

Oh, right, you're one of those "social justice" people. - gnosis
http://thefeaze.livejournal.com/37137.html

======
pmiller2
I don't think this was worth nearly as many words as were devoted to it.
(Indeed, the irony of me adding to that number by making this post is not lost
on me.) Use of the word "he" to describe an abstract, indefinite person ("a
programmer," for instance) does not imply the gender of that person, for the
simple reason that abstract, indefinite people _don't have_ gender.

Alternatively, look at it this way. You've got basically three choices:

1\. Use "he" as the default.

2\. Use "she" as the default.

3\. Alternate between the two somehow.

#1 is still considered the most standard usage, although #2 is certainly
acceptable. As for #3, some writers might consider it progressive or gender-
neutral, but I consider it simply jarring and won't use it.

When I write, I generally choose "he." I certainly hope I haven't offended any
nameless, abstract, genderless persons by this practice! There are certain
exceptions; for instance, if I were referring to a dental hygienist (over 90%
of whom are female), I might choose "she," but, overall, I stick with the
rules of English without any compiler-specific extensions.

~~~
johnny22
lots of folks go for "they"

~~~
catshirt
I opt for they/their when possible. Although this post helped me realized I
could instead just construct a fictional character with a defined gender.
Can't argue with that. "Yes, that's right. (S)he's a (s)he."

------
gacba
I appreciate the tone and substance of the article, but...

 _"College is where we form our ideas about what is going to be acceptable in
the 'real world'."_

No, actually, college is where you gain the illusion that you know what the
real world is like...And then reality whacks you in the head sharply upon
graduation.

------
catshirt
I know this won't be a popular response, but there are so many problems of
greater significance (sexist or otherwise) to worry about than the pronoun
usage of your outdated textboook in your outdated cs introduction.

Is it distasteful? Sure. Is it tactful or responsible? Not very, on either
count. Was it intended to hurt anyones feelings? Probably not. Will it prevent
this person from reaching their maximum potential, professional or otherwise?
Probably not.

Given the above I can't help but emphasize the word choice of her friend's
response: _why_ care?

------
thefeaze
Hi, I wonder how gnosis found my blog? Anyway:

I grew up in New York City, and relatively recently moved to Baltimore County.
Something I've been coming to understand a little more every month is the
difference between my understanding of what feminism is and what other
people's understanding of what feminism is. To me, being a feminist means
being not-sexist, and thinking that sexist things are unfortunate, in much the
same way that being a normal person means being not-racist and thinking that
racist things are unfortunate. It has been my experience that sexism, like
homophobia and Islamophobia but unlike racism or ableism, is often accepted in
quasi-professional circles. I think that none of those things should be
accepted. I understand that many people's perspective of feminism is that it
is in some ways man-hating or implies the superiority of women. As there is no
official Feminist Institution with a Feminist Charter giving out Feminist
membership cards/tattoos, I understand that what people think feminism is will
be dictated by the literature and rhetoric with which they grew up. I think
that the real issue is not that people are 'not feminists' but that people
dismiss legitimate issues concerning equity as 'being feminist'. There is an
attitude that caring is for 'social justice people' and that real technical
people don't concern themselves with these issues. I personally think that it
would be positive for people in technical fields not to dismiss a critical
approach to these issues. I personally think the 'he' thing is somewhat
damaging (as is the tone in the department that 'easy problems are for girls'
and the charge leveled at me by my TA that 'you only got to skip prerequisites
because you have tits') but I am open to disagreement on the subject. Refusing
to be critical about sexist or potentially sexist perspectives at all because
feminism is an ideology you don't like is a far deeper problem.

~~~
gnosis
_"I wonder how gnosis found my blog?"_

I found your blog through a search for Dennis E. Shasha, who you mention in
this post:

<http://thefeaze.livejournal.com/37102.html>

Welcome to HN. I'm looking forward to hearing more from you, as you've clearly
got some interesting things to say.

Just a brief writing tip (no offense): you may want to separate your writing
in to paragraphs. Three to five sentences per paragraph is probably a good
rule of thumb. It's difficult to read through a huge wall of text.

------
krakensden
I'm struck by two things: her completely un-ironic dismissal of people with
different views and backgrounds, and the fact that this blog post is going to
show up everywhere.

She is going to be deluged with bile, and nobody deserves that crap.

------
tzs
"I spoke to one of my friends about this issue today, a girl in the Computer
Science major".

Girl? Shouldn't that be "woman" if you are concerned about gender treatment in
language?

~~~
abyssknight
Not to mention ageism. There are so many -isms we can apply here.

------
gnosis
By focusing on the gender pronoun thing, most of the replies here seem to be
missing the more important point.

