[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dq-rules] Hidden Bias (was Gender Neutral Writing)

MG> This post is not meant as an attack, and I apologize if it offends or
MG> upsets anybody.

    It didn't, and I must admit to some surprise in that. Whenever
    someone starts off saying they don't want to offend, you generally
    know that's what's coming. You avoided that nicely. Thanks. :)


Whew!


MG> In my opinion, one of the great losses to society is the lack of good
MG> written communication skills.

    I agree, and yes, it's quite true that computers have greatly
    contributed to this, simple by giving people an alternative method
    for writing that's easier and quicker. I still hope that we never
    completely lose the art of writing by hand, though. The day I see
    a computer program for calligraphy is the day I puke. <Chuckle>
I see I missed the mark slightly - I was referring to composition, not just penmanship. As much as I hate to do this, I think there are several calligraphy software packages. A further decline of civilization - soon we will have to communicate by head shot! 


MG> There are several types of bias, unfortunately. Some of them are hard
MG> to spot or understand, but they exist. The 'gender bias promulgated
MG> by use of the HE pronoun' is one of them. I am not sure how to
MG> express this very well (I am much better in person) but it can be
MG> compared to the feelings of short people or left handed people in its
MG> effect and distribution.

    You're doing fine expressing yourself, and I do know exactly what
    you're trying to say. No matter how you word it, I've heard the
    claim many times. The problem is that the bias is inferred by many,
    but doesn't truly exist. He, Him, and His are simply the words
    used by the language as generic terms, because it's literally
    impossible to do otherwise, unless you want to create a third
I did not take the time to support my statements, but there have been studies that show that the bias does, in fact, exist. The link posted by Roger (http://www.utexas.edu/student/utlc/handouts/1284.html) lists one of the studies and its conclusion:
2 It's offensive. Even if you don't mean to be sexist, gender-biased language can insult your readers. Research indicates that "when you use the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and tend not to think female" (Miller and Swift 21).
Clearly, not everybody will perceive the problem or be affected by it. The fact is that it does exist because it is perceived by some. I am not going to go on much more about this, by the way. That the bias exists is a fact and the problem that it creates (also cited):
3 It perpetuates stereotypes. Language influences our thoughts and beliefs. Statements like "A doctor should respect his patients" and "A nurse should respect her patients" reinforce sexist stereotypes.
Although the doctor/nurse example may not be the best, the effects of the bias are real. Maybe not as real for some as for others, but it is there. 


    category of expressions that are completely neuter, and I don't
    recommend it. I've seen that attempted, and quite frankly, it was
    a ludicrous experiment with clearly distracting results. Remember,


I have hated every attempt I have seen, with s/he being the worst of the lot.


    we are the huMAN race, comprised of men and woMEN, all retaining
    their huMANity. Let's toss MANkind in there, too. :) I'm not being
I think the solution has to come from the knowledge that the English language seems to have been derived by men, for men. We are trained from early on that God created the universe in His image and women was created from man (and not a very good cut of meat <- attempted humor there). I never went to church, and I know that one! 


    flippant, as it might appear. What I'm trying to point out is that
    the term "woman" is a modification of man, with "man" receiving a
    qualifier. The English language recognizes the base, and ignores
    the modifiers, when speaking generically. It's not a bias, it's
Despite all the training that some of us received in public schools that the terms are supposedly gender neutral, the perception of a problem by some readers/listeners is real. Maybe the gender neutrality should be better taught during school - I think all of us would probably agree that educational standards have slipped somewhat in the last 40 years. 


    I agree with some of that, although the high heels bit is a little
    confusing. I don't know a single man that considers the effect on
    appearance that heels give a woman, other than greater height. Did
Lucky me. I have been dragged along on numerous shoe shopping trips with different women and have been asked about leg appearance more often than the fabled 'do these pants make my butt look big?' question. 


    you read that in Cosmo? :) And short people don't always get


Why would an astronomical magazine talk about fashion?? (More attempted humor)


    ignored or have a lack of respect. See, you said they are "denied"
    that, when what you should have said is simply that they have to
    work a little harder to attain it. Perot, Devito, Napolean... I
    could go on. They had a steeper climb, but they overcame. I'm
    tall, but I have a brother that is short. He was insecure about it
    briefly, but then, while still in his teens, he realized it wasn't
    important, and he became secure with who he was, and that lead to
    him being popular and successful. It's all in the mind. It's all
    still in the mind with the language, too. Realize the truth of how
    it works, understand that it's not a slur or intended bias, and
    suddenly your back to being able to enjoy the language without
    being distracted by silly things bread from insecurity.


