Sex, Gender, and Evolution

[Op_Cit]

So this is a rambling about languages...

While writing and debating the use of a feminized (?) word it got me to thinking about the subject: Why did gender become a fundamental part of so many languages?

(Dearth of pronouns in early languages?)

Then, why did the gender elements expand into inanimate objects and other aspects?

And, why did English evolve away from it (gender as fundamental)? (Is it certain Saxon roots?)

Why is it reinvented so often in English? (isn't "Spinster" the female version of "Bachelor"?)

(And what the heck,) why do people keep using the word gender in place of sex?

It seems to me that language would naturally evolve away from gender usage as an unnecessary complication. Much as phonetic written languages represent more technologically successful cultures...

 

[Guest]

So this is a rambling about languages...

Why did gender become a fundamental part of so many languages?

Then, why did the gender elements expand into inanimate objects and other aspects?

And, why did English evolve away from it (gender as fundamental)? (Is it certain Saxon roots?)

Why is it reinvented so often in English? (isn't "Spinster" the female version of "Bachelor"?)

(And what the heck,) why do people keep using the word gender in place of sex?

Not fundamental, but due to patriarchal hierarchy of most society (i.e. Family, tribe, state, etc.).

People, instinctively, tend to percieve inanimate objects as masculine/femenine. Cognitive psychology.

Because Britain got to the industrial Revolution first.

Again, male dominated society.

Some people view sex as dirty (Puritanical cunts).

 

[Op_Cit]

Not fundamental, but due to patriarchal hierarchy of most society (i.e. Family, tribe, state, etc.).

People, instinctively, tend to percieve inanimate objects as masculine/femenine. Cognitive psychology.

Because Britain got to the industrial Revolution first.

Again, male dominated society.

These are standard arguments (and seem to be adhominem), but I don't see the relationship:

Rome, Greece, etc. were male dominated societies as much or more so than England.

Also, I never recall perceiving inanimate objects as masc/fem. (And I do recall well my early impressions of language.) Just what sex is your refrigerator, and how do you tell?

You seem to see merit in maintaining gender for inanimate objects: What is the objective need to classify a refrigerator? And doesn't this open up a whole world of conflict between the sexes?

But more specifically, as best I can tell, a language is simpler without gender, much as a written language becomes simpler & more useful with a phonetic (as opposed to pictographic) base.

 

[Weird Harold]

Rome, Greece, etc. were male dominated societies as much or more so than England.

Also, I never recall perceiving inanimate objects as masc/fem. (And I do recall well my early impressions of language.) Just what sex is your refrigerator, and how do you tell?

I think part of the roots of gender-specific words lie in the hunter/gatherer stage of civilization -- in Men's Mysteries and Women's Mysteries.

Things that fell within the scope of Women's Mysteries were feminine and things that fell within the scope of Men's Mysteries were masculine.

I have no idea why gender bias has remained but the concept of "women's work" or "a man's job" are still solidy entrenched even in modern societies.

 

[elsol]

So this is a rambling about languages...
Why did gender become a fundamental part of so many languages?

Because gender is a fundamentally a part of the way humans understand the world... we're either male or female and the distinctions between the two start as soon as child is born... and no in the womb since we can determine the sex before hand.

Then, why did the gender elements expand into inanimate objects and other aspects?

Try to define something without using your 'known' references and experiences... the french do this by killing 'any' foreign words and coming up with their own. But language develops from what is already there...

Astronaut.... computer... internet...

And, why did English evolve away from it (gender as fundamental)? (Is it certain Saxon roots?)

The moving drivers behind change in language are women and children. As women became a greater part of the social, political, and cultural landscape language evolved with them.

Notice that the 'gender-neutral' movement in place at this time.

As children and women's understanding of the world changes so does their language.

Arguably the greatest female 'freedom' is found in the English speaking countries... the stronger the gender roles are outlined in a culture the less likely the language is to change.

Why is it reinvented so often in English? (isn't "Spinster" the female version of "Bachelor"?)

Because in english BECAUSE of gender neutral words... certain words gain connotations which are avoided if a language has strict gender lines.

For instance... girlfriend SHOULD mean female friend... but does it?

There's a romantic link in the words added by the society at large.

In spanish, that connotation might be more difficult to add to these types of words because the language itself has a built in gender differentiation for each word... amiga and amigo.

It's an attempt to reconstruct perceived biological differences also.

(And what the heck,) why do people keep using the word gender in place of sex?

In common usage these words overlap... but the differentiation between is an attempt to express the following...

The cultural reconscruction of biological differences between the sexes but english lacks/lacked a way to differentiate between cultural and biological differences when talking about 'sex'...

Thus it has been imposed artificially...

Gender for cultural differences between male and female

Sex for biological ones.

It seems to me that language would naturally evolve away from gender usage as an unnecessary complication. Much as phonetic written languages represent more technologically successful cultures...

Language should evolve, but again if women and children are the driving changers of language then their OWN understand of gender roles must come first.

Sincerely,

ElSol

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In some primitive societies you have a masculine world and a feminine world, with strong taboos against one sex transgressing on the other's domain. I imagine that the use of gendered articles came about through something like that: the things that men used were given one sex, the same for the things associated with women.

The idea that men and women are equal (or, even more extreme, fundamentally the same) is very new, maybe only 30 years old or less, and is still considered heretical by a lot of people. It's an idea that's developed in only a few Western, highly-industrialized nations. The majority of the people in the world see the sexes as being fundamentally different and I think that's reflected in the language.