The larger and more important issue is the utter contempt for feminism (which,
at its best simply strives to have women be treated no worse than men), and
the contempt for "social justice people" (ie. people who actually care about
justice for everyone) that the poster's friend demonstrated.

And this contempt came from someone who feminists and "social justice people"
were concerned with helping. Instead of any kind of constructive or even
thoughtful comment on the issue, the author's friend simply contemptuously
dismissed her and everyone who cares about any of these issues.

That's the larger problem. Contemptuous dismissal of people who are actually
interested and motivated to help move society forward.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_The larger and more important issue is the utter contempt for feminism
(which, at its best simply strives to have women be treated no worse than
men), and the contempt for "social justice people" (ie. people who actually
care about justice for everyone)._

Like it or not, many people who self-describe as feminists are actually
seeking a privileged position for women. Many people who self-describe as
seeking "social justice" are actually far left wing extremists pushing fairly
radical proposals. Extremists in these groups tend to use minor offenses as a
club to tar their political opponents [1], and the rest of the world is
treating the entire group as the boy who cried wolf.

It's hardly an issue restricted to feminists or social justice types. The Tea
Party faces similar issues - they didn't immediately kick the racists out when
they started and now the entire movement is viewed as racist.

[1] I don't think the author of this blog post is necessarily one of them. She
is just a young kid who took the rhetoric of her tribe too seriously.

By the way, why the double post?

~~~
gnosis
_"Like it or not, many people who self-describe as feminists are actually
seeking a privileged position for women."_

This is a media distortion.

 _"Many people who self-describe as seeking "social justice" are actually far
left wing extremists pushing fairly radical proposals."_

I could see how that might seem to be the case in a country that's been driven
as far to the right as the US has. Where Jimmy Carter, Clinton, and Obama are
also branded "far-left radicals" and "socialist Nazis".

Wanting people to be treated fairly is now seen as an "extremist", "radical"
position.

 _"By the way, why the double post?"_

Because the first post was just a reply to the first person who got distracted
by the gender pronoun point to the exclusion of the more important point I
addressed in my post. Then a whole bunch of other people effectively started
saying the same thing. So I decided to post a general reply instead. I would
have deleted the original reply, but it already had a reply, so I kept it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_This is a media distortion._

Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women
don't exist? I've met them. In the interests of being verifiable, I'll link to
a particularly noxious example:

"At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them [the ability to
commit paternity fraud] has been taken away, the one respect in which they had
the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist
appliance of science…"

[http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-
daddy...](http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml)

All organizations, movements and political affiliations have crazies, and very
often they will come to dominate the media attention. It's just a sad fact of
life. And no, your favorite organizations are not immune.

And no, I won't be drawn into a discussion of the merits of "social justice"
(whatever that means). It's utterly irrelevant to the point I was making. As I
said, my point applies equally well to the Tea Party, a rather disorganized
group who's aims I'm moderately sympathetic to.

~~~
gnosis
_"Are you seriously asserting extremist feminists seeking privileges for women
don't exist?"_

Of course they exist. But I wouldn't call them "many", as you did in your
original reply. They're a minority. The vast majority of feminists are simply
after being treated no worse than men. A "radical" and "far-left" idea, I
know.

And since when did some Spectator columnist become the spokesperson for
feminism?

~~~
yummyfajitas
To clarify, by "many", I meant "enough to get lots of external visibility". If
I meant a majority, I would have said "most". By "many", I meant "enough for
me to randomly meet several in everyday life" and "enough for me to dig up
newspaper columns with a quick google search".

My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to
perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy. And no matter how much you try
to make this a political thing, it isn't. Right wing groups (like the tea
party, libertarians, etc) face similar problems.

~~~
gnosis
_"I meant 'enough for me to randomly meet several in everyday life'"_

Well, I'm not sure how representative one person's experience with "feminists"
is. Personally, I've never met any "feminists" of the kind you describe.

But, instead of taking two such datapoints as representative, why don't we
look at what the NOW, the National Organization for Women, "the largest
feminist organization in the United States" (with 500,000 contributing members
and 5,987 chapters in 47 U.S. states) has as its stated purpose:

    
    
      To take action to bring women into full participation
      in the mainstream of American society now, exercising
      all privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly
      equal partnership with men.
    

Does this sound so "crazy" or "extreme"? This is what feminism is about. What
you've encountered is a minority deviation and what you've heard about
feminism is a distortion. Feminists are not after dominance. They're after
fairness and equal treatment.

