Not denying your accuracy of the proportions of that list- because its undeniable- I do nonetheless have a question about it.
Much like I did when I discussed the search on "neighbor's wife," I wonder about the actual breakdown of the synonyms your students brought up.
IOW, I'm asking if you noted things like how many of those terms were synonyms for prostitute?
I did, actually, and that's something which we tied into our discussion of language and its effect on thought and ideas.
That said, even though that would reduce the disparity, it would by no means come close to eliminating it.
In addition, even if we use the same words to describe promiscuous men and women, the implications still differ- a man called a "slut" or "tailchaser" is likely to have that label hung on him with a wink and a nudge.
(which is partly derived from biology...)
I agree about the wink and the nudge, but not about the biology. There's no rational reason why human biology should make promiscuity more acceptable in men than women. There are a few irrational reasons, of course, which disciplines (I use the term loosely) such as evolutionary psychology try to make a lot of capital out of. The issue is more of a cultural one (and hence, in this case language-based), which is why there have been multiple cultures in which prostitution (male or female) and promiscuity have not been considered negative as they are in, say, 20th and 21st century American society.
An English teacher who hates the Bard. Will wonders never cease?
As Mallus pointed out above, I love Shakespeare (he's a major part of my dissertation). But I might like him a lot less if his treatment and presentation of the sexes was being done in the 21st century by someone writing stories about people in a fantasy world. My comment wasn't universal to all times, writers and subject matter.
All of which is shaped by biology and neurology in particular.
I beg to differ, based on the vast difference in language formations across human history and even today. Unless someone can prove that the biology and neurology of a New Yorker, a Bushman, a Bengali and an Inuit are hugely
different from each other.
And now, as the joke goes, we see the violence inherent in the system. Anyone who disagrees with the 'acceptable' position must be belittled, insulted, marginalized, and demonized. You don't know who I am, what my politics, beliefs, and experiences are. The status quo in the first world is very egalitarian in the broad sweep but, like everything, it's the details that matter the most. Minorities and women were long excluded in practice from exercising the rights they had on paper. In some cases they still are. It is just as racist or sexist to assume a man of European descent is a liar, cad, or villain for disagreeing with theory underpinning political correctness, person first construction, or any of the other myriad ideas thought up to correct human behavior by addressing perceived flaws in language.
Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I didn't say one is necessarily a liar, cad or villain for disagreeing. One could also simply be ill-informed or just plain wrong
Especially since they often ignore the fact that there are sound biological reasons underpinning much of the flawed behavior.
Depends on who's judging the soundness thereof. A reasonably creative person can come up with a "sound" biological reason for literally any behavior. As evolutionary biologists, for example, often do. But people have done that for millennia, and just because an argument is creative doesn't mean it's true. Aristotle had some very creative explanations for natural phenomena based on what was known of their biology. He was also mostly dead wrong. In my estimation, so are much of the supposed "sound biological reasons" which are used to justify sexism, racism, et al. Not least because none of them can actually be proved. And many can at least be heavily questioned based on the variation in societies across the world, both historically and in modern times.
Similarly, most of the biologic underpinnings of sexism and racism are completely irrelevant in the 'modern' world. Ignoring them in favor of twiddling with language, however is a waste of time. Teaching people to recognise and control these instincts and biologic influences is a far better way to spend one's time.
With my previous caveat about the biologic underpinnings, I agree about it being a problem if one
only twiddles with language. Even though language is highly important, IMNSHO. Luckily, since we can multitask and have 24 hrs in a day, we can twiddle with language
and teach people to act more intelligently. Win, win.
Another is addressing issues of hate mongering and racism as they appear in children. The issues can be addressed, but it will take a generation or more to have meaningful effects, and possibly several more before it's essentially gone. In the mean time replacing ever chairman and chairwoman with chairpeople is shuffling the deckchairs.
Sometimes you have to shuffle the deckchairs to clean the deck.
As noted, I changed my mind. I won't stay conservative if there's a logical reason not to.
After all, if we didn't allow ourselves the option to change our minds we would have just stuck to the sexist status quo and wouldn't be discussing this here.
Good point. And my comment, in case it came across that way, wasn't a criticism. Much the contrary, in fact, for the reason you mentioned.
I agree with what you said about the "cyclical system". Our behavior forms a large part of the next generation's education; which means that unless we change our behavior, the future generation will learn to be as sexist as we are now.
Yup. Which is one area where language is vitally important, I think. Trying to educate the next generation to not be sexist while using sexist language is totally counterproductive, I think.
On the subject of sexist insults:
I have heard the word "woman" being used as a demeaning insult for men, usually replacing "coward", "weakling" or "stupid". "Gay" may be used to the same effect.
On the other hand, "man" will be used as a compliment for men and women, indicating bravery, strength, intellect, cunning or toughness.
