The are many possible explanations for this:l social experience, but

If a group of women is kept together in a room, would they have any communWhile I can be a Jew and share a certain culture of persecution with others Jews, I don't have any particular ground with any other Jew just because of his origin.

While the women situation has changed completely are language stays the same.


Language doesn't change?

Wrong. It constantly evolves. The website of any language academy around the world (ex French, Turkish academies, or the govermental authority in charge) is a constant proof - new words are introduced to keep up with social changes, ex: PodCast, USB key, Brain Scan, etc' receive a local terminology.

This isn't a incident. Governments and our societies are well aware to the fact that language have to be updated in order to keep up with the technological race. Accordingly, countries allocate considerable budget to keep their language up to date with the current technological evolution. Just one example: ATE (Interactive Terminology for Europe) updates and/or deletes thousands of terms per week. Their directives are regularly communicated to the each member state to ensure un systematic application. In other words, our institutions are aware of the need to update and modify our language to reality.

Yet, the same authorities, and same societies, oppose any tentative to update the language when it evolves around women and gender considerations. This is strange to say the least. The question of Women and language is more crucial today than all the political technological problems of the people and its state - yet, women are described today as they were 200 years ago.

While no ministry of eduction would insist to say notebook instead of computer or fax machine instead of an email, it would consider the introduction of genderless terminology as mortal threat to the language. This double standard can only witness on populism. If our language needs to be updated to keep up with reality, this principle has to be applied coherently, regardless of the field it updates. Applying it in a selective manner (here, excluding gender), only satisfies the definition of the term demagogy.

Tradition ?

Not good enough... This argument exteriorly is rather popular, in particular with right wing politicians. Even if don't have any linguistic eduction they do seem to have a decent know-how with social media.

Yet, the tradition argument isn't serious. Even less so when it is carried by right-wing politicians who push at the same time for new reforms and innovative solutions for corporates. History witnesses that we rarely preserve tradition. We fought slavery, democracy dethroned monarchy, we defend (some) human rights - rather than constructing pyramids, we prefer to send our children to school. We use computer to perform calculates rather than abacus and travel with trains rather than with horses. Monarchs and priests find if much harder today to abuse innocent victims, Phlebotomy is practised in SM clubs, not as a treatment. Traditions that cannot keep up with the pace of reality disappear. They are replaced by other ways that better suit the spirit of time.

When we do preserve historical institution, we do so because we cherish them at present, because we validate them, not because we hang on our past. Museums, libraries are considered important for understanding our evolution and provide us a cultural perspective. Regional and native languages are preserved as a way to preserved an identify and values of a given group.

Preserving gender biased language just because it belongs to our past is an adhoc reasoning... which is oxymoron... which isn't a sign of a respected tradition, Actually by definition, ad-hoc contradicts the notion of tradition.

Human limits, we need so time

A potential argument is our race's difficulty to assimilate complex changes. This reasoning, isn't strong though. While our race's limits are clearly a problem, we did manage to quickly assimilate far and much more abstract concepts. The Copernican revolution, Einstein's relativity (i.e. time's relativity) and Darwin's evolution theory are were quickly assimilated in our life. If we can accept deep physical notions that shatter our intuition, we can process simpler notions. And gender is less complex than Einstein's relativity.

Lack of empathy

Read about lack of empythy in mankind, sapiens. Also about victims of harrassements. What cannot be seen.

Effort averse ?

Our race however, ignores situations it doesn't wish to deal with, because of laziness, ignorance, avoiding facing the unknown. Even when this kind of attitude deteriorates our situation.

The are many possible explenations for this:

Cognitive pain - People generally describe cognitive effort as an aversive experience to be avoided whenever possible (Kurzban, 2016). At a phenomenological level effort feels intrinsically unpleasant beyond just an abstract ‘cost’.

Human and thinking is not a good fit - The body of Homo sapiens had not evolved for dealing with complex tasks. It was adapted to climbing apple trees and running after gazelles, not to dealing with abstract calculations.

Lacanian thought says laziness is the "acting out" of archetypes from societal programming and negative child rearing practices.

Yet, even if the above arguments, and other argument, would prove that mankind is lazy, it won't be enough. After all, we don't accept laziness when it concerns much less damaging attitude the gender discriminations, ex: parking in none authorize space, throwing garbage in the street.

