Job Discussion Forums

[elamericano]

[MO39]

I guess I still find it strange and unwieldy - how are earth are you supposed to pronounce these words on posters and graffiti? Does it reflect a lessening of machismo attitudes in Spain?

[elamericano]

[MO39]

[rusmeister]

[johnslat]

Dear rusmeister,
I have sex fairly often (for a gezzer, that is) but I have this gender of mine 24 hours a day (unless I have a gender change operation, that is.)
Regards,
John

[soapdodger]

I have heard of one EFL student who after being taught by a gender fanatic tried to send a letter to Personchester!

[rusmeister]

[Justin Trullinger]

Another way to think about this is that, unless you're unusual, sex is a biological constant. (Meaning that I am a man, all the time, by an accident of birth which blessed me with certain organs and the hormones that go with them. And that men, through history, have had the same hormones, the same organs, and the same biological role in sexual/reproductive acts. At least as far as I know. )

But throughout that same history, what constitutes "masculine" behaviour has changed a lot. According to my grandfather, and many of his generation, long hair is exclusively feminine. But few of us doubt that Antonio Banderas is biologically male; like me, and many of you reading this. I'm an excellent cook; here in Ecuador, that is "feminine" behaviour according to many.

Grammatical gender, as those of us who speak latin languages well can't help knowing, has nothing to do with either biological sex or social gender. Virtually all Spanish nouns are gendered, yet few have either the hormones or organs associated with biological sex or the behaviors associated with gender. The table (la mesa) is feminine. The language (el idioma) is masculine, in spite of the "a" ending. In the slang of Spain "la polla," a course term for the male organ is in fact gramatically feminine, while "co�o," an equally course term for the female counterpart, is masculine.

Changing sexist attitudes is hard work anywhere. But we should understand that a gendered language isn't inherently any more sexist than any other.

Slds,
justin


PS- I knew a (not very professional) teacher who taught students that residents of Manchest were extremely hairy, and that the origin of the name was taken from this characteristic. He convinced them to use the "original" spelling, "Man-Chest-Hair."

[arioch36]

[elamericano]

[rusmeister]

Hi, elamericano!

My first thought is that there seems to be an implication in your use of the word �now� � what is popular at the moment � as being superior or more correct than more traditional views. This is my point about dogma. If you have a dogma that says that gender ought to be something the individual determines for themselves rather than be something out of their control (the words should and ought always bring one dangerously close to some form of theism) than that is merely your dogmatic stand. The fact that there is a fashion or attitude that is popular at the moment does not make it superior or right, as you would quickly agree about fashions of preceding generations.

You express a concern of having well-informed students, which is, on the whole, a good thing. But your dogma seems to imply not only teaching that such things exist, but to accept the moral feasibility of it. This is where, in some countries, you will run afoul of dogmas that differ with yours. You may, for example, see nothing wrong with naming a toy after a popular children�s name. But if the prevailing ideology believes that it is the name of God, or even simply that it is insulting to name animals or toys after children, you could find yourself in trouble. The teacher�s worldview towards a given phenomenon or moral attitude towards it can set them against the people who hired them. The very problem in coming from our pluralistic society (speaking to western native speakers of English) is that beliefs are purely a personal matter and do not reflect cosmic truth, as I said. This naturally brings us (or those of us that accept pluralism) into conflict with societies that don�t. The reverse situation � that of a person from one of those countries coming to the states presents the same problem in reverse. If they, for instance, don�t accept sex changes as a matter of individual choice, but an abomination before God or their faith, then they will hardly embrace district policies ordering them to tolerate it and provide a safe haven for people who wish to promote such things. Under SB 777 in California, teachers will, by law, have to teach the moral validity of �non-traditional families�, which conflicts with worldviews that reject them. Such teachers there would ultimately lose their jobs. You�d be lucky, in trying to teach your students about modern western values, to not find yourself afoul of the local justice system, be it Sharia or whatever.

Another thought � in thinking of language, and assumptions we take for granted without thinking about them, The word modern, from the Latin �moda�, comes from a meaning which is synonymous with �temporary�. But modern usage carries a hidden and arrogant assumption that that which is modern is superior, or better, as I indicated above. It�s not easy to dig into our own language, distinguish between what is imposed by prevailing beliefs and consciously decide what we really believe to be true. The special problem of the western ESL teacher is that he takes so many assumptions for granted as true and the superiority of his own culture when it comes to this question of cosmic philosophy (�What is truth?�), while embracing multiculturalism in all else, and then lives out or expresses that philosophy in a foreign environment, out of the noblest intentions (informing students, for example), thus risking ideological conflict. For his is just as much of a dogma as those that he condemns.

One side note, for Arioch. Agreed that historically, language changes are organic. A problem of our time is that global media and organized public schools can quickly and artificially change language within the space of a generation, so that children say black and mean white and vice-versa, and grandchildren wind up believing the opposite of what their grandparents believed. This is not natural. It is artificial and guided by the life philosophy of those in control, and the philosophy they want everyone else to hold.

[arioch36]

Rusmeister

[Stephen Jones]

[SueH]