 _"My main point is that there are sufficiently many for the outside world to
perceive the entire movement as mostly crazy."_

I don't think this is a consequence of people meeting lots of "crazy
feminists". I don't think most people meet any feminists of any sort
whatsoever. Their views are largely shaped by the media. Which, in the US, is
largely controlled by the right wing, who are rabidly anti-feminist.

Also, the media tends to jump on any sensationalist story. So it's not really
surprising that it's the extremists who'd get much of the spotlight. But they
are not representative, by any means.

~~~
yummyfajitas
From my original post: "...the rest of the world is treating the entire group
as the boy who cried wolf."

NOW is the girl crying wolf. "Oh noes, a vampire show depicting sex and
violence against a woman!" (It's the media's latest "Outrage")
<http://www.now.org/issues/media/hall-of-shame/index.php>

If you want people to do something other than dismiss you as one of those
"social justice people", you need to disassociate yourself from NOW and their
ilk.

Also, NOW explicitly opposes equality when it gets in the way of special
privileges for women/minorities. See section 5 of their proposed
"Constitutional Equality Amendment".

<http://www.now.org/issues/economic/cea/concept.html#THE>

~~~
gnosis
Ok.. so you think affirmative action is negative discrimination (when its
whole point is to remedy discrimination) and that there's nothing wrong with
the media's endless depiction of violence against women. And you think anyone
who disagrees with you on these issues is a "far-left extremist" and a
"radical".

You also completely ignore the host of major issues that NOW has taken
important stands on in its 40 year history and focus on these two things, as
if that's all NOW was about.

I think this will be my last post in this thread. I didn't mean to get in to
an hours-long debate about this.

~~~
kokoito
I do not live in the US, so could you please elaborate on the violence
depiction issue? I was under the impression, that men get their asses kicked
in the media _a lot_ more. (partly due to our trouble in telling the
difference between "awesome" and "possibility severe injury"). But I digress.

From an international perspective, I cannot take feminism in the US seriously,
I just can't. In the original post, for example, the author takes issue with
the WORDING OF A TEXT BOOK. Are you f__ing kidding me? Is that a problem,
noteworthy for feminists to tackle? No. Again, going back to the international
context: do people know, how women are treated not only in the Middle East,
but in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, Russia and CIS or Turkey? _THAT_ is
discrimination. _THAT_ is what feminism should be fighting against. _NOT_
about some silly issues in grammar and style.

------
moskie
Agree with others here that this is post is a bit... dramatic. But I think of
this as a shortcoming of the English language. The fact that a gender-neutral
pronoun for a person doesn't exist (or exists, but isn't widely used) is
forcing this to be an issue.

Options exist (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#English>),
but none of them are widely accepted.

------
guiseppecalzone
Maybe we should just change the default to "she".

Why? -I'm a male and ambivalent about "he" being the default. But, if it's an
important issue for some woman, I'm happy to oblige. -"They" doesn't work
grammatically for singular nouns. -Creating a new pronoun for gender neutral
situations probably wouldn't catch on.

------
jdp23
"Using sexist language in educational materials today produces a body of
workers that will be active in the workforce for decades that thinks that
sexist language is professional."

Indeed.

~~~
gnosis
This is a good point, but I think a minor one in the context of the post.

The larger and more important issue is the utter contempt for feminism (which,
at its best simply strives to have women be treated no worse than men), and
the contempt for "social justice people" (ie. people who actually care about
justice for everyone).

And this contempt came from someone who feminists and "social justice people"
were concerned with helping. Instead of any kind of constructive or even
thoughtful comment on the issue, the author's friend simply contemptuously
dismissed her and everyone who cares about any of these issues.

That's the larger problem. Contemptuous dismissal of people who are actually
interested and motivated to help move society forward.

~~~
blueben
I think it's very clear that people do not understand why this matters. If
people consistently don't understand your cause, then it's your fault for
failing to convey it in a manner they can grasp internalize.

"I'm here to save you from unfair gender association because it's
unprofessional!"

Really? That's the story? That's what is supposed to persuade people to
support your cause? How do you associate that with real problems? Who is hurt
by this? What is the solution and why is it better? How does this help me
personally, and society as a whole? Those are the questions that need clear,
simple and concise answers.

~~~
gnosis
Feminists and "social justice people" certainly share some of the blame in not
effectively communicating their points of view.

But they're not completely (or perhaps even largely) to blame. What most
people know about feminism and "social justice" comes not from feminists or
"social justice people", but from the media.

That's probably why the poster's friend off-handedly and contemptuously
dismissed her concern. There's a ton of conservative and reactionary backlash
against both feminism and social justice in the largely conservative-dominated
media in the US.

So it's really not that surprising that expressing concern about these issues
would garner such a negative response. It is sad, however.

------
trotsky
I miss college.

