- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 656 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply[ Reply ]
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 67353
IF ONLY THERE WAS A SUFFIX THAT HAS EXISTED FOR CENTURIES THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO A JOB THAT DENOTED A PERSON DOING THAT JOB THAT ALWAYS HAD BEEN GENDERLESS IN THAT CONTEXT. I GUESS MANKIND AND PATICULARLY ENGLISHMEN HAVE FAILED.
|>>|| No. 67354
Just think, 20 years ago the idea of a postperson knocking on your door would be the subject of a cyber-punk thriller.
|>>|| No. 67355
It does vex me that people don't seem to know this - I understand language changes over time and if enough people think the suffix means male then it does - but this feels like the tail wagging the dog far more than most linguistic evolutions.
Are there any other examples of people seeking out a perceived 'problem' with a language and essentially changing the meaning of it by campaigning against their incorrect parsing of it? It's sort of fascinating.
|>>|| No. 67358
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think part of the point, for fisherpeople, is that you two are wrong and the very fact that the suffix -men or -man occupy the default is proof of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and its tendrils wrapping around the core of civilisation since the dawn of recorded history.
their brains are full of worms of course, and this is why they have such difficulty with non-english languages that have both gendered and genderless pronouns for both objects and people. They can never decide if the speaker should chose which gender to use or if the target determines it, which just causes another headache entirely if you start thinking about how trans or non-binary people fit into the equation.
It's like when you put clothes on a dog and it just spazzes out because it has no clue what's going on.
|>>|| No. 67363
I will correct you.
Men meant human for a thousand years meaning male is much newer. The organinal word being weremen were being a prefix for male like wo for female. Weremen became shortened over time. So the idea it is whale poacheric is entirely inaccurate since the applying to humanity usage is older.
|>>|| No. 67364
That poorly spelled logic doesn't apply in this context as jobs are actually gendered. You're trying to apply a Tumblr screenshot somewhere it doesn't fit. No such thing as a male washerwoman.
|>>|| No. 67365
I suppose changing language to be more inclusive is never a bad thing, even if what you're changing isn't actually what you think it means - it doesn't particularly matter if "man" really means human if the majority of people think policeman means male police officer, and I would assume that the majority do interpret it that way.
This is, and always has been, how language works, and language really does affect the way people think, so I don't suppose I have much of an objection to changing the lexicon to further our goals as a society. As much as that might sound to some like newspeak or authoritarian control, language has been changed on society's whim for as long as language has existed, I don't think it is as insidious as some believe.
On the other hand, I also don't think there being "man" in the word policeman is even a fraction of a percent of the reason your average woman isn't interested in becoming a police officer, and pretending it is will just paper over the cracks and perpetuate the really dark institutional reasons for gender divides in many job roles. Once again this modernist piss poor excuse for feminism is doing more harm than good, and they don't even realise it.
|>>|| No. 67366
>LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED ON SOCIETY'S WHIM
But this is the the furthest thing from the wishes of society, it's a management decision at the BBC.
|>>|| No. 67367
Yes, prompted by people in society doing the same thing. The beeb hardly came up with the idea of saying policeperson. They're adopting a new change in our language, not inventing it - I'm no linguist but I can imagine that is how these sorts of modifications in language have perpetuated for as long as we've had publication.
|>>|| No. 67368
oh i never said fisherfolk were correct, i meant you can correct me if fisherpeople don't actually think that.
but fisherpeople do think that because as i said, they have worms in their brains.
|>>|| No. 67369
>and they don't even realise it.
No, they realise it perfectly well, they simply do not hold the views they claim to in good faith.
do you ever notice how it's only ever comfortable, well off latte-sipping op-ed types who endorse and champion this kind of rubbish? if we had women triumphing in real equality, there would be all sorts of injustices towards men sorted out alongside that too wouldn't there. And that would never do, because there are far too many profitable toes to be stepped on along the way.
Similar sort of thing with blacks and whites.
|>>|| No. 67370
>do you ever notice how it's only ever
Like most people, 95% of the time I only hear about this stuff from outraged men complaining about it and how they reckon women are doing feminism wrong, so I can't make any generalisations about who it's actually coming from.
>they simply do not hold the views they claim to in good faith
You're psychic now too?
|>>|| No. 67371
How fucking blinkered do you have to be to believe a popular milky coffee drink is the signifier of a member of an elite media cabal involved in the global coordinated conspiracy to make capitalism more richer by telling people it's bad to be a man?
Ooooh, they probably put soy milk in them too, don't they? You've heard that soy gives men tits, that's why they drink it all the time, that's why men don't work in coal mines or fight in world wars anymore - all that soy milk. Their soy tits would get in the way of the pickaxes and guns.
You diseased smooth brained pelican cunt.
|>>|| No. 67374
oh look, a triggered verile young stud, i bet you list your 'preferred pronouns' in your twitter account where you spend all day sending insane death threats to j.k rowling because she said mean things about trannies.
|>>|| No. 67376
So is her fanny between her two mermaid tails? If not then I presume she also has two arse holes.
|>>|| No. 67377
She's a siren, and they have two tails (apparently).
