Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Ask to an AI Persona
Laura
Have questions about GirlsAskGuys? I'm here to help!
Love Doctor Brad
Welcome to the heart of understanding and transformation. I am your guide on this journey to...
Gamer Bella
With my passion and experience in hobbies and leisure activities, I'm here to offer personalized...
Athletic Chloe
Whether you need tips on improving your game, insights on fitness and nutrition, or just want to...
Advisor Smith
With years of experience guiding individuals in their education and career paths, I'm here to...
Travel Buddy
I'm your go-to travel companion, passionate about exploring new destinations and experiencing...
James The Foodie
From savoring Italian classics to discovering the bold flavors of Japanese cuisine, I explore...
Cinematic Lily
With my rich background and passion for the arts, I share insights on films, TV shows, and...
Fashionista Amy
I'm here to inspire and guide you with a touch of latest trends or advice on personal style.💅👒
Click "Show More" for your mentions
Most Helpful Opinion(mho) Rate.
Learn more
Learn more
We're glad to see you liked this post.
You can also add your opinion below!
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
85Opinion
Wow...
I dread to see what you'd think of the French language...
Gendered pronouns aren't inherently sexist. Unless there's something else about the language you mean?
just another feminist bullshit post. you want a language with gender? try Spanish. its so much about gender that inanimate objects are either male or female.
Are you a christian?
why does that matter
I speak German. German has gendered pronouns for all nouns, more even than Spanish. But that's not the sexist part. The existence of distinct gendered terms and pronouns isn't the issue, it's their unequal meanings and usage.
Waaaaaaaaa... I don't like language! Language bad! Make it change! Waaaaaaaaa
I love language actually, but it should still change. Why are you so whiny about this?
You're the whining one, sugar-tits
You're the one typing baby noises hon. I at least can clearly articulate my point without insults or sarcasm. You, not so much.
You have no points. Hence the insults and sarcasm.
By which you mean you didn't read any of my points because all you read was the title.
No one can stand you crazy feminist types any more. Good riddance.
You attracted a good bunch of moronic misogynists with this. Good job. Please down vote me if you feel triggered 😏
I'm going to throw a tantrum bitching cause I can't understand this and I'm on my male period 😭
Truly. Half of them just say something along the lines of "fuck you" or "you're dumb", and another good quarter just miss the point entirely or didn't read my take at all and are just responding to the title.
People blessed with the gift of sight but still blind, what a waste, god forgive them.
Wow... and this is why no one who matters listens to Feminism...
That's an interesting take. I had never thought of this before
Much of this comes from fucked up religious beliefs that have become the foundation of many societies. Major religions teach that women and other groups are inherently inferior.
Let's make everything neutral.
The world is getting dumber.
What we need is more discrimination and more details. Love is to accept discrimination. If discrimination is not allowed nobody is allowed to say their opinion and everybody will be told what they are and will be forced to believe. discrimination means see difference and some do us not want to see differences. to see differences not only always mean see the wrong in another but also the good. So it is not in our benefit not to see difference and not to discriminate.
@jibidijibidi I am not saying some terms shouldn't be changed but for me feminism it's going to far, to the extreme of being ridiculous.
Somebody told me easiest language to learn but still learning since long
A made up language like Esperanto? Or a closely related one like Norwegian?
@Langseax Esperanto is only easy for Western language speakers, but perhaps. Honestly I think what language is easiest to learn is pretty entirely dependent on what languages you already know, but it is possible there's an objective "easiest".
@cipher42 Not true. Esperanto was designed with ease of learning in mind for all languages. Sure it's easier for European language speakers, but it's still 'designed' with simplicity that makes it easy enough, even if you don't speak a European language.
You could say it depends on what languages you know, but then you come to, "what constitutes a dialect, and what constitutes a language). Swedish and Norwegian are both languages, but they're almost identical with just some small variations in words. Italian may be a wee bit easier for French speakers to learn, but it doesn't make Esperanto any harder for them to learn.
I don't even like Esperanto, why am I trying to argue?
@Langseax It is relatively simple, especially considering the amount of people who speak European languages. But I'm pretty sure there are simpler conlangs in general (since conlanging is such a huge field and there's just so goddamn many conlangs out there, and Esperanto was created relatively early on in terms of conlang history). Point is, what language is easy to learn is definitely influenced by what language you already speak, and while Esperanto is reasonably easy it's still unlikely that it's the absolute easiest. Actually, it might even be that non-verbal languages using hand signs could be considered easier, since it's been shown that babies can pick those up earlier (I'm not really an expert on this, but I know it works for simple signs like food and water and the like at least)
@cipher The simplicity of a language has a lot more to do with the structure of a language, as much as lexicography can play a part. Esperanto was designed to remove as many of the cases, and declensions (and all that other random crap you find in Latin and similarly old languages) as possible so that it would be an extremely simple language to learn. Sign language may be alright for specific gestures (which we already do in the form of pointing, waving, and shaking our heads), but it takes far more for you process sign language than sound on a larger scale. Sign language is still rooted with in verbal language in that it has to have grammar to make sense. Of course Esperanto and its children language are going to lexically easier for a European language speaker to learn, but because of its grammatical structure, it would still be the easiest language in the world (I mean real languages, not one which is just a watered-down dialect language like Pidgin or minimal like Toki Pona).
