[split] Names, pronouns, articles... and gender

[redchild]

I think I could take that question a couple of ways such as: a) that the males and females of a land who do not use gender-specific pronouns in their language possibly have a more equal footing with each other; two-way admiration and respect etc within society in general or b) the addition of a gender-specific pronoun, say in text, creates a firm distinction between the genders and the response to any gender-specific pronoun (I guess) depends on that society's viewpoint of each gender and such things as gender equality/inequality etc, not to mention personal experience with any given gender?

Interesting that you mention social distinctions in terms of relationships and social equality/inequality. Social expectations can definitely affect the way people use language. An anthropological view can also supplement this. Perhaps the existence and use of gender-specific pronouns can denote a sort of class or work division between men and women, so that areas with gender-neutral pronouns can imply that the culture of the language spoken generally has gender-neutral ideas of delegating work between the sexes. When work is just considered "work" and not "men's" or "women's work," will it alter the way the language is used to indicate sex?

I came across an interesting article on the Mbuti people as an egalitarian society with a gender-inclusive culture and language. An interesting contrast with western society.

Not having any real knowledge of other languages outside of English, I feel at a real disadvantage with such topics, especially as the English language has no singular form of a gender-neutral pronoun (that I am aware of?)! You could say "Give that to its owner" but you'd be talking about an animal or thing, not a human. It's no problem in the plural form with 'their' or 'they' or 'them'...

Yeah it is more difficult to keep a conversation gender neutral in English. It is possible, but I suppose the difficulty lies in choosing the appropriate words to avoid offense or awkwardness, as well as a deeply ingrained habit of indicating whether somebody is a he or she.

I suppose that when specifically talking about an individual, you are expected to know the person's sex? Maybe this is a general aspect of individualistic societies vs collectivist, who are more likely to address an individual as a unit?

Some languages are gender neutral when spoken, but are specific when written. In Chinese, the same pronunciation is used to indicate "he," "she," "it," or "they" (with the indication that it is a group.) You wouldn't necessarily know whether the person being spoken about is male or female unless clarified. In writing, however, you would use the male or female radical and you would use the male-variant to describe a mixed group.

Oh, what about "All men are created equal"? That's an example that no doubt had many Amercian women gnashing their teeth for a good many years, though it could be said that it was first stated that way as women were truly not considered to be equal to men at that stage (??)...that it was only that all men were created equal in comparison to other men? I'm not sure, I'd have to look it up!

I've always took that to mean equality in legal matters. At the time men pretty much dominated representation in law and politics, so I supposed the line meant that.

Should the Declaration be written in an environment where women were more or less equally represented, or, in the case of today's western society, not equally represented but enough to have to be considered, then I suppose it would be changed to say "persons" or "citizens" or some other gender-neutral word. And seeing as people are more aware of sexual identities outside of just man/woman, it probably wouldn't say "men and women."

Sorry, I think I've gone off track...if I was ever on it!! It doesn't help that I am procrastinating BADLY on a big job I have to complete, despite it now being 4:30am!!

Somehow I get the feeling that your idea of "procrastinating" wildly differs from mine