perlmonger: (revolting)
An anonymous commenter posted the following in response to [ profile] niemandsrose in the comments to a post on generational changes, gender and language by [ profile] ozarque; this is primarily for my own reference, but it’s very much worth repeating in any case:
“We now live in a world that still believes such things, and now *also* believes that to mention them, to talk about them, to dialogue, is caving in to sexism. Examining the bedrock assumptions, especially our own, is taken as an admission of having ever had a sexist thought, and *that* is simply Not Done.”

This is the “No-Talk Rule”. It is the foundation upon which all abusive structures are built. You will find it in alcoholic families, in the families of battered spouses and children, in abusive churches, in sweatshops [including many, many white collar corporate ones]. And in totalitarian states, oh my yes.

No-Talk is a place where psychology and linguistics are so closely intertwined that I can’t see a way to separate them. The idea - simple and brilliant - is that as long as people are prohibited from talking about X, their ability to think about X, define it, understand it is severely curtailed. Their ability to actually do anything productive about X, of course, is completely pre-empted, since they can neither think nor talk about it effectively if at all.

And the attitude you describe, that to mention the abusive circumstances is to tacitly consent to them, or to be in some way a supporter of them? Magical thinking [ignore it and it will vanish - if you just do enough affirmations and mean them sincerely] combined with pernicious thought control [if you see it you must be it]. Again, these thought patterns are pushed in unhealthy groups of all shapes and sizes, from abusive families to worldwide cults. You will notice how beautifully [in the same sense a coral snake or lionfish is beautiful] these patterns push all responsibility for the abusiveness directly onto the person who perceives and articulates the abuse [usually because they are experiencing it].
Meg Umans comments:
Yes, well put. Thank you. There’s probably about as much sexism now as thirty years ago. As long as we don’t talk about it, though, it doesn’t really exist, right? And we can always blame the victims for speaking truth to power.
perlmonger: (planet)
Tenser, said the Tensor analyses Doc Smith’s usage of language in the Lensmen series. Lovely stuff, though I would disagree that the first two in the series are “lesser prequels”.

It’s probably getting on time to add the whole lot to my to-read heap again.
perlmonger: (pete)
On the apo'strophe que'stion mentioned by [ profile] ramtops, here ('since it didnt get po'sted) i's my re'sponse to the BBC.
Speech, writing and signing are distinct modes of expression; just because they have an overlap of (for want of a better word) vocabulary does not mean that they are homeomorphic.

Written language, in particular, requires clear punctuation to clarify meaning as it lacks the richness of nuance of either speech or signing. A linguist, of all people, should be aware of this.

'So there.


perlmonger: (Default)

July 2013

14 151617181920


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios