The Online Etylmological Dictionary has an interesting piece on 'man':
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=man

A friendly reminder - this is the English forum, so while you are welcome to post in any language, the beginners will appreciate it if you include an English translation.

I agree that Esperanto was designed somewhat male-centric (using the male version of something as the root) but I don't see this as being discriminatory, since nearly every male root except family members has fallen out of use anyway.

A side comment on warmth-ism and size-ism; it's true that I've never met someone who was "warmth-ist". But in many countries in the world, fat people are discriminated against. Or in some countries, it's the opposite, if you're very thin, you're assumed to be poor and low-class. I would call this "size-ism". In the US, there have been many obvious cases of weight discrimination.

Also height discrimination. Tall people make more money in the US, on average.

So size-ism does indeed exist. Yet no one accuses Esperanto of being size-ist. I guess that anyone who believes that Esperanto is sexist should also believe that Zamehof preferred tall people to short (alta/malalta), and fat people to skinny (dika/maldika) and large to small (granda/malgranda).

erinja:So size-ism does indeed exist. Yet no one accuses Esperanto of being size-ist. I guess that anyone who believes that Esperanto is sexist should also believe that Zamehof preferred tall people to short (alta/malalta), and fat people to skinny (dika/maldika) and large to small (granda/malgranda).

I think that if you look hard enough, and are creative enough, it's possible to find sexism (or practically any other kind of applied term of discrimination) in virtually anything.

I've even heard some so-called "feminists" (of a particularly nut-casey variety) seriously claim that the US space program (or, really, any countries space program) is inherently sexist because rockets have the shape of giant phalluses. Utter nonsense.

In fact, "discrimination" itself seems to have gotten a bad name, whereas, in fact, we discriminate all the time in perfectly appropriate ways. "Discrimination" itself only means to make a distinction between things. ALL nouns discriminate to some extent because they draw a distinction between "X" and "everything except X". Same with adjectives. A phrase like "the green balloon" draws a distinction between the balloon and everything that isn't the balloon, and between the thing that is green and everything else that isn't green. It discriminates between the items. "That thing is a balloon, and that thing is green. That (same) thing is not a fire hydrant, and that (same) thing is not red." It is inherently discriminatory, but in a perfectly normal, obvious, and value-independent way.

What makes something positive or negative isn't its "sexism" (or "heightism", "weightism", "balloonism", or "greenism"), but rather how we interpret those distinctions. Sexism in language isn't a problem with the language itself - it's a problem with what we do with it. Drawing a distinction between male and female isn't inherently a bad thing. Drawing a distinction between tall things and short things isn't either. Denying someone employment simply because they are female (for example), or short, or black, or whatever, IS a bad thing. But the language isn't to blame for that, no matter how it's expressed.

I agree 100% with RiotNrrd.

I don't, or at least not in full. I think you are reading "discrimination" ("treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit") only in its meaning of "identification". The subject is a little more complex.

I agree (on a practical level) that there are differences between things and individuals and that we usually recognize these, sometimes even through simple assertions, as your "green baloon" example shows. But sometimes we don't. With the word "dog", for example, we identify a multitude of extremely different individuals.

I haven't read this thread in full and perhaps I am going to repeat a point that has already been stated. There does seem to be a discrimination (different treatment) between sexes, whereas a suffix is needed to specify femininity, but the same word without that suffix holds both the masculine meaning and the neuter, gender-free meaning. Sake of symmetry would dictate the introduction of a second suffix to explicitly specify masculinity. (*)

It's like the word "dog" meant both the ideal, generic idea of a canine and one and only one specific race. All the other races must be referred to with individual names. Doesn't seem too fair!

However, the same unbalanced distinction between sexes in nouns is present in many other languages (Italian has it), and yet nobody stands up and refuses to use them, or proposes to reform them with the same vehemence that I find for Esperanto.

Personally I think that the status quo is good as it is and there is no real need to change it. More than that though, I reject the idea that Esperanto is sexist any more than other ethnic languages (incidentally, I hear more and more often the word malina, which is a compound word, to mean "male", maybe to counterbalance the perceived unfairness?).

On the other hand, languages evolve and if at one point in time the majority of speakers will agree to introduce a more symmetrical disposition, then I will accept it (if I'm still there, of course ).

* * *

(*) A funny anecdote. I was once presenting Esperanto to a few non-speaking friends and as I mentioned the -in- suffix and its usage, one of them, a girl, stood up and said "Hey! I am *not* a suffix!!!"

I think it is a bit of a problem, and though many other languages have it, it is usually a historical remain, and I think one can see tendencies of it changing. E.g. steward and stewardess is usually called flight attendant now.

And as mnlg says, the in-suffix is not only a distinction, it makes the neutral form the male form, the male words the norm, and in the context of a still quite to very male dominated society (depending on where) I think that is a bit problematic.

Plus that it makes the meaning unclear. If I found a picture of a (human)person or whatever it would not be clear if I meant a person or a man.

It is as with the famous riddle about the doctor:
A father and his child has a car accident and the father dies imediately. The child is rushed to the emergency, and the doctor in charge takes one look at the child, get pale and says:
-I can not operate this child, it is my son!

Almost all who hear it can't figure out how it can be, the father is dead! Because doctor is thought of as a man, even though it is ery common with women now. An viro is connected with a man.

Historically Esperanto could be considered sexist, in the sense that the "default" form was assumed to be male (kuracisto = male doctor, kuracistino = female doctor). But more and more Esperanto speakers are considering those sort of forms to be strictly gender neutral, so that kuracisto = any doctor, kuracistino = doctor (emphasis female), virkuracisto = doctor (emphasis male). I think that's a good thing. This is the way I personally talk.

It's not really possible to do anything about patro/patrino and the other family words without a major overhaul of the language. Yes, it's male-centric. But it's not worth the trouble to change it at this point, and I don't think it's really a big deal. I use those words so much that even though "patrino" = patro + in, I internally think of "patrino" almost like being a completely separate root word. I certainly don't think of it as being "father with a female ending". It's sort of how Esperanto has the word-building system, but eventually the "built" words become stand-alone units in your head. When I see "malsanulejo", I instantly think "hospital", as if it were a separate root; I don't internally parse it out into mal/san/ul/ej/o.

I think I mixed up the words "homo" and "viro" in my post. So if anyone think my argument seems odd that's probalby why...

Dear all,

I'm an Esperantist and have been using the international language for past 16 years.

I also hear about so called "sexism" in Esperanto now and then - most of the grumbles come from who have not learned it or do not use it.

I don't want to discuss about it, nor do I have any interest to put forward my logics. all I can say is that if there is sexism in Esperanto, it is there everywhere in the world - in you, in me.

Razen Manandhar
a journalist from Nepal.

Mendacapote:I agree 100% with RiotNrrd.

Razeno:if there is sexism in Esperanto, it is there everywhere in the world - in you, in me.

Agreed. A language is not sexist. Its usage, or speakers, might be.