Jump to content
Bellazon
Patreon/Only Fans Content
Underage Models (Kids - Preteens)
Banned Content / DMCA Takedown Requests

The "What Are You Thinking About Right Now?" PIP

Francesca

By Francesca
in General Talk

 Share

Recommended Posts

Stromboli1

Stromboli1

Posted
Posted
37 minutes ago, Prettyphile said:

@Stromboli1 :rofl:

Is the dictionary sexist? Petition calls for Oxford English Dictionary to remove sexist terms for women

 A petition that now has nearly 30,000 signatures and counting on Change.org was started by a simple online search.

Maria Beatrice Giovanardi, a London-based communications and marketing expert, typed the word “woman” into a search engine earlier this summer while looking up information on women’s earnings.

She said she was bombarded with results for synonymous of woman that included words like bitch, piece, bit, mare, baggage, wench, petticoat, frail and biddy.

“I was like, 'What’s going on? Why are these the synonyms?,” Giovanardi, 28, told “Good Morning America.” “I don’t see myself like this as a woman.

“My girlfriends don’t speak like this so it’s a man’s point of view,” she recalled thinking.

Giovanardi learned the information about the word "woman" she saw online came from content produced by Oxford University Press, a department of the University of Oxford in the U.K. that also produces the Oxford English Dictionary (OED).

As Giovanardi looked further into it, she saw more examples of what she described as sexist language, including using sentences like these as examples alongside the definition of women: "‘One of his sophisticated London women"; "Don't be daft, woman!": and "he wondered whether Billy had his woman with him."

"If you look up 'man' you see sentences of what men can be doing as individuals, while with women you see sentences of women as an oppressed group, not as individuals," she said. "Their goal is to portray language but this has a very judgmental bias."

Giovanardi took action by starting the Change.org petition titled, "Change Oxford Dictionary’s Sexist Definition of ‘Woman.'"

 Since June, the petition has drawn 29,926 signatures and counting.

"One of our goals was to have as many signatures as the Oxford student body, which is around 24,000 students, so we achieved that goal," she said. "But the more pressure the better so we hope to get more and more."

The petition has already caught the attention of the Oxford University Press, which dedicated a blog post to responding to the petition.

The post specifies that the content around women called out by the petition comes from the Oxford Thesaurus of English and the Oxford Dictionary of English, which "aim to cover contemporary English usage and are accessible online in a variety of formats."

image.png

:rofl:

 "These texts are based on the methodologies of descriptive, corpus-based lexicography, meaning that editors analyse large quantities of evidence from real-life use to determine the meanings of words," the post explains in part. "If there is evidence of an offensive or derogatory word or meaning being widely used in English, it will not be excluded from the dictionary solely on the grounds that it is offensive or derogatory."

Oxford University Press also told "GMA" in a statement Thursday: "Our dictionaries strive to reflect, rather than dictate, how language is used. This is achieved by using an evidence-based approach, drawing on vast collections of written English from books, magazines, journals, and other digital sources."

"Our editors analyse these collections to determine how real people use English in their daily lives," the statement read. "In cases where words or senses are considered offensive, they are clearly labelled as such."

Giovanardi's petition definitely started a conversation, which is what she told "GMA" was one of her goals.
(MORE: #NotWorthLess highlights the battle for equality behind the scenes in Hollywood)

One woman, who identifies herself as a feminist and a linguist, took to Twitter to explain why she didn't sign the petition.

"Lobbying dictionaries to make their definitions fit your political preferences is misguided," she wrote.

 Giovanardi said she plans to keep up the "pressure" with her petition because, for her, Oxford University's reply was not enough.

"Our point is that sexism against someone is not acceptable and it is not okay to have definitions like these about women," she said. "We also want them to remove the sentences that denote women being the property of men, and there’s a lot of them,and make it more inclusive."

And even people who may not sign the petition should walk away from the debate asking themselves questions, according to Giovanardi.

"I hope people ask themselves if are we doing enough to patrol sexism and see how widespread it is and ask if we are we taking it seriously enough," she said. "Because it’s very embedded in every part of society."

 

It's getting to the point where they just need to tell these people to fuck off.................. give them inch they'll take a mile.

PrettyDeadThings

PrettyDeadThings

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Stromboli1 said:

@Prettyphile

 

A different perspective and where this is going like I said.

 

 

"They are pretty cool."

"That's their bag."

Is very similar to the singular you, which is also gender neutral.

"You are pretty cool."

"That's your bag."

WORDS BTW

Quote

It's such a shame /they/ can't simply pick a gender and find comfort in that identity. /They/ can't change molecular biology or genes and the it's a shame that we have to change the dictionary in order to comfort these people.

 

 
Stromboli1

Stromboli1

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Prettyphile said:

Shhh, don't say that around these parts, People will go HULK on your ass...

 

Okay............ I guess I'll shut up! :nobait:

Stromboli1

Stromboli1

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Prettyphile said:

I mean if you want to, by all means, but I fully expect people's feelings to be offended 🤣

 

Even if it's not their thread. :idk:

Enrico_sw

Enrico_sw

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Stromboli1 said:

@Enrico_sw

 

 

I guess you were right, double standards, again! :banghead: Good boy Justin is getting a free pass thanks to all of his past virtue signalling.

 

BTW Justin didn't really apolgize, he said: "I'm sorry (...) it's because of my privilege". He's basically clearing himself (the "priiiiivilege" is outside his control, so it's not him). He couldn't even simply take personal responsibility   :ermm: 

 

Stromboli1

Stromboli1

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, Enrico_sw said:

I guess you were right, double standards, again! :banghead: Good boy Justin is getting a free pass thanks to all of his past virtue signalling.

 

BTW Justin didn't really apolgize, he said: "I'm sorry (...) it's because of my privilege". He's basically clearing himself (the "priiiiivilege" is outside his control, so it's not him). He couldn't even simply take personal responsibility   :ermm:

 

It's all bullshit even his cop out excuse.

 

Apologizing only prolongs this stupid shit and gives them more power. People just need to tell these people to fuck off. I know it's hard though because they will try and have successfully destroyed livelihoods. Now some banks are closing accounts of people too. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...