Clinging to God and Guns, illustrated

[Matt-J2]

I bet $1.05 he's(see, I do it too) talking about the emphasis on man in clergyman(ex. clergyMAN). Pretty sure that's not part of the rules of grammar on it's own, and lends itself rather well to the idea that said clergyman is sexist.

I think he just wants to see the fuzzier sex represented more, but heck, for all I know he hates the ladies. Doubt it, but stranger things have happened.

 

[bdickens]

At the risk of turning the thread further towards religion, there are also those who fail to realize that many of the early church leaders who Paul addressed by name were women and who think that women do not belong in the preisthood.

 

[Quoheleth]

I think you spilled a little sexism there, might want to get that checked out.

Didn't spill anything. Spills are accidental. I said what I said on purpose.

Am I sexist? Yes...I call men "men" and women "women." I open doors for women, stand when they enter a room, take my hat off in their presence, and don't spit when they are nearby. I'll occassionally open a door for a man, stand when it is a business/formal situation, and only take a hat off if I enter their home. Yep. I'm an unrepentant sexist.

But I digress...and, besides, that is not why I said what I said.

My point is a) most of the photos are of women. I understand the *why*, but how about more of males in such a poster? b) Furthermore, where in today's society clergy may be accepted as either male or female, in line with position (a), make the clergy-type-person a male; ergo c) I deliberately chose to use the noun clergyman with the emphasis on -MAN (contra generic "clergy" or "clergy-type-person") to designate the "fuzzier sex."

Oleg wants to use a female clergy in a pic, I don't care. He could do both. Or, for that matter, he can chose to ignore it completely.

FWIW, I am hapily married to the same woman for 12+ years (plus another 3 years of dating/engagement prior) and have no desire for anyone else.

Q

 

[Matt-J2]

You might want to look again, they're not all women.

 

[Quoheleth]

My point is a) all the photos are of women

You might want to look again, they're not all women

I stand corrected. Thank you.

Q

 

[benEzra]

Rules of grammar dictate that when speaking of an unidentified individual whose sex is unknown the male pronoun is used.

Used to be, anyway. Of course, that rule was made in a time when almost anyone you spoke to in any sort of educated/professional capacity would have been male, so it was (for the time) an understandable rule. IMHO, it no longer is, and given that a significant portion of the population views it as offensive, I try to avoid the generic "he".

BTW, most people don't actually consider the "generic he" to be truly generic. If you don't believe me, construct a sentence containing "his husband or wife" as either the subject or the object, and see how many people consider that an awkward construction. The only reason it would be considered awkward would be that the "his" does, in fact, strongly connote maleness.

FWIW, I would refer to a female member of Congress as a "congressman," a female member of the clergy as a "clergyman," a female chair of a meeting as "chairman," etc. I do not like the "-person" affectation, as in congressperson, chairperson, or (LOL) clergyperson, which sound silly to my ear. I also feel that the wholesale application of "-ess" or "-trix" to words to indicate femaleness is condescending. IMO, Lara Croft is a fictional adventurer, not an "adventuress"; Patty Wagstaff is an aviator, not an "aviatrix"; etc.

 

[Maelstrom]

I also feel that the wholesale application of "-ess" or "-trix" to words to indicate femaleness is condescending.

My dominatrix doesn't seem to see it that way....

 

[benEzra]

My dominatrix doesn't seem to see it that way....

LOL...the one exception...

 

[Piedmont Plinker]

I see only bad things from the second to last one. I know its innocent, but I think too many people would read too much into it.

First thing I though too, but she's wearing glasses and and ear protection, and isn't wearing a burkah. I think it's a good diveristy picture.
That picture would be a lot worse if the woman was holding an AK47 instead of a G3 (or whatever it is.)
I like em. The neo-pagan is kinda scary looking, though.