I think that the most important thing when talking with others is simply to respect their wishes as to the terms used to refer to them.

I've known unmarried women who preferred to be referred to as "Ms.", and I've known others who preferred to be referred to as "Miss". One might be considered sexist while the other might be considered neutral, but it's important to keep in mind that some people are OK with some sexism in language, and indeed even prefer it in some cases.

While "aviatrix" has fallen into disuse, I'm betting that there is at least one female aviator out there who would prefer "aviatrix". If I ran across her, used the term "aviator", and was informed that she preferred "aviatrix", then rather than lecturing her about sexism-in-language, from then on I would instead simply use the word she preferred when referring to her. To me, that's just being polite.

The problem with reforming a language to remove sexism across the board is that you may be reforming it in a way that offends (to some extent) other people who don't quite see things the same way you do. And I'm not talking about people who want to use sexist language to talk about others - I'm talking about people who prefer certain terms when they themselves are being talked to or about.

The problem isn't sexism in language. The problem is (I think)
----1. People who get offended a bit too easily when perfectly acceptable language that just happens to draw a distinction between the sexes is used, when no offense was intended.
----2. People who continue to use sexist language to someone after being informed that that someone doesn't like it when being referred to in that fashion.

Both situations indicate a lack of good manners.

I have no problem using the word sekretariino. I also have no problem switching to sekretario when informed that someone prefers to be called by that word instead. What I won't do is insist that the word "sekretariino" just no longer exists, because some people might actually prefer to be called by that term. Respecting others wishes about how they themselves are referred to is, I think, more important than whether or not a word contains an -ino suffix.

Hi RiotNrrd,

You make some good points, but the examples you give are also pretty benign. Being polite is one thing, but what happens when the consequences extent beyond the two people in a conversation? Please allow me to give you a real life situation.

Though I am a pilot, I make a living as an aviation maintenance technician. While working the overnight shift at an airport in southern California, an MD-80 registered to a third world country landed with mechanical problems. The flight crew was eager to get the problem fixed so that they could fly the return leg. As soon as they discovered that the mechanic who would fix the problem was a woman, they suddenly changed their minds. In their country, women could be flight attendants or nurses or school teachers or secretaries, but they can't be pilots or mechanics.

So the airplane sat there on the ramp for an additional two hours, with a hundred people waiting to board, insisting that a male mechanic be found, even if we had to truck him in from another airport, until their boss called to tell the to bite the bullet and let the lady fix the damn airplane.

Of all the Ninety-nines I have met, the only one who use the word Aviatrix are the older women for whom the word was still in vogue when they got their licenses.

The reason I make this point is this: When anybody thinks of the word pilot or doctor or mechanic, they think of a man. When the think the word nurse, secretary or grade school teacher they think of a woman. This isn't entirely our fault, as the vast majority of pilots, mechanics and doctors are still men.

When you use the word aviatrix, it separates the object associated with that word from the standard aviator. It makes us different. And different generally "non-standard" means "sub-standard."

We are marginally better in the U.S., where the sight of a female mechanic or pilot will only give us pause, than in the third world country of the above mentioned pilots who mental picture of male mechanics was inviolate. Aren't you glad you weren't one of those 100 passengers waiting for a male mechanic?

I won't even go into the sexism of cultures where woman are murdered by their families because they brought disgrace upon them by being raped.

So, to your points, I won't insist that people change their vocabulary in order to bring about a less sexist environment, only that they consider the consequences.

waxle:I did assume you were promoting Riismo (or at least a part thereof) from your first post. I am sorry for making that incorrect assumption and using words with undue strength. I hope I did not offend you.

I don't, however, understand what you mean when you are upset by sexist career names. You would be understood by many if you were to say "sekretario" or any other such un-suffixed noun. To those who do not understand, you could say "Sekretario, vira sekretariino? Ne estas virina..." and they would understand that you dropped the -in- to make it a more neutral word.

An easy mistake to make, Waxie. My skin is thicker than that.

Please see my response to RiotNrrd for the reasons behind my antipathy to feminized profestional titles.

You make some good points as well. Certainly the situation you describe concerning the airline mechanic is a good example of where a gender distinction doesn't really do anyone any good.

