The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20150908080515/http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/ranto/o.html
Consider the implications of usages such as the following:
-
“Man is a mammal and suckles his young” – the human
race is male by default; “Womankind” is a subset of “Mankind”.
-
“The reader is entitled to his opinion” – if you're
female, you have to pretend otherwise to read legal documents.
-
“Wizard” is praise; “witch” is an insult (abuse is the only field
in which there are more words to describe women).
-
“The UK's greatest living author” is ambiguous; does it rule out
the possibility of authoresses who are greater?
This doctrine of Male?As?Default treats women as a negligible
subgroup, and femaleness as abnormal but always noteworthy.
Sexism is (in principle) avoidable in English, via words like
“human, people, he/she, they”, and sex?neutral jobtitles where sex
is irrelevant. Things are different in languages with
grammatical gender: e.g. in French, masculine plural is
ils
, feminine plural is
elles
, but mixed groups
(even of 99 women and one grammatically masculine hornet) are
ils
. To the French, Thatcher was
Madame
le
premier ministre
, masculine! So how about
Esperanto? Surely a language without arbitrary
gender?classes designed by an enlightened liberal humanist will
avoid such pitfalls? Well, uh… no. In fact, as first
propagated his brainchild was blatantly and systematically
sexist.
All
animate nouns were male by default,
unless given the ghettoising suffix
?in
.
“Boy, girl, man, woman” =
knabo, knabino, viro,
virino
. In English, by the way, a “virino” is a
hypothetical mini?virus. Similarly, an Esperanto job advert
for a typist (
tajpisto
) would be ambiguous (how sexist is
the advertiser's dialect?) without “or typistess” (
au
tajpistino
). “Father, mother” becomes
patro,
patrino
– dads are apparently more fundamental than
mums. Likewise, “sister” is
fratino
= “brotheress”,
and so on with unclesses, sonesses, cousinesses, and
fatheresses?in?law (
bopatrinoj
) – a sex?obsessed
set of kinship terms incompatible with the systems traditionally
used in many other cultures. Vietnamese, for instance, has a
common monosyllabic word
em
meaning “younger sibling(s)”;
an idea that Esperantists need a whole phrase to express.
There is a prefix
ge?
to indicate “both sexes”, as in
gepatroj
, “parents”; but it's still a matter of some debate
whether you can use it in the singular, or to refer to a group of
parents who might all happen to be women. Only one clearly
neutral noun exists: “person” =
homo
(cf. French
homme
, “man”), which far from being the default is
strangely avoided in coinages such as “dwarf, giant” =
vireto,
virego
.
“Horse” =
chevalo
, “mare” =
chevalino
; Esperanto
also provides for
ghirafino
= “female giraffe”,
blatino
= “cockroachess” (“henroach”?), and so forth,
regardless of tradition (English geese, cows, and ducks are
female), let alone actual biology (most hornets are sterile
females). Farmers may also find handy the Esperanto “pup”
suffix
?id
as in
chevalido
, “foal”, and the “stud”
prefix
vir?
as in
virchevalo
,
“stallion” – but why aren't
these
affixes
extended to humans to give words like
homido
= “humanling,
kid” or
virpatro
= “father, sire”? Too
“dehumanising”?
Then again there are the derogatory affixes,
fi?
and
?ach
, demonstrated in “Teach Yourself Esperanto” just as
feminists would predict: by forming sex?specific insults.
Fivirino
is “dirty woman, slut”;
virinacho
is
“crone, contemptible female”. Why are we never offered the
male equivalents, whatever they are? If you can't see what
the fuss is about, try imagining an equivalent
racist
language, with black and white pronouns, a suffix
?afro
,
and an assumption that the human race is Caucasian (“one white,
one vote”). Now imagine the
?ach
suffix being
exemplified with
vir?afr?acho
…
Time for a few jokes. Is a casino a feminine case? Is
a neutrino a female eunuch? And if a
fraulino
is an
unmarried woman, is an unmarried man a
fraulo
? Well,
actually, yes; a merry jest from Dr Zamenhof. Ha ha ha…
(sob).
Even if the linguistic discrimination doesn't worry you (like two
of my correspondents who explicitly supported it
because
it's misogynistic), this scheme of compulsory lopsided
gender?agreement rules is offensive just for its poor
design. Look for instance at one of the side?effects of the
rule that any affix can lead an independent life as a word in its
own right:
ino
, “a female”;
ina
, “feminine”.
Generally, Esperanto requires more intricate morphology to refer
to women than men; but here is an exception. “Teach Yourself
Esperanto” translates “feminine intuition” as
la ina
intuicio
. So… how exactly do you say “masculine
intuition”? Candidates for a masculine affix parallel to the
feminine have been proposed (
?uch, ?ab, vir?, ?ich, ?un,
mal?in, ?ul
), but while few present?day Esperantists may
support the original nineteenth?century system, equally few take
the obvious step of marking male and female symmetrically.