Both are used freely by men and woman where I live.
Agreed, with the addition that there are also more subtle examples of the same occurring constantly in language, where masculinity is promoted as a virtue or strength, and femininity as a flaw or weakness.
I mean behaviour is a mix of nature and nurture - genes and environment.
True, but in our modern society I'd lay a whole lot more emphasis on nurture than nature, and even more on personal choice (which is mediated but not totally created by nature or nurture). There are a huge number of behaviors in society which we don't allow for biology to justify, so it always seems arbitrary to me for it to be trotted out as a justification for sexism. To quote (roughly) my girlfriend from a moment ago, "I biologically need to pee right now, but I'm choosing not to do so. I can bloody well choose not to be sexist."
You would need to change both, eg eliminate body dimorphism so males were no longer bigger and stronger than females. Eliminate or compensate for variable testosterone levels, pregnancy, and other inherent factors causing variable behaviour. It would probably be easiest to eliminate males entirely although you would probably want to retain sexual reproduction.
I see body dimorphism mentioned (as well as the other factors you mentioned) as a factor for sexism, and I really don't see it. Not only should body dimorphism only matter in a very limited way in modern society, but there have been (and continue to be) a number of societies where the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general.
It's a question of investment. Having sex with lots of women has favourable effects for the genetic legacy of a man's relatives (lots of children they don't have to care for). Having sex with lots of men does not have such favourable effects for the genetic legacy of a woman's relatives, it may even be disfavourable in harsher conditions (lots of children of unknown parentage they have to care for).
That's another of those cute arguments from evolutionary psychology which is kinda plausible, but (a) can't be proved as accurate and (b) is given the lie by one of the things that evolutionary psychology loves to draw on, i.e. non-human species. There are multiple species where the female is way more promiscuous than the male. Promiscuity isn't all about biology, and it's not all about biology in a single way either.
And one could just as arguably say that it makes sense for men to only have sex rarely and with one woman, since that heavily increases the chances of getting her pregnant and diminishes the chances of him getting his ass kicked by the relatives/lovers of the multiple women he's sleeping with (note: it's funny how biological arguments about behavior often fail to consider that people's actions are usually based on protecting their individual selves, not their species). And that it makes sense for a woman to have sex with lots of men, since it raises the chances of pregnancy and the passing on of her genetic legacy (note: also funny how these biological arguments tend to focus on men passing on their legacy and not women).
In short, what you mentioned is (to repeat myself) a cute and creative story to justify some form of behavior. But I can just as easily come up with another cute story to say that form of behavior is not justifiable.
Animals behave the way they do because of their biology. Their thinking capabilities are limited so they can't decide what is preferable for them and learn to change their behavior accordingly.
Since we as humans do have the mental capacity necessary to decide and change (as demonstrated by the fact that some of us here have decided that we do not want to discriminate or be discriminated and have changed our behavior accordingly), I think we should use that to our advantage.
Unsurprisingly, seconded. I have significant issues with people justifying their dumb behavior by saying it's just in their biological nature. Somehow I don't see that argument trotted out for justifying other people's dumb behavior, or that which disadvantages the speaker.
What you have suggested may not be as objectionable as you might think. If genetic engineering could have easily got rid of discriminating behavior then it would have been an acceptable solution, but I'm not sure that is the case.
The elimination of males on the other hand, is. By opposing discrimination I aspire to reach equality, and not another form of discrimination.
Again, agreed.
Mallus said:
I should post those disagreements. Later, though, I've errands to run. Here's a teaser though... is there a meaningful difference between something being androcentric and andronormative (wait, are those even words??).
For what it's worth, Google has 92,000 hits for "androcentric" and only 44 for "andronormative" (one of the first ones being your post!), and Merriam-Webster only recognizes the former. Personally, I'd say there's a subtle distinction but they're close enough for it to not be a meaningful difference.
The thinking capacity of humans is also limited, certainly in the aggregate. We do respond to environmental stimuli, but we also respond to our biological coding. This is one reason why efforts to change group behaviour often fail or have unforseen results.
Perhaps, but whether it's a big reason or not is up for debate. As is the question of how much we respond to biological coding - or how much we should.
As for eliminating the male sex (not by murdering anyone, but by ensuring all embryos develop as female), I'm not sure why you think this violates your notion of equality. A one-sex species will have less inequality than a two-sex species. Since we males commit around ten times as much violent crime as females, there would be other benefits too. I don't personally advocate the attempt, but more because (a) I expect it would fail horribly, due to our limited competence and (b) I think the differences - the inequalities - between men and women are themselves valuable.
Personally, I think the differences between men and women are often overstated and not really inherent to either gender. The differences between individuals are usually much larger and more interesting.