But I think that it is a complex issue, and that there are cases where making a distinction makes sense and others where it doesn't. I don't know that it can be a black-and-white issue.

For example, you mention that when we hear "doctor", we think "male" and when we hear "nurse" we think "female". This is less true nowadays than it used to be, but I agree that to some (possibly great) degree it is still the case.

In an emergency situation, it shouldn't matter whether the doctor is male or female, of course - the important thing is whether or not they have the skills to address the situation, and that has nothing to do with gender differences. However, in less threating situations (for example, getting a physical exam), the comfort of the patient may indeed be impacted by whether or not the doctor is a man or a woman, regardless of the skills of the doctor, and in such situations the comfort of the patient should be respected. In that case, using "doktoro" or "doktorino" may in fact be very appropriate - forcing someone to be examined by a man when being examined by a man makes them very uncomfortable, just because we're trying to make our culture less sexist, is not (in my opinion) a step forward. Yes, we could always use the gender-neutral term, but then that would require making adjustments in other areas. For example, making the gender of the doctor a mystery clear up to the point that the patient realizes that that doctor isn't the one they want, or asking them ahead of time to specify a gender preference. Both situations are alleviated, in this situation, by using a term which does draw a distinction. It might mean one doctor is chosen over another purely because of their gender and for no other reason, but it also means the patient will be more comfortable as a result. Which is more important?

Then there's the case of the mechanic you relate. I do agree that they were being idiots for insisting on a male mechanic and thus severely interrupting the airline service. On the other hand, who am I to pass judgement on the norms of other cultures when my own culture itself fails in so many ways?

Obviously I do not know the specifics of the story beyond what you told me. However, I do know that the cultural or religious beliefs of other peoples generally ought to be respected, even if we think that their beliefs are stupid, obstructive, and\or counterproductive. (Note that I am not talking about situations in which we should respect beliefs that can result in violence to people, or other violations of what we would consider basic human rights - the example you give of a woman being murdered because she disgraced her family by being raped is entirely unsupportable without question).

If using a female mechanic to fix an airplane basically freaks out the airplane crew due to their gender-oriented beliefs, well... personally, as a passenger, I'd rather have the crew feel confident that the airplane is in working order than have them wondering if the wings are about to fall off because a woman fixed their plane - regardless of how good a job she might have done. Forcing them to use a mechanic they have no confidence in is to require them to accept our beliefs in opposition to their own, which is quite disrespectful (even if their beliefs seem ridiculous to us). Yes, *I* think it's silly, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to be a passenger stuck in the boarding area for hours while a male mechanic was being found even though a female mechanic was on hand - but that's because my beliefs are in line with gender not making a difference in this situation. I have to remind myself that my beliefs aren't necessarily universal ones, and that I have about as much right to impose my views on others as they have the right to impose theirs on me.

I'm not really arguing with you here, as I see your point and for the most part agree with it. I guess all I'm saying is that I don't think it can be black-and-white, that sometimes it makes sense to make a distinction and sometimes it doesn't, and that there is certainly a grey area where whether one should do one or the other is not always clear-cut.

Hi RiotNrrd,

You are right, few things are black and white. There are times when I want people to know my gender, which is why I stuck the -ino onto my nom-de-askii. Gender is very much a social construct, and when it comes to social situations, I want people to relate to me as a woman, not some genderless entity.

But this does not extend to professions.

Your arguments remind me of the arguments used to exclude racial minorities from mixing in the armed forces. It was argued that fighting along side a black man would make the troops uncomfortable, and the last thing we want is for the defenders of our freedom to be uncomfortable. "The military is no place for social experimentation!" it was claimed.

The exact same argument was used against women and homosexuals fighting in the military.

Am I the only one here who believes that the military is better off for the presence of a diverse fighting force? Or are people still convinced that only white heterosexual males should be defending our freedom? (I do not want to get into a debate at this point about the current role of the US forces as an occupation force in a questionable campaign. We can beat each other up on that point in another forum.)

As to the female phobic flight crew -- they made a choice to fly into US airspace and land at a US airport. Who should be respecting who's culture here? The old saying goes, "When in Rome ..." but they were in southern California.

