Re: CHAT: BOOK/CHAT: FW: Lunatic Lovers of Language

Nik Taylor wrote:
>
> Oops!  I had a feeling that there were some women I was leaving out.
> Sorry.  Still, the sex ratio is heavily skewed towards male.
>
> --
> "Public media should not contain explicit or implied descriptions of sex
> acts.  Our society should be purged of the perverts who provide the
> media with pornographic material while pretending it has some redeeming
> social value under the public's 'right to know.'" - Kenneth Star, 1987
> ICQ: 18656696
> AOL IM: Nik Tailor
S'Okay. I know I've been lurking mostly for a couple months here, as
I've been busy with RL projects. And you are correct, even given all the
issues in my other ranting post, this list is indeed primarily male.

I did go back and read Baba's post. I have to emphatically disagree with
the comparison summed up by "language as mistress". Sorry, I don't
agree.

But I will not deny that that author was correct in his finding that
practically all historical conlangers have been male. I'd suggest that
this is more similar to the function that until recently, most of our
philosophers (in European based cultures) have been male, most of our
academic thinkers in general have been male.

Most women have simply not had the option to retire to the study away
from the necessities of keeping daily life running. Women of privledge
who don't have to worry about the constant repeating work (like
housework, which must continually be re-done), still haven't, in
general, been allowed the luxury of retreating to the study. They are
expected to be active in social circles or good works, or *anything*
that will keep them from being "idle". Let's not even get into the fact
that education was denied or discouraged for women, even in the upper
classes. I'll also note that this retreat hasn't been available to most
*men*, but more men have been able to make this escape than women.

Laurie
---
milo@winternet.com
http://www.winternet.com/~milo