Society/Culture Amen and Awomen

[Snake_Baker]

... the storm being boosted by Shapiro’s whinging to his base. Shapiro being the person linked in the OP.

 

[Chief]

Choosing a side would be agreeing with the act or disagreeing in some way.

As I said, I think it’s silly, but so minor and not worth the stir Shapiro is after. Hence Shapiro is doing his usual whinging to his gang of conservative Maudes.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Then why choose a side?

To prove to everyone that he's an edgy atheist.

 

[CheapCharlie]

Why doesn’t he mock them for praying to a non-existent being?

He would have to mock himself in that case

 

[Chief]

To prove to everyone that he's an edgy atheist.

Like they would have forgotten!

 

[Snake_Baker]

A person cannot be "edgy" by continually siding with contemporary group consensus.

The great lie about wokesterism is that it is viewed by wokesters as being alternative, when actually, it's the new conservatism.

 

[CheapCharlie]

 

[juss]

Proof for that statement please. How (for example) is it not evolving language? Isn't that the whole point?

What's your thoughts on 'manhole' or 'man-eating-shark' or 'man-at-arms' or 'batsman'? Or even just the use of 'man' as the denonym of the human species?

Those ones are more clear cut right?

I know many actresses that hate the term 'actress'. They're an actor.

The issue here (as I see it) isnt with 'amen' specifically; its with the English Language (and yes, it's a Hebrew word, but it's been co-opted into English) having a lot of problems with gender and possessives. For example, 'his', 'hers' and... 'theirs' or 'he', 'she' and 'they'. This phenomena then extends on to professions with feminine forms of the same word (actor and actress etc).

See also how the historical linguistic norm for when talking about a person whose gender is unspecified to default to the male. Because we dont have a gender neutral term in English to use.

It's a similar and even more entrenched phenomenon with Romantic languages, where they gender objects (a table or a beer is female, a pen is male etc) which even alters the conjunctive that proceeds the object.

We're ultimately discussing linguistics here, but the argument does go beyond mere semantics or symbolism.

All the words you've mentioned with "men" are tied to gender. If some want to add a female gender version, that could be an example of evolving language for the times where society feels it necessary.

This is completely different. There is no gender association or connotation to Amen. The Hebrew word loosely translates to may it be so/ yes I agree.

Replacing / adding the word women to every syntax of "men" where there is no gender association doesnt evolve language. Not sure how i can "prove" that but I dont think you think it does either. I mean if you do, tell me how the following also help, because it's the same thing:
abdowomen is now a female body area
owomen is now for bad signs for females
when collecting samples in a lab from female mice we've got a speciwomen. What about within words? Or the beginning of them if there is a problem with the syntax.
Womental health
Tore my womeniscus on my knee
I womentioned her in my speech.

This has now tried to attach gender to a no gendered word, completely unnecessarily. See what I mean? I havent evolved language there. What was the issue with Amen?

Batsmen/Batswomen for cricket as an example is completely different, that has gendered connotations for male cricketers vs female cricketers.

 

[Gethelred]

Where necessary yes, but this is attaching gender to a word that has nothing to do with gender. It's a step backwards, not forwards.

To use an example from before, replacing the syntax of "men" where its not tied to gender isn't solving a problem or evolving language. Using the word owomen instead of omen isn't evolving language. Using the term craftsman or craftswoman might be language evolving, because there is a gender association there.


Basically this. Its nonsensical, it makes as much sense as replacing every sequence of man or men ending words with women, if there's no gender association to the word it adds no value. It's just stupidity.

I mean, it's very silly and a bit ignorant.

I think you're overreacting a bit, though. He thoroughly deserves to have the piss taken out of him about it rather than people getting red in the face and cracking the 'culture war' shits.

See, that's the thing I don't get. Why are you getting angry over someone else being a little bit dumb in an inoffensive way?

 

[juss]

... the storm being boosted by Shapiro’s whinging to his base. Shapiro being the person linked in the OP.

