Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed

6 Comments

• by Dev

  23 Apr 2009 at 12:29

  

  May, do you object to all use of nouns as modifiers? For instance, do you object to phrases like the following?

  building standards
  business meeting
  dress code
  grocery store
  relationship strategies
  toenail clippings

  If not, why does it disturb you so much when “man” and “woman” are used as modifiers? Are those nouns special to you in a way that building, business, dress, grocery, relationship, and toenail are not? And if those types of phrases do bother you, why do you object to this extremely commonplace bit of ordinary English grammar?

• by subversive_sub

  23 Apr 2009 at 13:17

  

  Can’t tell if there’s snark there or not, but…assuming you’re serious, I think May isn’t talking about grammar annoyances but is commenting on the sexism/heterosexism of terms like “man crush,” which assumes the normal state of things to be that men do not get crushes on (i.e. are not attracted to) each other; similarly, “woman dentist” perpetuates the idea that “dentist” without modifiers = “male dentist.”

  Trying to think of any case in which adding “man” or “woman” (or “male/female”) as a modifier wouldn’t be sexist or heterosexist, but failing. I think it’s just the nature of the thing — any time you specify that this is a “man” thing or “woman” thing, you’re assuming that the thing itself is inherently male or female, and that a modifier is necessary to show that in *this* case, you’re talking about a different version of that thing. Like “man purse” — because purses are for *women*. I mean, even “women’s” clothes and “men’s” clothes are really so subjective…our culture does a lot to reinforce the idea that women and men have totally separate interests, needs, and desires, and I think the point is that using language like this just helps to support that notion.

  …er…my rambling $.02…

• by Dev

  23 Apr 2009 at 15:01

  

  I don’t disagree, but I hate when people frame their philosophical arguments as though they are making a point about grammar, especially when the alleged grammar point is simply wrong. The fact that “man/woman are not adjectives” has nothing to do with the sexism argument or with why “woman dentist” is annoying. There is nothing grammatically wrong about “woman dentist” or “man crush” or “lady doctor.”

• by maymay

  23 Apr 2009 at 17:08

  

  @Dev:

  There is nothing grammatically wrong about “woman dentist” or “man crush” or “lady doctor.”

  And if I were having a conversation about grammar, I would agree with you, but I was having a conversation about gendered language, so I don’t. :) Failing to see a broader context in any conversation is the same as not seeing the forest for the trees.

• by Dev

  23 Apr 2009 at 20:37

  

  Then, seriously, why did you mention the fact that “man” and “woman” are not adjectives? Was it just a slip? It implies something false (that you think it’s not grammatical to modify a noun with another noun) and doesn’t add to your point.

• by maymay

  24 Apr 2009 at 07:03

  

  @Dev: You’re certainly pedantically correct. For my point, see my explanation:

  I was having a conversation about gendered language[…]. :) Failing to see a broader context in any conversation is the same as not seeing the forest for the trees.

Comments are closed.