The femo-nazis would be on a rampage if they used the sentence "Women do not read books."
I have a question about this, can someone help?
1) Does this refer to "the" men, or is this a statement about all men. 2) does this statement refer to habit (like i do not read books - in my free time), or does it only refer to the present (i do not read a book), or does it refer to possibly both
The reason i ask this is because some languages use different grammar or words/phrases to express these. Thank you!
1) So, to my knowledge, the phrase generally would refer to a specific set of men as opposed to a general statement about men. If it was a general statement about men, you'd put "hota hai" after "pardte" (Though, pardte would be conjugated differently).
2) it generally refers to habit (I read), but can occasionally be used as the present continuous (I am reading). If you want to be clear that the men are reading now, you'd say "Admi kitabe parh rahe hain (pronounced heh, nasally)"
Does that make sense?
Oh jeez guys really? We've also learned that while Nehas read, Julias just eat. Lol I didnt see a bunch of Julia's pitching a fit in the comments. I also was forced to say I drink tea, several times, even though I don't. They're practice sentences. Calm down and focus on your learning. Us "femo-nazis" haven't infiltrated Duo just yet. Lol ;*
Learning a language is more than about one to one substitution for words. One also has to grow in understanding a cultural context to really comprehend a language. If while learning Hindi we are told repeatedly to reproduce the statements "Dalits (untouchables) don't read." and "Brahmins (the priestly cast) read" we'd suspect that a subtle message about cultural values is being foisted upon us. It wouldn't be difficult for the coders to mix it up, and assign illiteracy and literacy to both groups alternately. But to constantly reiterate that just one group is literate and another isn't gives the impression of intention: that the authors are hoping to teach us something about Indian culture, not just words. Anyone with any knowledge of Indian culture knows that sexism is just as prevalent there as cast biases. I hope that the authors of this site are not up to confirming prejudices when it comes to sexism, but that is the impression they give when they leave this kind of thing stand.
Comeon guys.. it does not say all men don't read just add it does not say all Julia's just eat!!! And if you want to talk about sexism.. The whole language of Hindi is prejudiced against women... Think of plural for men.. aadmi remains the same while woman conjugates to aurathom for plural like women need the strength of numbers.. am I fighting against the language cause of that?
Wow, I'm not sure how to even respond to that, but I'll give it a shot.
Julia is a fiction, a name not assigned to a real person in this context. Even if I know a "Julia" I don't assume the authors of the lessons know the same "Julia." So I don't assume they are referring to the Julia I know. If the name "Trump" or "Obama" were to be used, we'd be brought to a larger context and we would have a pretty good guess of who such statements were meant to describe: an assumed shared knowledge.
In the same way "men" is a "name" (a noun or designation) of a group of people understood by all. It is not an equivalent to "Julia."
do you have nothing better to do? normal free-thinking people will figure out that men still read in India. how butthurt can you get?
It would be easy enough to have the software alternate between "men" and "women" here, or just have something less reflective of intellectual capacities, like "men do not drink tea."
How about we just don't worry about it, and if someone gets triggered, oh well
So that's your definition of freedom of expression? You propose everyone ignore evidence of sexism, and if they don't, they are violating your freedom to express yourself? This seems to me a rather biased definition of "freedom".
I'm assuming any sexism on their part was inadvertent, and proposed some simple fixes. You are assuming their sexism is intentional, and we should support their right to express it.
I guess time will tell who made the correct assumption.
I don't care if the 'sexism' was intentional, but the idea that we have to modify the algorithm to prevent someone from being offended by a simplistic language learning exercise is absurd. It is exactly the type of thinking that is ruining all forms of entertainment, and our society in general.
Furthermore, what does it mean to be sexist? I imagine to you it probably means to deny the very real differences that exist between the sexes, and anything that promotes the traditional division of labor that I and many others prefer.
@mike658920 You're drawing a false comparison here. It would be as if the statements always read "Brahmans don't read"/ "Dalits read". Duo is intentionally choosing it's examples to mitigate sexist stereotypes here. Men crying sexism over this is akin to the fallacy of "reverse racism". A privileged group (white people, men, brahman, etc) doesn't experience "isms". They can experience a reduction in their privilege as equity across groups increases. If you feel threatened or attacked by this practice sentence, check your male privilege.
you are out of your mind. leave your nonsense for elsewhere and take the sentences with a grain of salt
First, you are claiming I'm drawing a false comparison, and then you go on to argue assuming it is a true comparison.
Second, you seem to display some knowledge of these issues in your post. So I believe you will be able to understand that "privileged group" is an over simplification. All groups DO experience "isms". By that I mean you can only create an unprivileged group by also creating a privileged group. And one can make false assumptions (pre-judgments, or prejudices) about either side to make the separation viable. To contend men "don't" read doesn't just say something about men. It also implies something about women as well.
I'm not taken aback by such a statement because I feel my status as a thinking, reading male is being threatened, I'm taken aback because (a) it isn't true; and (b) it reinforces stereotypes that men and women are intellectually fundamentally different, which in my view they are not. In general I found that (a) is always a good indication that (b) is taking place, whether it has to do with sex, or race, or class or caste. All the "isms" as you call them begin with a cute, innocent little lie-- the first one is always easy to swallow.
No: Duo is NOT intentionally choosing its examples to mitigate sexist stereotypes. To claim men do not read is to imply men are "doers" and not "thinkers" the gender of action, not the gender of contemplation. That's sexism.
Indeed. It's just a very poor combination that I hope can be avoided when they are out of beta.
Does it become singular or plural (man/men) depending on the verb conjugation? Or is there a difference between the terms for man and men?
These are learning exercises! If the genders were reversed, someone else would be claiming sexism. It would be nice if Duolingo gave equal representation to all genders, and in the future they probably will, however, this is not sexism. It's just a baby step in the learning process.
I am a man, and just because I'm learning the sentence, "Men do not read books", doesn't make me believe that the makers of this app truly believe that to be the case. That would be pretty ignorant.
People must learn to not take offence so easily if they are going to live happy lives. I'm not saying that you are taking offence, I have just been seeing so many people, of both genders, claiming sexism on here. Some pretty mad, hurt by the perceived threat to their sexuality.
I say, have fun learning! Take what you learn and build new sentences that mean something to you! Don't use sentences that don't mean anything to you. Words are words. Be empowered!
I agree with you. Elsewhere there are sentences like We are not vegetables. I am a fish. Absurd sentences make you pay more attention to the words you are learning.
Where the object matters is in choosing the correct suffix to a possessive pronoun. But here everything must agree with the subject, not object.
Why can't you say women read books without saying that men do not? Obviously we do
I agree. My advice would be to avoid making comments about male and female intellectual habits, as well as a variety of other comments based on gender, race, etc. That being said, if there is some pedagogic reason compelling the inclusion of such grammar constructions, set them up so the groups involved are treated equally: that a possibly disparaging representation is applied equally to either group at random.