If I show you an article not by Shapiro instead and use another example, are you then able to discuss the issue without reference to the individual? Shapiro is 1 of many, but he isn't the crux of this, hes just the example of one who highlighted it.

 

[Mofra]

There are going to be ridiculous outliers in any debate.
The problem is so many people take an absurd outlier and extrapolate that across an entire spectrum of people they disagree with.

 

[Chief]

On top of all this, the whole idea of praying to some made up sky-daddy is stupid.

If she was trolling the fundies, more power to her.

If she was genuinely trying to make a-women a thing then that’s just silliness best ignored by everyone.

But Shapiro is a glass-jawed conservative playing to his glass-jawed conservative fan base so it won’t be ignored when there’s publicity in it for him.

I miss Contra Mundum

 

[Chief]

If I show you an article not by Shapiro instead and use another example, are you then able to discuss the issue without reference to the individual? Shapiro is 1 of many, but he isn't the crux of this, hes just the example of one who highlighted it.

Fire away.

 

[juss]

I mean, it's very silly and a bit ignorant.

I think you're overreacting a bit, though. He thoroughly deserves to have the piss taken out of him about it rather than people getting red in the face and cracking the 'culture war' shits.

See, that's the thing I don't get. Why are you getting angry over someone else being a little bit dumb in an inoffensive way?

My response is sort of irrelevant to the issue. I'm wondering whether others feel its political correctness too far, etc. or something else that I posted in the OP.

It seems you've landed on the its just stupidity, which is fine. I'm not asking others to agree its stupid, but if they think its a good thing or evolving language, I'd like them to justify how.

That's what this forum is for, we've discussed the naming of cheese brands before. I think this is an example of words being high jacked as some sort of woke "look how progressive we are" sentiment, and its completely backward in this context. This stuff I believe affects our culture and society, so I think its relevant. There's probably a billion+ people using the word Amen daily around the world.

 

[Snake_Baker]

On top of all this, the whole idea of praying to some made up sky-daddy is stupid.

If she was trolling the fundies, more power to her.

If she was genuinely trying to make a-women a thing then that’s just silliness best ignored by everyone.

But Shapiro is a glass-jawed conservative playing to his glass-jawed conservative fan base so it won’t be ignored when there’s publicity in it for him.

I miss Contra Mundum

I know you think it's definitely the case, but you're really not any better.

 

[Chief]

I know you think it's definitely the case, but you're really not any better.

Poo to you with knobs on!

 

[juss]

On top of all this, the whole idea of praying to some made up sky-daddy is stupid.

If she was trolling the fundies, more power to her.

If she was genuinely trying to make a-women a thing then that’s just silliness best ignored by everyone.

But Shapiro is a glass-jawed conservative playing to his glass-jawed conservative fan base so it won’t be ignored when there’s publicity in it for him.

I miss Contra Mundum

We aren't here to discuss religion per se, or peoples views on God. Thats another debate.

Here is the same view from a Hebrew scholar. I wonder if this allows you to consider the issue and not Shapiro.

‘Amen’ is not gendered, and ‘A-woman’ is nonsense, Hebrew scholar says

The word “amen” is not a gendered word and the term “a-women” is entirely made up, a professor of theology who specializes in Hebrew told CNA, after a prayer in the U.S. Congress used the fake word.

www.catholicnewsagency.com

 

[Snake_Baker]

Poo to you with knobs on!

It's true mate.

You're the flip side of that same ridiculous coin.

 

[Chief]

It's true mate.

You're the flip side of that same ridiculous coin.

Defo.

 

[Gethelred]

My response is sort of irrelevant to the issue. I'm wondering whether others feel its political correctness too far, etc. or something else that I posted in the OP.

So, other responses are relevant, but yours isn't? Doesn't make sense to me.

It seems you've landed on the its just stupidity, which is fine. I'm not asking others to agree its stupid, but if they think its a good thing or evolving language, I'd like them to justify how.

