender entirely. For example, Calculus, Dominoes, Architectural Drafting, Breakfast Pizzas, and VY Canis Majorus.