Revanto:Ho ve. Personan mesaĝon sufiĉus.

I'm not sure that a personal message would be appropriate. Removing the debate from the public arena would mean that it can no longer contribute to wider public perceptions.

That said, in deference to keeping the discussion on topic I'll delete my recent comment (typed while you were replying!) and save it in case Ceigered wishes to continue this discussion in private.

For what it's worth, and not intending to add fuel to the fire, I agree entirely with Alciona and I don't like how she has been steamrolled in this conversation. Rather than saying "sorry" and moving on, it seems like everyone has defended the sexist statement and accused Alciona of making stuff up and overreacting. I'm sorry to say this in public but I'm looking at you, Ceigered. And anyone here who read what Ceigered said and thought to yourself "I agree", then this statement is directed at you as well. I am sure you meant no harm but I found your remarks on this topic deeply offensive, and your lack of awareness of the problem (and it seems, willful refusal to listen when someone tries to let you know about the problem in a nice way) is troubling to me.

There is no stereotype that men are illogical. I do not make jokes about men. And I am also getting tired of being told that I'm making something out of nothing, that things are all equal, that blah blah blah.

Making cracks about militant feminists does not prove your point. Use of an outlying datapoint and claiming it represents the whole world (Iran) doesn't prove your point.

Get a clue, people. If you say something in public about a certain group (women in this case, though it could have been anything - Christians, Asian people, Esperanto speakers) and someone from that group says "Hey, I found that offensive, and here's why", then if you're not a member of that group, the appropriate response is "I'm sorry", not defending the offensive thing you said. Because if you're not a (woman, Christian, Asian person, Esperanto speaker, whatever) you probably don't have a full understanding of the situation, because you don't spend your life in it.

First of all, I want to apologize for having unwillingly offended Alciona, Erinja, and perhaps other persons.

Being a man, I myself feel offended when someone makes serious, not in jest, derogatory statements about women, since women happen to be among my most beloved persons. I am a woman's son and a woman's husband. Please believe me that I didn't intend to be offensive, and that I have a very high appreciation for women in general (those I don't appreciate, I wouldn't appreciate anyway if they were men.)

I agree with Erinja that, if something is perceived as offensive by someone, then it is offensive to that person or group.

However, I disagree with the statement that there is no stereotype about men being illogical. More than once I have heard a woman complain about how difficult it is to understand men. I've heard jokes like: "Why does a man sit with his legs open? So that his brain may not be crushed." and by the way I simply laugh at them, perhaps because they have some grain of truth, even if they are a gross exageration. Aren't jokes like that close to calling us illogical? Aren't they sexist? Or is there some convoluted reasoning to prove that this joke about men is, contrary to what it may seem, an instrument for the domination of women?

Perhaps there is a difference between being illogical and being hard to understand.

We may drop the accusation of being illogical, and replace it with a milder statement of being difficult to understand. The difficulty may be the fault of that who is not understood, or of that who fails to understand, of it may be nobody's fault and just the result of being different.

Believe me, sometimes it is difficult for men to understand women. I am sure for women sometimes it must be difficult to understand men.

Last but not least, would it be too unfair on my part to attempt to plead not guilty about my poor choice of words, based on the fact that I am not writing in my mothertongue?

Regards,

Daniel

Because if you're not a (woman, Christian, Asian person, Esperanto speaker, whatever) you probably don't have a full understanding of the situation, because you don't spend your life in it.

This also applies to men though. And every time WE complain we're told to shut up in the name of feminism. I don't think all points of feminism is bad, and maybe the different communities you're in roll differently to my own, where such comments no matter which sex said it would be taken offensively, unless said in a sarcastic or cruel manner like anything else.

(...)
willful refusal to listen when someone tries to let you know about the problem in a nice way) is troubling to me.
(...)
I am also getting tired of being told that I'm making something out of nothing, that things are all equal, that blah blah blah.
(...)
Because if you're not a ((...) whatever)
(...)
There is no stereotype that men are illogical.

I believe this is exactly what I said to Alciona (replace "men" with "women"), and what caused this to deteriorate so.

Anyway, I originally felt, before getting emotionally involved (I'm a stubborn bastard unfortunately), that, when reading Daniel's comment, there was nothing sexist at all. In fact, if anything, I thought he had originally meant that he didn't want to get in trouble if any woman read his prior comments and felt dehumanised that he had tried to apply logic to women. I'm not sure about you, but I feel that being told that everything I do is logical, predictable, understandable, makes me feel like I'm being called a mere object. I personally am terribly afraid of being just a mere "machine" that does everything according to plan, and perhaps that brings sense to my comments, that I found fear in the idea that one might be offended to be called illogical. It is a question of semantics and what certain words mean to an individual after all.

