there are things I could talk about...

[permetaform]

like, I could post about how Pirates is so much lovely about the Freedom or I could post PotC ficlets or about rants on how Elizabeth is the Pirate KING dammit, not Pirate Queen, they PURPOSEFULLY called her Pirate KING but I won't.

Instead I post this chat:

permetaform : XD http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/006945.html

lierdumoa : more dinosaurs and sodomy
I WILL KEEP THAT IN MIND

permetaform : really, it explains everything

lierdumoa : consequently I know of an SGA fic that has both

permetaform : o.0

lierdumoa : eleveninches wrote it

permetaform : XD of course she did
it's eleveninches

lierdumoa : yeah, pretty much

Comments

[ranalore.livejournal.com]

There are those who consider the spoiler anti-feminist, and so do what fans are wont to do with things they don't like, which is subvert and change it. I respect that.

[permetaform]

::blink::

::blinkblink:: buh??

[ranalore.livejournal.com]

If one takes the tradition of "King" as opposed to "Monarch" to refer to the idea that a female monarch might be or have been unthinkable, that, in short, a "Queen" would be inconceivable in its inferiority, then I can see why people might decide to forego the "King" part of the title and run with "Queen" or even "Monarch" once Elizabeth took the title (and an argument could be made that she'd switch to "Queen" in reference to herself, after making her point with the "King" to Jack). I personally am fond of the dissonance created by a woman being the King, but that's just it, it's a personal preference, informed by my feminist inclinations. Other people's preferences and inclinations will flow differently.

[permetaform]

so...people think that saying Pirate King is anti-feminist?

::brain working slow today and also, mindboggling::

[ranalore.livejournal.com]

People think calling a woman a King rather than a Queen could be read as anti-feminist, since it could be argued there's an implication that Queen is not good enough, and therefore a woman's not good enough unless she's addressed as a man. Which is, in fact, the argument I would normally make myself, as to why I'd not call a woman a King. In this particular case, however, I liked the execution.

I should probably let you know at this point that I have serious issues with any discussion that seems to be leaning toward "oh, those crazy feminazis." I'm aware of the issue, and I try to make allowances because of the related sensitivity, so I apologize if the above statement sounds like I'm accusing you of a reaction you're not having at all. I'm guessing the mindboggling might just be because you hadn't considered that angle before.

[permetaform]

well, I find it disquieting that it matters that one specify the gender for a leader. Like I perfer to call female actors as actors and not as actresses, because the essential job is not gender-dependant. I feel that women should be empowered and I feel that it's empowering being a woman; but that's a definition of me, rather than a job I perform.

The mindboggling was because of my disquiet and because I actually was straining to understand what you wrote in the second comment.

[permetaform]

additional thought : granted, while the separation of Job and one's Self is rather murky, like that of the Body and the Mind, there does exist a separation tho it's murkier for some than for others.

[ranalore.livejournal.com]

See, I respect what you're saying too, but you seemed unaware of why people should choose to call Elizabeth a Queen rather than a King, so I thought I'd put possible reasons out there. As you find gender-marked language disquieting in one direction, others might find it so in another. For example, if one considers both King and actor to be gender-marked terms for jobs which themselves are not gendered, one might choose to employ Queen and actress in protest of the default assumption of maleness. One might even choose to say Queen and actress when talking about men in those positions, as I write "she" when discussing the non-gendered theoretical third person. We all come at it differently, but one approach doesn't trump another in this particular discussion.

Hopefully, that makes what I mean to say more clear. *G*

[gypsy-nightfire.livejournal.com]

I have to agree with a base term for a job. I'd call the jobs King and Consort, and bugger the gender. But then, I'm all for a third third person pronoun which means "he or she" and "him or her." Both for ease in writing, and because *shrugs* eh, gender, whatever.

(All in it's place, of course. I also embrace the differences between women and men, I just think the samenesses merit their own non-gender-specific words.)

~Nightfire.

[permetaform]

Well, I know that "him" and "he" was originally meant to be gender neutral. It was only later that it was deemed only for male useage.

While I understand the arguments around 'default assumption of maleness', I think that the arguments are a bit...blinkered. I think instead there's a default assumption of 'like me', with everything else being 'Other'; I think there's a default assumption of 'male' because the most of the ones in power are males and it's easier to consider one's own viewpoint especially since one is more intimately connected with it. (This is not to say that one shouldn't expand one's viewpoints of the world, but that it's the easiest and what happens most often).

My assumption is that the male's world chose the words 'Queen' and 'actress' for women (the Other), to differentiate them from 'King' and 'actor'. And while there have been movements to reclaim words like 'nigger' and 'gay', the reclaimation occured predominantly in-community and is still viewed as derogatory when called by one from outside the community. Because while one method is to change the opinion by using a word differently, oftentimes opinions are shaped by pre-existing words as they are established and the useage of words differently tend to cause either no change or confusion in meaning between the speaker and the audience.


Thank you, yes that does make it more clear. =)

[permetaform]

I've been using 'they' and 'them' for single person gender neutral. ::grins:: a royal We.

[ttiot.livejournal.com]

I loved Elizabeth the KING. I would have been seriously pissed if they called her Queen.
(but then I am that way)



(I just stumbled across your journal through linzeems, and had to say that)

[permetaform]

hee, I was hopeful that they'd actually call her King, but I didn't expect it. I'm so heartened and glad that they actually GAVE it to us. Really the whole movie said awesome things for equality and freedom, I'm just so impressed and glad, because it could have gone so badly and instead it came out better than good. ^_^

[ranalore.livejournal.com]

The thing is, "he" and "him" were meant to be gender neutral because men were (are) considered the unmarked gender. So, yeah, we see the semantics involved very, very differently.