@Langseax maybe among the easiest, but again, I'm sure there are far easier ones considering the amount of time that Esperanto has been around and the amount of time conlanging has been a thing since then. And to be fair I dont know much about sign language, but im pretty sure the grammar is actually fairly simple.
@cipher42 Certain aspects of grammar must exist in all languages. In order to get rid of (most) cases, you must have a grammatical order for the language to go by, else it would make no sense. For example, to us "Woman and man, talk" - that makes no sense to us in a literal sense, but to a language with cases (or declensions, I always forget which ones) that might mean "That woman and that man, have talked." In order for the sentence to make sense it must either have the case system, or a set grammatical order. English has lost most of the case system over the years and as it has not got it, you must say words which are mostly unused in other languages as they use cases and declensions to shorten the sentence, meaning other languages have more ways of saying the same things while in proper English things need to be very literal.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a language which lots of people would agree is the "simplest language in the world" which isn't Esperanto. You need an example.
@Langseax Friendo, I'm a linguistics major, I don't need a lecture on this. And I'm not gonna go out of my way to find an example, sorry. All I'm saying is that I find it highly unlikely that in the 130 years since Esperanto was created, no one has managed to make a simpler language, especially considering how much conlanging has taken off and the existence of the internet in general. And since you were the one originally making the claim that Esperanto is the simplest, it's on you to back that up.
You feminist zealots should live in a cave.
How is pointing out obvious sexism in language zealotry?
@cipher42 Is the English language sexist? Weird. I've already seen very worse things coming from your feminist colleagues. Like "kill all men", "white men are not human", "abort male babies", "all men are rapists", "boys should be ashamed for patriarchy". And I never saw a good explanation on why people whom supposedly wants to be respected could act or allow others acting in this bigoted way.
Those aren't examples of the language itself containing sexism, merely being used to make sexist expressions. That said, this kind of "whataboutism" is something of a red herring, and not actually relevant to the current issue, so how about you stay on topic?
Not. It's about PRIORITIES. And I already know a little bit of yours. You think you can lecture everyone, you think you can judge even the language of your country because an irrelevant thing that nobody should care. What kind of people could be offended by someone not using "neutral pronouns"? Out of your feminist self-righteous ivory tower, life here is hard, we have more concerning issues than "neutral pronouns" and other futile demands. And life become even more hard because your group love to play a war of genders.
What kind of person is offended by someone writing a post on the internet? If you have such big and important issues, go address those instead, rather than using hypocritical whataboutisms to try to undermine my point.
This is a pointless topic, and it's not true
Why is it pointless, and what part of it is untrue? Do you honestly consider governor and governess equal terms?
You're the only person who cares about the difference between governor and governess
Lol also not true. There's been whole books written on this kind of issue, and plenty of studies done, and entire college level classes taught on the subject.
No normal person cares about how sexist the English language is* because, believe it or not, most people don't constantly think about how to word their speech when they speak to pander to misandrists who always wish to make problems out of things that aren't problems.
No true scotsman fallacy babe. "Normal" is not a metric of worth, and is not defined by you alone. Maybe linguists aren't normal, but they're certainly not bad.
Loners tend to ask "what's your definition of 'friend'?" after someone asks them why they have no friends because they don't want to admit they have no friends.
Is that analogy based on personal experience? So sorry you have no friends, but I fail to see how that's relevant here.
Ouch! your passive aggressive roasts are on point, people usually do that when they know they're stupid. People also tend to repetitively ask the relevance of things when they know they're wrong.
I'm saying you'll say anything because you don't want to concede. It's fairly obvious to understand what I meant by 'normal'. Here, why don't you read my text again. If you actually read it you might see what I meant by those who are normal and those who aren't.
"No normal person cares about how sexist the English language is* because, believe it or not, most people don't constantly think about how to word their speech when they speak to pander to misandrists who always wish to make problems out of things that aren't problems."
Make sure to use both your eyes and your brain.
Those are assumptions probably based purely on what you want to believe, like pretty much every other assertion you've made. Yes, by "normal" you mean "holding the same values I hold". Again, that definition is based entirely on what you personally want to believe. And again, "normal" is a meaningless word. Nuclear physicists aren't normal, nobel prize winners aren't normal, and perhaps linguists aren't normal. But that doesn't make them any less right.
"No normal person cares" " most people don't" you could infer from this that when I was talking about 'normal people' I was talking about most people. I can guarantee you 95% of people you see in the UK could not care less about how the English language is sexist or how to change it because close to nobody actually thinks it's a big deal. And factually, it isn't a big deal. "male-generics result in people envisioning men rather than women significantly more" this is really not because of how the English language is, there are soooo many factors as to why society portrays men as more worth than women and this isn't one of them (or at least, it's a tiny, tiny portion of the problem).