The old saying goes, "When in Rome ..." but they were in southern California.

lol. You know, I was actually going to use that exact same point in my last post, but the post was getting too long as it was. I agree with you 100%, in that the flight crew themselves should have accepted the consequences of flying into the US and that that might mean having female mechanics work on their plane.

I don't know that the "gays or blacks in the military" example is really the same as the "male or female doctor giving a physical exam" example that I gave. In the military scenario we are talking about a group of people who are professional soldiers and whose job is to do what they're told. In the doctor scenario we are talking about the comfort of an individual civilian undergoing a rather personal procedure. In this particular case I think it's apples and oranges.

I don't think we can say that in every case gender distinctions should not extend to professions. I agree that generally it shouldn't, but there are times when it should - it is entirely dependent on the situation. Sometimes in the professional world gender does matter, even if most of the time it doesn't. If I am a movie director attempting to cast a role, whether I need an actor or an actress for a particular part is, in fact, quite important (the original Shakespearean-times habit of casting ALL roles with males notwithstanding). But does it matter if the local bank president is a man or a woman? No, it doesn't.

Anyway, like I said, I generally do agree with what you are saying, and am just trying to point out that even in the professional world it is still not completely black and white, nor should it necessarily ever be. Depends entirely on the situation.

I thought of another perspective on this subject. I think that it would be unsafe for a business to use Esperanto as its common language without the "iĉ" suffix. It would open the business to accusations of sexism in the workplace and possible lawsuits. Whether one feels that the lack of such a suffix is sexist or not, I don't think that a business can reasonably take that risk. The potential costs (to both finances and reputation) could be massive.

I hope to create a company in the future, and if it becomes international, I would certainly love to make the common company language Esperanto, but I don't want some disgruntled employee being able to take everything down because of a simple, easily fixed thing like "iĉ"

jean-luc:If it is unsafe to use Esperanto due to is so-called "sexism", do you think that people creating spanish/italian/french/other international companies are unsane ?

No, I don't think that that would be unsafe, because those are natural languages. One can not reasonably make a case against a company, saying that a certain natural language is sexist. However, I'm certain that one can make such a case about a planned language in court.

If someone doesn't like the fact that a group of males and females is treated like a group of males in French (eg. ils), and complains "This is sexist. This should be changed," and tries to bring a lawsuit based on it, they will just get laughed at. Say the same thing about Esperanto and the lack of "iĉ," and a significant number of people will agree. If one of those people is a judge...

Whether Esperanto is actually sexist or not is not even the issue in this situation. The issue is that it can reasonably be perceived as such and doesn't have the excuses (hundreds or thousands of years of history and linguistic evolution) that natural languages have.

alexankd:I thought of another perspective on this subject. I think that it would be unsafe for a business to use Esperanto as its common language without the "iĉ" suffix. It would open the business to accusations of sexism in the workplace and possible lawsuits. Whether one feels that the lack of such a suffix is sexist or not, I don't think that a business can reasonably take that risk. The potential costs (to both finances and reputation) could be massive.

I think this idea is more than a little silly. By the same token, Spanish/Italian/etc could remove the gender from their languages to remove lawsuits. Because even "natural" languages changes with time, and just as we now commonly use "police officer" rather than "policeman", shouldn't Spanish and Italian do the same things to avoid lawsuits? I find the idea that someone would sue an Esperanto company for not using -iĉ- to be completely ridiculous.

Furthermore, it's not like Esperanto has a female suffix but lacks a male indicator - we have the perfectly serviceable prefix vir-. Unless you are suggesting someone would sue the company under the idea "prefixes are inherently superior to suffixes"? And if this is in fact the case, why should you bring men "down" to the level of women? Why not create a female prefix fem- so that both can be at a "high" level?

I'm sure you can see that this idea is ridiculous. Actually I find it hard to believe I'm even having this conversation.

Hello! I don't think this is an issue, because I think the strength of Esperanto is the ease of forming words from root words with affixes. For example, one only has to learn "varma", and immediately form "malvarma", while in most other languages, one has to learn two unrelated words. Does this mean that Esperanto is "warmth-ist"? Zamenhof chose "granda" as the basis for "malgranda", does this mean Esperanto is "size-ist"? Again, I think choosing one over another is a necessity for the formation of opposites which really simplified Esperanto vocabulary and I think is one of the strengths of Esperanto.