Poll: Do you think this is sexist?
- Thread starter Mandalore_15
- Start date
Useful? Is gender really the most useful information to convey? How about age, quality, qualifications, nationality, heritage, hobbies, fetishes, whatever. I don't really feel strongly on the subject one way or the other, but this part strikes me as odd.Mandalore_15 said:
well considering your "Landlord" is a man that owns the land you live on, and lets you live there for a fee. A "Landlady" is a woman that owns the land you live on, and lets you live there for a fee, and you think of their historical connotations, I would think most people would either use the gender-nominative terms or just GTFO! If you are a man with land title, you are the "Lord" of that "Estate", you are a woman with a land title you are the "Lady" of that "Estate", that is how it is, please do not call all of us users of historically-nominative terms sexist, please, it just makes more sense that way!
So yeah, people who are overly politically correct insult all of our intellect, and should themselves be banned as un-pc because they're offensive to me(and other like minded individuals).
So yeah, people who are overly politically correct insult all of our intellect, and should themselves be banned as un-pc because they're offensive to me(and other like minded individuals).
It's just one of the insignificant things that change over time in language and no-one sane really cares about. Right now actor/actress is fine, but saying firewoman or policewoman just sounds retarded.
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!!!
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.
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.
You lost me, how is acknowledging something sexist???DarkRyter said:
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.
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?
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.
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".
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".
Deshara said:
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.
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.
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.
in that way, noooo. some people have a preference against that i assume, but id not worry about THAT. c'mon. lol