So thinking that it would "make more sense" to do away with gendered articles isn't obvious to those people for whom gender is still a critical quality. You only have to look at the West's resistance to the sexless pronouns that were propsed some years ago to see how hard it is to give up our ideas about gender in language. (Remember 'tey, tem' and all those sexless words? They never caught on at all.)

I don't think there's any evidence that language naturally gets simpler as it evolves. If anything, I think the opposite might be true. It seems to get more idiosyncratic and involved and less rational and consistent. At least, that seems to be true for English.

I do wonder how genders are assigned to new objects though. I imagine that they extrapolate from existing objects, like maybe since the word for 'ice' is feminine it would make sense to give a refrigerator a feminine article.

---dr.M.

 

[elsol]

I do wonder how genders are assigned to new objects though. I imagine that they extrapolate from existing objects, like maybe since the word for 'ice' is feminine it would make sense to give a refrigerator a feminine article.

---dr.M.

Remember that languages with hard gender lines break down into certain pointers...

For instance in spanish words ending in -a are geneally feminene... words ending in consonants and -o are generally masculine.

Thus when you decide the 'new' word most of the work is already done for you.

So when spanish evolved to use the word computadora --- the last -a made it feminene.

Sincerely,

ElSol

 

[Guest]

Rome, Greece, etc. were male dominated societies as much or more so than England.
And of course, it's Roma in Italian.

Also, I never recall perceiving inanimate objects as masc/fem. Just what sex is your refrigerator, and how do you tell?
Red = fem Blue = Masc Kitchen = fem = Fridge

You seem to see merit in maintaining gender for inanimate objects: What is the objective need to classify a refrigerator?

And doesn't this open up a whole world of conflict between the sexes?
Is your vibrator called Bullet, or Jennifer?

Not between you and I.

But more specifically, as best I can tell, a language is simpler without gender, much as a written language becomes simpler & more useful with a phonetic (as opposed to pictographic) base.
Simple is boring. A bit like Math.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

So when spanish evolved to use the word computadora --- the last -a made it feminene.

Sincerely,

ElSol

But why was it "computadora" and not "computadoro"?

 

[Op_Cit]

So thinking that it would "make more sense" to do away with gendered articles isn't obvious to those people for whom gender is still a critical quality. You only have to look at the West's resistance to the sexless pronouns that were propsed some years ago to see how hard it is to give up our ideas about gender in language. (Remember 'tey, tem' and all those sexless words? They never caught on at all.)

Were these to be used in addition to the existing (as in only for inanimate)? Otherwise, the genderless pronoun thing is crazy. Gender pronouns seem to be essential (and logical) for removing gender from other elements of language.

The whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with a chinese friend a few years back about Feng Shui (and related) and the concept of "hot" and "cold" foods: I tried to get him to explain what made something one or the other, because (he told me) all foods fit into one or the other class.

The concept of gender in language makes me wonder if any language ever contained similar forms denoting/applying race.

 

[elsol]

But why was it "computadora" and not "computadoro"?

It would actually be computador...

I would say that it would have to do with 'who' constructed the word initially... most like a male and if the 'male' social structure saw the computer as 'servile' or 'acted upon' then the natural inclination would be to feminize its name.

But the gender roles could be so strong that even a 'female' would impose the perceived biological dominance bias on to a new word.

So robot might be perceived as 'independent' of control which is masculine 'trait'...

I think it has to do with the 'bias' we bring into a new situation.

Sincerely,

ElSol

 

[elsol]

The concept of gender in language makes me wonder if any language ever contained similar forms denoting/applying race.

This is interesting... because black and white have connotations in English that don't exist in Spanish to that degree.

In english... it might be the view of power status of race that imbued those words with that.

A mixed culture like Latin-land which is probably more split along national lines never gained it... thus 'mi negrita' is a term of endearment for a female of color.

I'm buying into the language being twisted to fit perceived status and differences.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[elsol]

Actually here's some good reading...

http://www.ling.upenn.edu/courses/F...uestions and it might not. Sincerely, Elsol

 

[Weird Harold]

But why was it "computadora" and not "computadoro"?

Probably for the same reason Ships are feminine -- they're contrary and moody, etc.

Almost anything that can simulate PMS is feminine.

 

[EnglishMuffin]

 

[haldir]

Hick in the mood

I dont think that modern gender politics can explain these issues as fully as their proponents (of either sex - I thank you) would like.

I suspect that power in early societies resided with the women. I know of several examples where descent was taken matrilinearly, and this makes perfect sense. If the concept of inherited power is important then the only way to guarantee continuity is through the female line. This was certainly true of celtic tribal structures. Cheifs were essentaily chosen but it was the female bloodline that was important.

That said - i think urbanisation, nationhood and the consequent need for military defensive strategies is what screwed the word.

 

[Guest]

I don't know about the origins of other languages but in Old English gender identifications were not gender or sex-based as we know them; gender was grammatical, not biological or conceptual (Modern English has what is called natural gender).

Grammatical male, female or neuter designation was given to objects or even to things we would now assign gender. "Neuter" did not mean a castrated male pronoun or adjective. We really must remember that the originators of our language did not think of sex, gender, etc. the way we do.

I don't think a relationship has ever been established between nouns and their gendered modifiers in OE. I do wonder if they were simply taken up from the foreign languages that became part of English.

I love this subject, nearly anything to do with the study of English. Perhaps I'll ask more learned friends and come back here.

Perdita