...Between Isis, Athena, and Aphrodite, there’s no doubt women possessed great power in ancient society. — javi2541997

I can't say much, but it is quite possible. However, we cannot compare goddesses with mortal women. We cannot even compare the status of the empresses or emperors' wives with simple women.
There were always powerful women in history. In ancient Greece too, of course. But I don't think that they represented women's power, in general. E.g. women could not vote and could not participate in the Olympic and other national or local athletic games. They had their own sports, of course, but separately from men.

The real question is, what happened between ancient times and the present? When did men take over? — javi2541997

Got me unprepared! :grin:

Misogyny is evident not only in Christianity, but also in Islam. — javi2541997

Oh, certainly. Much worse. Look at their hijabs! They can be sentenced to death for committing adultery and even blasphemy! And all that you mentioned. And more.
I can't think of any other culture or religion that suppresses women as musch as in Islam.

Well, it is interesting but I don't want to go so deep inside Quran or Islamic dress ... — javi2541997

That was very funny! I had to naturally stop there for an instant. (You can imagine the image that I got in my head!) :grin:
Please go on ...

I'm not sure that was true, particularly of the many gods religions. It is true of the religions of the Book. — unenlightened

You have a point there.

That was very funny! I had to naturally stop there for an instant. (You can imagine the image that I got in my head!) :grin:
Please go on ... — Alkis Piskas

:up:

I found a crucial quote from the Quran which surprised me regarding this topic, it says: the term hijab sometimes refers to a curtain separating visitors to Muhammad's main house from his wives' residential lodgings. This has led some to claim that the mandate of the Qur'an applied only to the wives of Muhammad, and not to the entirety of women. Another interpretation can also refer to the seclusion of women from men in the public sphere, whereas a metaphysical dimension may refer to "the veil which separates man, or the world, from God". For some, the term for headscarf in the Qur'an is khimār [/i]

The hijab is worn by Muslim girls and women to maintain modesty and privacy from unrelated males. According to the Encyclopedia of Islam and Muslim World, modesty concerns both men's and women's "gaze, gait, garments, and genitalia"

Some religious groups consider the issue of veiling in Islam only as a recommendation made according to the conditions of the past, and they believe that giving it as a necessity is an imposition of an Islamist ideology. The Muslim Reform Movement emphasized that the jilbāb and khimar mentioned in the Qur'an are pre-Islamic clothing, they were not brought by the Qur'an, the hijab of the Qur'an never means a headscarf, and the Qur'an only advises on how to wear them.

This information is so interesting, I am learning a lot in this thread! :smile:

As for the "Triple Goddess" she has nothing to do with the main Greek goddesses, Hera, Athena and Aphrodite. — Alkis Piskas

That's right. Or at least to an extent it is. but then the Triple Goddess has aspects of virgin, mother, and crone with the associated colours , white, red, and black. And I think Aphrodite for love, Hera for marriage and Athena for the wisdom of age fits quite neatly. It's a complicated topic, and I am not wanting to press it here.

As to the influences, we are talking about a widespread and very ancient religion that was likely varied and widespread and will have lasted longer in more isolated places. But Graves was very much the Classics scholar, and he detects the influence of the Goddess repressed, as it were in the Greek and Roman pantheons, and relegated to minor and largely negative roles. It gives a context to the later take-over by the ambitious mouse god of the Hebrews, that we now know as Jehovah, or Allah, or simply God,

"Latinx" is not even a word in Spanish. — javi2541997

Neither is ouisqui or junque. South Americans and Spaniards are so haughty about Tex Mex, but as Dr Frankenfurter explained, "We didn't make it for you!"

Languages, particularly those like English, with large numbers of non-native speakers undergo continual change. It's fairly obvious when we pick up a book from just 100 years ago that it was not written today.

The idea that there is a "correct" way of speaking English is only to say that there is a standardized snapshot in time regarding how we speak, and, even then, distinctions exist within groups. You needn't get all up in the transexuals business and tell them how to talk, and they needn't get all up in yours. "Up" here means nothing vertical, but something too intimate, as in reserved for themselves. A non-standard word, but one available in certain contexts.

Many of the words you use today were criticized by traditionalists at one point. You don't say builded, and I doubt you say the T in doubt.

That we permit people to choose their proper names is just an arbitrary feature of our language, but there is nothing illogical in extending that to pronouns or other descriptors.

What happens is that language changes, and that change is usually organic, meaning you don't typically have people demanding new words be used, but more commonly in having people demand they be used as they once were., but the opposite occurs as well.

When I was young, you made sure to refer to your teachers as Miss if unmarried and Mrs. If married, but now we just use Ms, which is a modern creation, and you rarely, if ever see a woman use her husband's name (as in Mrs. Jebiidiah T. Hanover)..

insanity, with the idea that "gender" is completely arbitrary and has nothing to do with natural sex — javi2541997

That's why those with liquified gender, fluid gender, or viscous gender--whatever--have somehow gotten everyone to say "gender assigned at birth". "Assignment" suggests that the identification of gender is arbitrary. 99.9% of the population will identify or recognize gender in a new born by checking out the anatomy of the baby. 99.9% of the time, babies exhibit unambiguous sexual features. Granted, in a quite small share o births, genitals are ambiguous, and further examination is needed.

I doubt you say the T in doubt — Hanover

Did you mean the B in doubt? Or has Georgia developed an indubitably devious pronunciation of "doub"? Or maybe you just leave the ending consonant off, as in "I dow i".

The Latinate "b" in doubt was deleted by the French. "Doute" came into English sans 'b'. It was inserted into "doute" by early scribes (secretarial monks) based on the Latin spelling of dubitare. This reinsertion of a lost letter in Latin ---> French ---> English is quite unusual.

..

Hanover,

Thank you for your words and analysis in this thread. I cannot be disagree with you in those facts, but I guess you misunderstood my main point in my OP because I am not against all of those who makes changes in the vocabulary but the ones who destroy it without any reason.

Believe or not. Even language is a political topic which divides people. The ones who calle themselves as "progressive" want to re-establish lexicon (as they want to do so in other topics, for example History and Arts). You mentioned some examples as"When I was young, you made sure to refer to your teachers as Miss if unmarried and Mrs. If married, but now we just use Ms, which is a modern creation"
I wish the changes they wanted were similar as your example... the new "activists" want to make us understand that the language has always been a "male's thing" and the gender endings such as "- a" or " - o" (for example perra or perro, "dog". We in Spanish rarely have neutral words) are sexist.

I am against with the nonsense of some persons who feel intimidated because we distinguish with gender endings and they want to make our language uglier not modern.
"Latinx" doesn't exist in our lexicon because that doesn't make non sense.
"Elle" instead of "El/Ella". The first word looks like a frech one and neither exists in our language. Why we should implement those?

That's why those with liquified gender, fluid gender, or viscous gender--whatever--have somehow gotten everyone to say "gender assigned at birth". "Assignment" suggests that the identification of gender is arbitrary. — BC

The only problem here is the way the language and lexicon is misunderstood. All of those who feels that they have a "neutral" or "nonbinary" gender attack grammar because they feel intimidated by some words of language. They think that language and lexicon are oppressive or exclusive to them when it is some rules to help us how to write, talk and express ourselves correctly, simple.

When it comes to grammar and lexicon, I am not as liberal as @Hanover. (I am as aware as he is that language changes over time.). Yes, I am aware that some people find various aspects of the language oppressive. The business of people being "nonbinary" has been carried way too far. The idea of bi-sexuality is well established; multi-sexuality and multiple genders is, basically, baloney (salchicha de baja calidad. (Did Google translate that properly? Low quality sausage?)

Granted, the variation between strictly heterosexual and homosexual (6 stages, according to Kinsey) the various object choices (what, exactly, turns one on), levels of libido, and various aspects of personality account for lots of individual differences in sexual (or any other kind of) experience. Cooking up a list of dozens of imaginary genders and sexualities is false. No one is under any obligation to recognize anything on the list.

It's another consequence of the postmodern idea of pervasive social construction, as opposed to the operations of biology (or nature). Only by supposing that reality is a social construct can one believe that there are 77 different genders.

My advice to the individuals who find they have highly specialized and esoteric sexuality is "get over it".

What about trans persons? I have known quite a few trans persons. A grand nephew is trans. I'm OK with it, in as much as it isn't my problem to deal with often. Trans personhood involves too much difficulty to be anything other than real (one wouldn't pretend).

baloney (salchicha de baja calidad. (Did Google translate that properly? Low quality sausage?) — BC

Baloney means camelo in Spanish. It is a slang word, right? and it means foolish or deceptive talk with nonsense if I am not wrong with the interpretation!

It's another consequence of the postmodern idea of pervasive social construction, as opposed to the operations of biology (or nature). Only by supposing that reality is a social construct can one believe that there are 77 different genders.

My advice to the individuals who find they have highly specialized and esoteric sexuality is "get over it". — BC

:up: :100:

What about trans persons? I have known quite a few trans persons. A grand nephew is trans. I'm OK with it, — BC

I am OK with trans persons too. It is not a big deal and I respect the way they want to live themselves. But, sometimes, they make nonsense arguments trying to throw out logical structures. They just confuse sexuality with lexicon and grammar, that I don’t even understand why this happens at all...
Well, as you well said, I guess this is due to "Post modernism" ideas and so...

Interesting indeed. Hijabs, long women dresses and customs are totally the opposite of the provocative momen styles in our "Christian" world!
I know what "sexy" means and is for us. I don't know what it means and is for the Muslims. Maybe a woman without a hijab? :grin:
(I am bad. Shouldn't make fun of that ... And it's sexism!)

the Triple Goddess has aspects of virgin, mother, and crone with the associated colours , white, red, and black. — unenlightened

Crone, like the bagpie? I don't find it ugly at all. It's a great bird: proud, strong, energetic, intelligent and beautiful.

It's a complicated topic, and I am not wanting to press it here. — unenlightened

Right. Better not. :smile:

influence of the Goddess repressed, as it were in the Greek and Roman pantheons, and relegated to minor and largely negative roles. — unenlightened

Well, I'm afraid that you do press it here. :grin:

Anyway, all this is too "deep" for me as far as my knowledge, memory and interest about mythology are concerned. And I don't know if I should take a plunge in the deep waters of mythology.

Anyway, all this is too "deep" for me as far as my knowledge, memory and interest about mythology are concerned. And I don't know if I should take a plunge in the deep waters of mythology. — Alkis Piskas

Sorry, I cannot resist just pointing, in case anyone missed it, to the relationship between mythology -"we're not much concerned with all that these days", and prejudice and inequality unfortunately persisting in the world, even - dare I say it? in philosophy departments. (Misogyny is the necessary tool of patrilineal descent, and thus of the vaunted nuclear family, etc etc etc.)

I believe you are right, @unenlightened. Besides, I think I was the first to bring in mythology and patriarchy in this thread as part of the "sexism" theme ...

am against with the nonsense of some persons who feel intimidated because we distinguish with gender endings and they want to make our language uglier not modern.
"Latinx" doesn't exist in our lexicon because that doesn't make non sense.
"Elle" instead of "El/Ella". The first word looks like a frech one and neither exists in our language. Why we should implement those? — javi2541997

When it comes to grammar and lexicon, I am not as liberal as Hanover. (I am as aware as he is that language changes over time.). Yes, I am aware that some people find various aspects of the language oppressive. The business of people being "nonbinary" has been carried way too far. The idea of bi-sexuality is well established; multi-sexuality and multiple genders is, basically, baloney (salchicha de baja calidad. (Did Google translate that properly? Low quality sausage?) — BC

In the"doubt" example, we had an educated class making a determination that Latin was a particularly proper and pure language, and so the B (not T, my mistake) was reinserted. Languages often change through corruption, often from non-native adult speakers, but, as noted, also through intentional decisions.

The French, for example, have created the Académie Française, which protects against invasive English terms into their language.

Since my point is pretty strong here, and I typically am not more liberal than BC, we're probably not disputing language change in the abstract here as much as we are in the particular. That is, if we change from Miss to Ms., you raise no objection because you agree that preserving a marker within the language for a woman's marital status is a holdover from a sexist past that concerned itself with who spoke for the young lady, as if she were a possession.

We don't mind leaving our young maidens misidentified, but we do when it comes to identifying biological birth sex.

This seems therefore more about whether you believe trans folks are deserving of certain pronouns more than linguistic theory. What is deserved is a matter of judgment, but I'd suggest we needn't worry about the preservation of the sanctity of the language when making that judgment.