I also said "pander to misandrists" implying those types of people aren't the part of the norm. I was trying to tell you that really only people who want to create problems for society say stuff like this.
Not really. "Normal" doesn't always mean "most", and it still isn't any good as a value judgement. And male generics do actually cause this effect, there's studies that prove it if you want me to cite them.
Oh well sorry for my word choices, but I think you understand clearly what I'm saying. Cite them if you want.
I don't. You still haven't given any reason why normalicy should be considered good, or why it's relevant. I don't want to cite them, but I will if you require me to to prove the point that male generics matter.
I did, read this "I was trying to tell you that really only people who want to create problems for society say stuff like this".
This isn't creating a problem with society, it's addressing one. And how does normalicy link up to less problems with society? Again, nobel prize winners aren't exactly normal, but they're sure as fuck not bad.
A problem isn't a problem as long as nobody cares about it, addressing it will make it a problem.
What's your take on the current state of feminists?
Yiiiikes. Problems are still problems even if left unacknowledged. If I don't take care of my health at all and ignore all my health issues, they're still issues, and in fact ignoring them just makes them worse.
I think feminists are represented as being far worse than they actually are. If you look, for instance, at the feminists on this site, you'll find few to none who advocate the things anti-feminists claim they do, like killing all men or female superiority or whatever.
Oops my bad, I phrased that wrong. A problem isn't a problem as long as nobody knows about it* ignorance is bliss
What do you think you are: a feminist or a feminazi?
Again, if I ignore my own health issues, they just get worse, not better. And clearly people already acknowledge this problem, so it does need to be fixed.
I don't agree with the term feminazi in the first place, since comparing any group to nazis who haven't literally been responsible for the deaths of millions is idiotic and trivializes what actually happened during the holocaust. If you're asking whether I'm a radical or not, no I'm not, nor are most feminists or most members of any group for that matter. I believe sexism exists in modern society, I believe far too many people deny it, and I believe it should be acknowledged and addressed.
Yeah but the difference is, the majority of people don't care about the sexism of the English language; whereas, everybody cares about their help. They're two completely different things.
Interesting... so you are a feminist.
If a problem isn't a problem unless its acknowledged, then individual health issues can be solved by ignoring them. But they can't, and nor can societal problems.
everybody cares about their health*
Not everybody. So if one individual doesn't care about their health, even just hypothetically, their health shouldn't present problems to them by your logic.
This is what I meant to say just to clarify "Yeah but the difference is, the majority of people don't care about the sexism of the English language; whereas, everybody cares about their health. They're two completely different things."
Uh no, if I didn't care about my health how would it present problems to me? If I were overweight and decided to ignore my issue and kept eating, it isn't a problem because I couldn't care about my health. If I had lung cancer and was going to die in a few months, assuming I didn't care about death, why would it be an issue to me? If you don't care about something, it isn't a problem.
Either way, health and societal problems are very different.
In this case, (most) people both don't care or know about how the English language is sexist, and they'd care less when they realise that this is actually just your (and a few other chronic complainer's) opinion.
You seem to be viewing "problems" as arbitrary, which is somewhat fair, but also something of a fallacy since it causes us to be using different definitions for "problem". Yes, what constitutes a "problem" is based on arbitrary moral value judgements. But problems don't go away if people ignore then regardless, they just get redefined as not-problems, which isn't really the same thing. So you can choose to view sexism as a not-problem if you like, but that's a view that I and many other people disagree with.
You're making it a bigger deal than it actually is. Close to nobody cares about the difference between 'governor' and 'governess', not even most females. You're part of the minority. You're probably one of those people that claims men spreading their legs is sexist.
I'm a linguist, so what? Just because not many people care doesn't mean it doesn't matter. Again, I'm sure not many people care about the shit that nobel prize winners or nuclear physicists study, but that doesn't make those fields unimportant either.
Actually in this case, it's because it doesn't matter that people don't care.
You have no evidence for that. Especially considering that there's been plenty of studies done on the subject that show that it does matter (and the existence of the studies at all shows that people do care).
what studies
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00288993
journals.sagepub.com/.../0261927X01020004004
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01068152
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00287786
www.tandfonline.com/.../01463378109369395
Just to name a few.
That's good. Women should be reduced to fuckslaves
WHITE PATRIARCHY NOW!!
WTF I love the English language now :D
No one cares, thats life. Men are men and women and women. You are thinking too deep. worry about other things that matter.
Women being more likely to be convicted in court cases does matter, does it not?
where do you get his false information? its RACIALIZED women. you being a white woman are lucky.
Studies. The better question is why do you deny it?
Because I am a real man, and we do not care. Women are trying to gain power and its funny because now you are taking power away from men and using it in a passive aggressive way. women are trying to feminize men. this is why the world is messed up today.
So you deny scientific evidence because it conflicts with your world view, gotcha.
I cannot tell if this is a troll post of not.
Who cares
Perfect.
Thanks for your opinion.
Oh, poor little snowflake...
What's wrong, offended by my take?