~ archived since 2018 ~
Popular
Other
Topper2676
[removed]
[–][deleted]52 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Even the definition of sexism is sexist.
[–]ItalianRobot15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The irony
[–]unexpecteditem2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
This is true, and is because the consensus amongst the community of speakers of the language is sexist against men, on our view at least.
[–]unexpecteditem46 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Dictionaries reflect how words are used, not how they ought to be used.
[–]Danny_Plainview20 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Which is very unfortunate.. society thinks words ought to be used by how they're defined but most definitions are a reflection of society's hypocritically biased nature.
[–]dbe10 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
society thinks words ought to be used by how they're defined
Well yeah. But the dictionary isn't the boss of how words are defined. They play catch-up with the changing way words are used.
[–]Danny_Plainview3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
'They play catch-up with the changing way words are used.'
The definition of a word can change with the times depending on what context it's used in and whom it's used by for a certain period of time until the meaning of the word changes; that in itself is a double edged sword. So in reality, a definition of a word is dictated by whomever in society it's used by the most, which leaves any word open to biased interpretation and a eventually a biased definition.
[–]DavidNatan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Can't words be defined logically as well as semantically? I mean it's a term in sociology if nothing else. It can't be open to infinite interpretation.
[–]unexpecteditem1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
What's the difference between the logical and the semantic meaning of a word?
logos: word
semantics: meaning
[–]Pecanpig1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It seems ironic how my 1941 dictionary is more "modern" than the concise dictionaries you get today for 20$.
[–]Deracination2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How so?
All the definitions actually line up with a words current use.
I'll pull the description of "discrimination" in a while.
EDIT: It could be due to the fact that this is a 1900 page book that just has WAY more room in it than those stupid "concise" dictionaries used by everyone born after 1970.
Indeed. Words are tortured under the pressure to twist meaning.
But dictionaries had to decide whether to speak from on high with authority or merely describe use. They uniformly chose the latter.
To really know words is to become adept at their use.
[–]Danny_Plainview2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
'To really know words is to become adept at their use.'
Unfortunately, I think today's society isn't very adept at how to use those words correctly. The definition of a word is dictated by how it's used and misused over a certain period of time.
People need to preserve the integrity of a language while still being flexible when it comes to unbiased change to it's vocabulary.
A definition of a word is ultimately determined over time by the context it's used in today's society, which is a double edged sword. That leaves any word open to a possible biased interpretation and eventually a biased definition.
It's as if a group of people make a hammer for banging in nails. Then someone else comes along and says, "You shouldn't be using that for banging in nails. You should be using it for killing cockroaches."
[–]unexpecteditem0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
No. I really think you're very mixed up here.
today's society isn't very adept at how to use those words correctly.
By "society" I take it you mean the community of speakers of the language. You then introduce the notion of correctness of use as if it were something apart from the actual use to which this community just does put words. But who would be the arbiter of the correctness of use then? God? If not god, who?
[–]Danny_Plainview1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Mixed up? I don't think so.
Yes, by "society" I clearly meant the speakers of the language. If the people of that society didn't speak the language then it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and change or misuse any of the words...
I didn't once mention or imply a higher power determined how a word should be used, I don't know where you got that from. Words do have an correct definition (the original definition by which the word was intended to be used)
Sometimes society, or "the speakers of that language", through the years modify the original definition of a word to fit a certain context during a specific time period (general slang, new political and social terms, unusual procreative terms, etc...)
When the meaning of a word is adjusted to fit that time period for a certain reason, the definition may sometimes turns out biased depending on how it's being used, who it's being used by and how many like minded people use it in that way.
Sorry Danny,
Words do have an correct definition (the original definition by which the word was intended to be used)
Still mixed up and getting worse. Who states the original definition? Your use of the passive voice cloaks this agency in darkness.
best, UI
Where is your rabid opposition coming from? You're disagreeing with me on the grounds that you think words just appear out of thin air? Your argument is without basis, your pretentiousness attitude is ridiculous and it shows the demeanor of an unintelligent person.
As far as who comes up with the definition, ultimately we do. It's clearly obvious that the people determine how we define the words we use but some of those definitions become modified to serve a biased purpose, which negatively affects the meaning of that word over time. When I stated the correct definition of a word, I clearly meant an objective definition that is proper for the word.
Linguists also try to discover how some words we use today came to be over the years by using Greek and Latin roots and also root words from other languages, like Germanic, to see where the meaning of specific words might have originated. That's another way words get their definition.
I'm sorry, you've mistaken your arrogance for intelligence...
Take care.