>As Steve [Murray, creative director] says, “we got to see a lot of her” in the beginning. The first update came in 1987, the year we added handcrafted espresso drinks to the menu. That’s when the logo switched from brown to green. We also gave her a more modern feel. In 1992, we became a publicly traded company. We adjusted the logo a bit more by zooming in on the siren.
So basically they decided to eliminate the fanny when they went from boy's club to corporate behemoth.
|>>|| No. 67380
it's not like this is some tinfoil hat paranoia, ladm9s, you just have to glance at the opinion section of the graun on any given day of the week.
i've never heard a woman complain about -man or -men suffixes in real life. so who else am i to assume is behind such utter drivel than the type of mac using, twitter posting, jumper wearing posho-liberal twat who writes for papers like that?
the only othe explaination would be that these people are exceptionally thick, and frankly, i don't think they are. i think they are very clever indeed, so instead i choose to deduce that they are knowingly and deliberately peddling a lot of horseshit that causes more harm to the concept of equality than any impotent mra's on rudgwicksteamshow.co.uk could ever hope to.
|>>|| No. 67381
Yes, mate, we'd be living on the Starship Enterprise if it weren't for Alice Furridge-Jones' column in the Observer. It's definitely not the hurricane of piss the right-wing press throw at the faintest hint of change, the fact the country's ruled by privately educated landlords or that any group of left-wing activists of three or above is going to be mostly coppers, it's none of that at all.
I know you'll say "and that's exactly what these people should be writing about!" and I'd probably agree, but the reality of the Guardian's thonk-section is that it leans more dry and milquetoast than it does devious and malevolent, a lot more in fact.
|>>|| No. 67382
>It's definitely not the hurricane of piss the right-wing press throw at the faintest hint of change, the fact the country's ruled by privately educated landlords or that any group of left-wing activists of three or above is going to be mostly coppers, it's none of that at all.
The only bit you haven't realised yet is that they're on the same side, lad. it's part of the same problem. These are by and large the same utterly shameless turncoats who danced merrily to the tune without skipping a beat when it was time to publicly execute evil communist holocaust engineer jeremy corbyn in favour of robocop 3 (the shite but flashier looking one that had lost all its cool anti-capitalist bite).
|>>|| No. 67384
>I'VE NEVER HEARD A WOMAN COMPLAIN ABOUT -MAN OR -MEN SUFFIXES IN REAL LIFE
is it possible that this is because you - a person claiming feminism is a right wing plot ere on the internet - is not friends with many fisherpersons?
|>>|| No. 67388
Out of about a dozen lasses I know well enough to consider personal acquaintance or friends, two of them are what I would call fisherpersons- my criteria there being that they'd self describe as such and know all about the salmon populations and so on. One of them has the misfortune of being my girlfriend.
So which way around is it then? Are these types of fisherpersons a made up Internet bogeyperson that doesn't really exist outside of reactionary online men's delusions, or are these views representative of real feminism?
|>>|| No. 67394
>YES, PROMPTED BY PEOPLE IN SOCIETY DOING THE SAME THING.
People in society is not the same as society. I'm sure there's all sorts of mental opinions you can find in society about spelling and Kelsey Grammer but they're ridiculed as this should be.
I don't know if we could exclude the thick blindly following people in positions of power and that goes double when they control the media. I suppose that get's too close to the point of the BBC though.
I'd say there is no conspiracy involved because I'm not a left-wing nut. It's just that our cultural narratives are all fucked up across the board and by our nature it is incredibly difficult to challenge the prevailing winds no matter how much sanity you talk. So you end up with spirals of increasingly intense bullshit that distort priorities when you place people in echo-chambers.
Not here though because we're all argumentative recluses.
|>>|| No. 67395
So you know two fisherpersons and you've not heard either of them complain about this specific thing?
Pack it up lads, definitive proof.
|>>|| No. 67396
So you're saying this kind of nonsense definitely comes from actual fisherpersons, and definitely not
>outraged men complaining about it and how they reckon women are doing feminism wrong
Just to be clear?
|>>|| No. 67397
I would say that there doesn't need to be any conspiracy involved, just that people know what's good for them and act in their own self-interest. The more agency (i.e wealth and power) you have, the more selfish you are afforded the privilege to be.
which is why the aforementioned op-ed writing navel gazers pick the bits they like, and end up with a form of feminism that really has very little to do with attaining equality for women as a whole, and much more to do with securing status for middle and upper class women who already enjoy a comparatively privileged life. Those goals align by a happy coincidence with the broader goals of middling centre-right liberal politics in general, much as it likes to style itself as progressive.
it's not a conspiracy to destroy men, because they know fully well that nothing they do is going to threaten their husband's position of vice chair of some company or other; and the lives of poor men and women that it does negatively impact don't matter, because they're poor, obviously.
|>>|| No. 67400
captainess birdseye when? I'd stick my extra large fish finger in her smelly fish pie after three days at sea IYKWIM. Whooa.
|>>|| No. 67404
>WHICH IS WHY THE AFOREMENTIONED OP-ED WRITING NAVEL GAZERS PICK THE BITS THEY LIKE, AND END UP WITH A FORM OF FEMINISM THAT REALLY HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH ATTAINING EQUALITY FOR WOMEN AS A WHOLE, AND MUCH MORE TO DO WITH SECURING STATUS FOR MIDDLE AND UPPER CLASS WOMEN WHO ALREADY ENJOY A COMPARATIVELY PRIVILEGED LIFE.
