Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > > Class 1: Active neutral words / masculine things and persons
> > > Class 2: Stative neutral words / feminine things and persons
> >
> > This is *arbitrary*. There is no logical reason that I know of why
> > "active
> > neutral words" (whatever they are) should be put into the same class
> > as
> > "masculine things and persons", and "stative neutral words" put into
> > the
> > same class as "feminine things and persons".
>Exactly. Incidentally, in Madagascar, it is the women who are
>considered
>to be more 'active' in the sense of being obligatory on them to carry
>the
>public face of a family and be more 'aggressive' in various kinds of
>rhetorical
>styles. Men are supposed to stay at home -- quite the opposite attitude
>of,
>say, many Islamic societies.
First, this is not what I meant I never wanted to insinuate something.
Second, I've decided of an other way to oppose things to avoid that. Read
what I wrote...
I'm not sexist! So much that I never thought that someone could think that
oppose Stative and Dynamic the same way that Feminine and Masculine could
have been taken like a personnal attack.
Why do you think about that? The world has enough sexism in it that it is
not useful to search it where there is not...
I know your intentions are all for the better but you think like if that
were the most important thing but we don't pass over a inegality by always
thinking to it and see it in every words.
World will never forget the sexism before people forget it...