Thanks Danny, You write:
It's clearly obvious that the people determine how we define the words..
You offer this in answer to the question "Who states the original definition?"
The problem is that the word won't have any meaning until people use it. According to you, however:
I'm still waiting to be told who these original defining group are?
You appear to believe that going back to greek and latin roots can give us an authoritative definition of the current meaning of a word, but precisely because words change in meaning, which you happily acknowledge, the study of the origins of a word cannot tell us what it means now. The meaning of a word is not its etymology.
Best Wishes, Unexpected
When I stated the correct definition of a word, I clearly meant an objective definition that is proper for the word.
Except in cases of onomatopoeia, in what sense is the meaning of a word proper to it?
[–]RubixCubeDonut1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Maybe they can be but that doesn't mean that the people writing the definitions aren't adding their own biases (whether intentional or not.) In other words, dictionaries reflect how its writers believe the words are used.
For example, it could be that "typical" people who use the word "sexism" aren't trying to point out sexism against women specifically but rather just believe there isn't any against men. If that's how most people are using it, the definition given is mixing together how these people are using it and their beliefs.
Perhaps in this case it could be a relatively small number of people that believe sexism can only happen to women and that small group is being conflated with a larger majority who only believe that it only happens to women. If that's the case, it'd make more sense to replace the "typically" with a "sometimes", IE:
Sexism: Prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination on the basis of sex, sometimes specifically to women.
The writers of this dictionary are supporting us by describing a world in which the word sexism is more often used to describe prejudice against women than against men, that is, prejudice against men goes unremarked.
This is a point in our favor. We can say, "look at how the word sexism is used. All this discrimination against men and not a dicky bird. No one calls it sexism. See, here, this dictionary agrees with us."
[–]PoopInMyHand17 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Racism has predominantly been use against African Americans in the US but that doesn't affect the actual definition of the word.
[–]Southpaw_xi8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Racism is defined as the belief that one race is better than another.
Now it's just used as a slur.
[–]Deracination4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It's also been used against nearly every race to a great degree. Sexism towards woman was and is very much more common than sexism against men.
For a long time it was thought that only whites could be racist and the word was used exclusively to refer to whites. This did affect the meaning of the word in just the same way as the meaning of the word "sexism" has been affected.
In both cases the dictionaries reflect how the word is used.
[–]Cardplay3r15 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
I honestly don't have a quarrel with that definition. It says typically against women, not exclusively against women.
Even if you think this is not the case in the US&Canda (on which I couldn't pronounce), it is certainly true for the world as a whole.
[–]Amunium7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Also, it doesn't even say women are more typically discriminated against, it just says that's where the word is typically used.
This is the key point. Thank you for putting it so clearly.
[–]Collective8213 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Wow I checked dictionary.com and Webster.com, both had it listed as against women.
[–]AphidEater_57 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
The key phrases here are "such as" and "typically".
[–]EvilsSufferable2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
It is typically used against women. This isn't to say that men can't be victims of it and be affected by it, though. It may not be exclusive to women, but females sure as hell get it more often. That, and the dictionary gives the definition of how words are used by our society and what we take them to mean, not what we think they should. Typically, sexism is used to mean discrimination against women and not discrimination of women. Yes, sexism happens against men. But what is worse here: sexism against men, or a word in one or two dictionaries? Here is my solution: Point out to more people that men can be victims of sexism and, as a result, over time the term (and minds) will change and the dictionary will be remiss not to change with the times and the modifier "typically against women" will be dropped.
There is no need to hi-jack this term as it in no way hurts men to keep it around. This is needless, directionless complaining. No one reads the dictionary and has their views influenced. No one read the definition in the OP and said: "Well, now I know only sexism happens against women 100% of the time!" This is like a woman complaining because her Covergirl Covermatch doesn't quite match, so it is discrimination.
Very well put.
[–]thinking_loudly2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
How meta...
[–]Crimson_D820 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link
Is it letter writing campaign time yet?
© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.created by /u/dream-hunter
[–][deleted]52 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]ItalianRobot15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem46 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Danny_Plainview20 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]dbe10 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Danny_Plainview3 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]DavidNatan2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deracination2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Pecanpig1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Danny_Plainview2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Danny_Plainview1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Danny_Plainview1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem0 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]RubixCubeDonut1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]PoopInMyHand17 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Southpaw_xi8 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Deracination4 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Cardplay3r15 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Amunium7 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Collective8213 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]AphidEater_57 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]EvilsSufferable2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]unexpecteditem1 point [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]thinking_loudly2 points [recovered] | Copy Link
[–]Crimson_D820 points [recovered] | Copy Link