See, I don't see it as evolving language, not yet. It's got to catch on first. I see it as one bloke making a blue, and the culture warriors getting up on their pulpits and screaming at him when, if they wanted it not to happen or for it to go away, all they needed to do is have a bit of a light fun at his expense.

Give it to the comedians. They'd have had a field day making exactly the same statements you've made in this thread, but waaaay funnier.

That's what this forum is for, we've discussed the naming of cheese brands before. I think this is an example of words being high jacked as some sort of woke "look how progressive we are" sentiment, and its completely backward in this context. This stuff I believe affects our culture and society, so I think its relevant. There's probably a billion+ people using the word Amen daily around the world.

I think this stuff is dumb.

Language moves (and sometimes it moves quickly) but this is not an example of language moving until and unless it catches on. The response to it is going to have more people knowing about it; it ceases to be a meaningless mistake that would've been shared around by comedians and on late night talkshows, and when that bloke is interviewed he'd have been a bit embarrassed about not knowing the etymology of the word 'amen'. But it's now fodder for the culture war mill, with threads like this and mouthpieces like Shapiro et al making it if not mainstream, at least much more widely known than if it was treated with the sfellows it deserves.

Essentially, you - and Shapiro - have given it a chance to catch on by giving it more exposure. Even if this doesn't 'trigger' you, your opposites amidst the other side of this argument will think it does, because it's getting spoken about with a tone of outrage; maybe not by you, but by others.

 

[Chief]

Here are the guy’s actual words:

“in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and a-women.”

Uses a made up word (all words being so) at the end of a prayer to made up magical beings.

Telling that it is the “women” bit that Shapiro and other religious nuts have fixated on.

 

[Chief]

when that bloke is interviewed he'd have been a bit embarrassed about not knowing the etymology of the word 'amen'

He’s a Methodist pastor. He knows.

 

[juss]

So, other responses are relevant, but yours isn't? Doesn't make sense to me.

See, I don't see it as evolving language, not yet. It's got to catch on first. I see it as one bloke making a blue, and the culture warriors getting up on their pulpits and screaming at him when, if they wanted it not to happen or for it to go away, all they needed to do is have a bit of a light fun at his expense.

Give it to the comedians. They'd have had a field day making exactly the same statements you've made in this thread, but waaaay funnier.

I think this stuff is dumb.

Language moves (and sometimes it moves quickly) but this is not an example of language moving until and unless it catches on. The response to it is going to have more people knowing about it; it ceases to be a meaningless mistake that would've been shared around by comedians and on late night talkshows, and when that bloke is interviewed he'd have been a bit embarrassed about not knowing the etymology of the word 'amen'. But it's now fodder for the culture war mill, with threads like this and mouthpieces like Shapiro et al making it if not mainstream, at least much more widely known than if it was treated with the sfellows it deserves.

Essentially, you - and Shapiro - have given it a chance to catch on by giving it more exposure. Even if this doesn't 'trigger' you, your opposites amidst the other side of this argument will think it does, because it's getting spoken about with a tone of outrage; maybe not by you, but by others.

Well before me, it was picked up on thats for sure.

Do you see it as a mistake? What do you think individuals intentions were as it was clearly premeditated?

 

[juss]

Here are the guy’s actual words:

“in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and God known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and a-women.”

Uses a made up word (all words being so) at the end of a prayer to made up magical beings.

Telling that it is the “women” bit that Shapiro and other religious nuts have fixated on.

I dont care from a religious standpoint, there may be some religious traditionalists that do.

My argument is that he's added gender to a non gender associated word. Id have the same views if someone in a parliamentary speech used the words "rain is a bad owomen". What's he trying to achieve? A level of progressive wokeness beyond us all.

 

[Chief]

What's he trying to achieve? A level of progressive wokeness beyond us all.

I agree: it’s silly.

Giving it weight is also silly.