@ Alciona (bolded because I couldn't spot this part when proofreading), I was going to say this anyway before I read Erinja's post, and indeed I only saw Erinja's post as I was going to post this to you (you know, those "10 last messages in inverse order") . Nonetheless, I apologise for my somewhat hypocritical and angered message. You're someone, like Daniel (whose post I sought to defend without his permission), who has good intentions and a type of person whom I should not lose my (internet )* cool with, and due to a blatant lack of foresight and lack of concentration on what I was writing, have offended. I wished to bandaid the situation, and protect the joke of the accusations so it might not adopt the nature of those same accusations, even if it was originally intended to be what they prescribed.

danielcg:"Why does a man sit with his legs open? So that his brain may not be crashed."

Crushed, my friend, otherwise he'd have to be sitting down at extreme speeds

Finally, I think you're all pretty cool people, and thus do not intend harm nor offence, thus why I post here so much, since I find trustworthy those who are in this online community. You're all much brighter than I feel I could ever get, and so I do feel sometimes convoluted or poorly worded responses like these are all I can stand up with to give my points.

Thanks, I've just corrected it.

Unfortunately the "a" and the "u" are placed too far from each other on the keyboard, to put the blame on a typo. It was just bad English on my part.

Regards,

Daniel

ceigered:

danielcg:"Why does a man sit with his legs open? So that his brain may not be crashed."

Crushed, my friend, otherwise he'd have to be sitting down at extreme speeds

The point is not that some women say derogatory things about men (they do). The point is that no-one should be making derogatory jokes about anyone. It drags us down and perpetuates untrue stereotypes. It's equally bad when it's a woman making a crude joke about a man, as when it's a man making a crude joke about women. And if a woman says that men are so illogical, she is equally as wrong as a man would be if he says women are illogical.

It's one thing to say you have trouble understanding men (women, Esperanto speakers, whatever); this is your personal problem. It's another thing to say "I have trouble understanding [whoever] because they are not logical". That becomes an insult.

Excuse my bad english. Not always both is the same. For example:

utila is useful
malutila is something doing damage or pain
neutila is something not useful

but often they are the same

francisko

UUano:Saluton!

I am currently going through some lessons to get more practice before I jump in and participate more in these fora.

However...I have a question. How do you differentiate between 'ne' and 'mal' when used as prefixes? Why is "invisible" translated as 'ne/vid/ebl/a' rather than 'mal/vid/ebl/a'? Or are both variants allowable? If there is a difference in meaning, what is it?

Thanks for your help!

Adriano

Back on topic... at least to some degree.

I didn't know how to translate "machismo" from Spanish into English, and was susprised to learn, thanks to dictionary.com, that the word is precisely the same in both languages.

In Esperanto, I have seen it translated as "virismo" and it seems correct to me.

I have, however, a problem with "feminism" being translated as "feminismo" in Esperanto (also in Spanish, BTW).

We all know what "machismo" is. Let me state that I consider it something unjust that should not exist.

But, what does exactly "feminism" mean? For what I have seen in practice, it can mean two different (even incompatible) things.

For some people, their aim is to extirpate machismo from society, and I wholeheartedly agree with that purpose.

However, I have also seen people (generally women, but not all women, nor all feminists) who, while calling themselves feminists, in reality just want the same oppressive situation of machismo but with the roles reversed. In Spanish, someone coined the word "hembrismo" to describe this doctrine or feeling ("hembra" - female, is the opposite of "macho" - male), reserving "feminismo" to the doctrine seeking equalness with no sex oppressing the other. The word "hembrismo" is not yet official, but I see it more and more used, and I myself use it when I consider it appropiate.

Could we not use "mal" and "ne" in this context?

"virismo" - the doctrine or feeling that men are superior to women and have more rights than them and even have the right to oppress them.

"nevirismo" - the doctrine or feeling that men are not superior to women, should not have more rights than them and should not oppress them.

"malvirismo" - the doctrine or feeling that women are superior to men, should have more rights than them and should even have the right to oppress them.

Examples:

"virismo": a male manager who refuses to promote a woman who is more capable than a man, just because she is a woman.

"nevirismo": a manager of either sex, who decides the promotion considering the capacity of both men and women without taking into account their sex.

"malvirismo": a female manager who promotes a woman instead of a more capable man, just because the former is a woman.

Of course this compound words are gramatically correct, but the core question is: do you think they could be useful? Or do you think that the distinction between "nevirismo" and "malvirismo" is irrelevant (or even more, that "malvirismo" does not in fact exist)?

Regards,

Daniel

Two things to keep in mind.

1. According to Cambridge online dictionary,

Stereotype = "a fixed idea that people have about what someone or something is like, especially an idea that is wrong"

That means jokes don´t necessarily imply stereotypes. Possibly there is a correlation. Anyway, I think most people know very well the line between fiction and reality.

2. "Logical" is not interchangeable with "understandable".

These distinctions could make the discussion softer, though I´m kind of late.

feliz123:2. "Logical" is not interchangeable with "understandable".

Well, technically now that's playing with semantics, since one often uses logic to understand something, and if something defies logic, then it would defy said understanding. Technically, being understandable and being logically aren't the same, since one can reach an understanding without logic, but in practice the two correlate.