-
There's a lot of nuance in the explanation which is too much to type out on a phone, but the crux of it is that it's a very simple language change we can make which helps us move away from gender inequality.
Put simply: if you use "she" to personify an object then you subconsciously objectify the pronoun (because it's always a "she" isn't it?) and therefore women.
IrPOWERranger-
Put simply: if you use "she" to personify an object then you subconsciously objectify the pronoun (because it's always a "she" isn't it?) and therefore women.
I'm not sure that necessarily follows...
I mean, I'm not the sort of person who'd indulge in this atrocity, so perhaps my intuition is of no value here, but it seems to me that the concept of personhood isn't diluted by splashing it about willy-nilly, since how can it possibly stick to anything that doesn't even impersonate life?
Further, does it objectify women or men if a clothing store employee refers to mannequins by their nominal gender?
Maybe I just don't understand fuckwits.
Kimmo
I agree with you it's the people that count, hence me questioning why it matters what pronouns you give an inanimate object that you own. If this is how discussions go down on this forum then I'll stick to bikes and keep my questions to myself. I was simply asking where the issue lies. My apologies.