Bad faith ?

I am left, with only one coherent argument. We take advantage of the situation just because we can. Because it serves us well. People who aren't damaged by the situation, don't use to be active in changing it. Those who are affected by it, are far from the position from which change happen.

This line of reasoning is way too simplistic. Yet, even if it satisfies all formal demands, it won't change much.

Even if this proved to be a solid reason it isn't a good one. That is this reason is a hidden one. Something one do, but not something one recognized.

Setting aside moral arguments, this has a linguistic lacunae. Opposing to change the way we speak towards women just because we don't really care, may sound like a honest account of reality. Yet, this argument applied the existance of hidden cause. That is we don't oppose it because we think it is wrong, we just say it is wrong because we cannot say out loud that we keep to keep our privileges. Liguistically wise, this contradicts the notion of language, which is about clarify the meaning and simlifying the communication, rather that hiding the meaning so no one can argue with it.

Setting aside any moral consideration, this definition was linguistically justified. It provided substantive information about the world. It helped to clearly distinguish between those who are human, and those who seems like human but were actually slaves, an inferior type. Besides the phenomenological specification, this definition had a very important psychological value, it legitimate any abuse towards the female. The same as master and slaves, white and blacks, royals and the common people.ou que l’on parle à une personne ?

This situation has changed completely. Nowadays even all political and public issues are shared by men and women. Thus it is "the way of women" to be represented equality in the language. Our culture and language will not be able to survive if, for pseudo-tranditional reasons, we continue to deprive women of their due rights. This is the point at which we - those of us resolved to defend our humanist heritage - cannot perpetuate the institutional positions or the tradition of our 'fathers' because they differ radically from our own.[4]

A contemporary community of religious as well as secular of men and women that undertakes to practice of humanitarian or religious rules must not confuse its acceptance of the absolute demands with the facts that language is a tool to serve people and communicate their needs. Our worlds is limited by our language and as long as we don't have the language to speak of equality, the later would remain an abstract concept.

These considerations point to the need for discretion, which would reflect our own deliberation rather than conformity with anything found in a literary source. In such matters, no literary source of the past could possibly apply to our situation and none ever has applied.

As we perceive our culture to be common to both women and men, the perpetuation of this attitude within language and our institutions is intolerable. Barring women today from our language segregates our language from the spiritual reality shared by both sexes. This is likely to break up our language and cultural community.

exemption of women equality from ou language by the reason of language purity and tradition is a statement that language is more important than the people who speak it. This downgrade women and distance them from being part of our culture. In the long run, this won't preserve our culture, but eradicate it. Women and men who feel alienated by this vision would just create an alternative language and culture. History witness that those who fight for authonomy and liberty get their wish sonner or later.

Insisting that the default man also refers to woman is not only false - it doesn't make women feel included and part of the society. Compared to men woman position is exactly like that of a layman compared to a priest - while both practive the same tradition the later is much closer to its essence.

Such discrimination does not detract women and men aliened by this vision to search for a language and culture that expresses their value. It merely force them to do it in an alternative way, out of their current language.

Keeping women away from our language isn't resolved by considering them as part of the default man. This rather deprive them from a basic human right.

are reslient, resrouceful and are supported by a majorfrom these be talked upon as a humiliation or deprivation; at the least, as downgrading the status of women within the religious context, distancing them, as it were, from the worship of God.

Si une telle assertion n’est corroborée par aucune étude, elle alimente en revanche le climat anti-intellectualiste ambiant et la défiance vis-à-vis des revendications féministes.

by the members countries. The colosal budgets that the European Union Failure to deal with it seriously threatens the viability of the Judaism of Torah and Mitzvoth in the contemporary world.

The singularity of this event and its scale found the cultural instituions that are in charge to adpat th, and mostly the fact that it contradicts the foundations of our cultural institutions y socioSince language is culture and culture is language, this event also deprived the term gender from its historical meaning.

Currently, we are left with a linguistic category that is an empty, it doesn't tell us anything about its members. For a language to be considered as such it has to relate a group of signs to a given meaning. Currently, male and female are only group of sound, they have no meaning.

Yet, we still keep using them exactly as before...why?

Comment on this article (sign in first or confirm by name and email below)