This is too high quality a post for /iq/. What's particularly frustrating (and I imagine patronising) is when that same navel gazing group then wonder why working class women in are equally as alienated as working class men, and vote or speak out against this very warped form of feminism.
|>>|| No. 67405
I fucking googled it and it said captainess you whale poacheric cunt buckets.
Then again ince we fucked all our actual british fishermen when we joined the EU let's pretend she's spanish and call her Capitana ojo de pájaro.
Ooh yeah I'd stick my pata de cangrejo con mojo rojo right into her stinky unrinsed paella and dangle my smelly sweaty papas arrugadas right into her greedy mouth the slut.
Then I'd make cactus jam and post about it on shedchan because I'm that kind of cunt.
Given how bad this place has got over lockdown 1 and lockdown 2 Boris Boogaloo, this is still the worst thread in the history of this entire shit pot. You should all go and have a wank.
|>>|| No. 67406
I'd encourage more companies to embrace the occasional rule 63. Women get their role model and men, well, wanking gets more interesting.
Win/Win and a far more productive activity than bowing to the demands of petty tyrants.
>I WOULD SAY THAT THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE ANY CONSPIRACY INVOLVED, JUST THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM AND ACT IN THEIR OWN SELF-INTEREST. THE MORE AGENCY (I.E WEALTH AND POWER) YOU HAVE, THE MORE SELFISH YOU ARE AFFORDED THE PRIVILEGE TO BE.
That's not how people work no matter your relative wealth and it presumes that rational actors are at work when people are perfectly willing to play against their own interests. Charitable donations being the classic example where people from all walks of life a demonstrably proven to fail at optimized prioritization because selfless behaviour is geared towards a defunct survival strategy. It equally applies to feel-good bullshit that succeeds by playing to underlying cultural presumptions such as women lacking the agency to pursue careers because words hurt them or politics where someone can support a party that actively hurts their own life because it's their in-group.
Boiling everything down to a pseudoscientific exercise in sneering at the chattering classes is just a regressive exercise that does nothing to solve the problem.
|>>|| No. 67407
I've never once heard anyone being called a captainess, it might be a real word but it is never, ever fucking used - and yes I do encounter females with the title of captain, daily.
|>>|| No. 67408
>That's not how people work no matter your relative wealth and it presumes that rational actors are at work when people are perfectly willing to play against their own interests.
I have absolutely nothing to back this up but I'm willing to bet that if you could somehow study it, people from a wealthier background are better at pursuing "rational" self interest than people from poorer backgrounds, whatever the definition of rational self interest is.
|>>|| No. 67411
Where do you work, either the forces or somewhere that processes lots of ships/planes?
|>>|| No. 67416
Is there even much demand for fisherman these days? I looked into it and it turns out that only a significant portion of the elderly are getting their recommended two portions of fish a week while there's a decline every year in other demographics.
Turns out you're supposed to have two portions a week for your health which I've certainly not been doing. I should look into this but aside from baked Salmon really don't know where to start.
>I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO BACK THIS UP
Well that explains your politics.
Thing is the biggest determining factor in altruism isn't wealth but community inequality and relative distance. I'd guess that all of us here would save a drowning child (and tut at anyone doesn't) but the amount of good you could do with even a modest western income is shameful. It's a tired argument but there's much more going on when we're all the global 1% and something philosophies of life continually smash into like a brick-wall because we don't operate consistently or rationally.
To return to the point, the ineffectual solutions pushed by the bourgeoisie is one thing but to call it a deliberate plan or suggest that they don't care at all is nonsense. I'm sure if there was a magic fanny-trawler wand they'd use it but the real solution is hard and with all gender politics liable to get you burned at the stake. Certainly harder still than some 'eat the rich' solution aimed at giving people bennies until they hear the call of the sea.
|>>|| No. 67418
>Well that explains your politics
And what would those be then, based off one post to make assumptions on? you great big berk.
>To return to the point, the ineffectual solutions pushed by the bourgeoisie is one thing but to call it a deliberate plan or suggest that they don't care at all is nonsense
I'm fairly certain that was actually the point of the post you are so laboriously disagreeing with mate. Good grief.
For my own view: I wouldn't call it a stretch to say throwing all this shite out and starting with cold hard measurable quantitative inequalities like income disparity across the board, would both do a lot more to address all the soft, wishy washy inequalities that only exist qualitatively as well as be much, much easier than any of the current crop of people in charge would ever like to admit. it is not at all conspiracy talk to suggest that the ruling class of our time is committed to prevent material solutions to inequality being implemented, hence why so many meaningless gestural ones must be found.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]