Good for your brother! Many people are unable to overcome their insecurities.
I agree that it should not be a problem, I think where we differ is that I recognize that this particular bias, much like most biases, does exist. Sometimes it is all in the mind, but whose mind it is in sometimes matters more. You and I might know that it is just a neutral pronoun, but if your wife's boss is not educated enough to know, for example, that he includes she and/or that height is not a determiner of ability then your wife's career enhancement may suffer. I think that is a very important part of what I am trying to convey. By at least addressing the 'issue' somewhere in the text, you 'reduce your liability' and perhaps appeal to wider audience. 


    And the masses cheered, and the roses bloomed, and the scents of
    mediocrity, insecurity, and fear were overcome by the musty smells
    of old books and the fallen rose petals, which the literate trod
    upon triumphantly.
Oh if only it were that easy. I long for the day when intelligence is recognized as the universal currency of change and progress, rather than Nielsen ratings or lowest common denominator popularity. 


MG> The left handed bias problem is much easier to locate. Ask any left
MG> handed person how they feel about how the world is designed and you
MG> are likely to get an 'ugh' related response. From simple things like
MG> doors and scissors to more complicated things like cars and writing
MG> with a pen or pencil. We live in a right handed world, and there are
MG> constant reminders for lefties that the world is not theirs. I am
MG> right handed, by the way, but my fiancee and best friend are lefties.
MG> I have heard about their pain and suffering - it exists.

    Here I disagree a little more strongly. This isn't a bias, it's
    marketing. Most people are right-handed, so that's how items are
    designed. I'm a very big and tall man, and it's a pain in the rear
    for me to find clothing with costing me a fortune. I usually have
    to mail order things. Heck, my shoe size is 16! Is any of that the
    result of bias? Of course not, and I'd be both wrong, and showing
    my insecurity, if I claimed otherwise. I don't like it, but the
    fact is simply that people my size are fairly rare in the
    population, and it costs more for these things to be crafted and
    produced. Sucks, but again, that's just the way it is, and it's
    nobody's fault. Actually, if you pause and think about it, the
    percentage in left- or right-handed items being manufactured
    *does* equal the percentage of those that exist, but that also
    means that it's going to be a little harder to locate those
    things. I'm partially in this group, too. I'm ambidextrous, and
    all the things that I do left-handed I have to look far and wide
    to find. I gave my only bow away to my brother a few days ago,
    because it was a right-handed bow and I couldn't use it.
Hopefully my last 'rant' on this particular line of reasoning - but it is the PERCEPTION of bias that creates the problem.
A truly savvy 'executive in charge of this stuff' would recognize that the extra cost of manufacturing lefty items could be absorbed by the profits from the righty sales. The whole shebang could be invisible to the consumer. A lefty going into a store to buy a pair of scissors does not care about economy of scale, he just wants to cut paper. 


MG> So, what is the point of worrying about such a simple, 'stupid'
MG> little problem? It is really only a concern if you care about giving
MG> people a fair shake.

    Are we still talking about the language? If so, I don't see it the
    same way. If changing the language as we've discussed, then that's
    not giving them a fair shake, it's corrupting something beautiful
    and making sure that everyone else ends up feeling just as bad
    over what was nothing but is now made real.


Beautiful but perhaps not perfect.


MG> The lefties I know are all tired of living in the righty world, but
MG> recognize that change is hard and the status quo got that way by
MG> resisting change.

    "Change is hard?" "Status quo?" And just what is it that
    right-handed people are supposed to be resisting? C'mon, you can't
    truly be serious here. There's nothing to be changed! If
    left-handed people don't like something about their "invisible
    disability" (cough) then it's up to THEM to do something about it.
    Oh, I don't mean changing other people, because it's not any of
    those other, right-handed people's, business. I'm talking about
    overcoming their perceived problems themselves. If they're sick of
    right-handed devices or objects, then they need to overcome that,
    either by learning how to use them, or by finding and/or creating
    items they can live with.
Find two lefties, one taught how to write by a left handed teacher and the other taught to write by a right handed teacher. Sit with them and discuss their experiences. 


MG> By at least acknowledging that the English language is not quite
MG> perfect and that there is no truly convenient way of writing a gender
MG> neutral pronoun, the bias is alleviated.

    Agreed. :)
Whew, my point did get made! All I actually asked was for some acknowledgement at the start of the book. Nothing more. It is also a good compromise between leaving things as they are and fixing the problem. 


MG> The use of 'he' will still rankle some, but until English is changed so
MG> that a neutral pronoun is found and accepted it behooves the writer to
MG> at least consider the potential audience.

    Oh man, if you only knew. What your describing is a form of
    pandering, and you won't go far in the industry if you practice
    it. God forbid someone actually creates a neutral pronoun, which
    would be an atrocity, but the mixing of gender terms isn't an
    answer, it only aggravates the issue. Professional writers won't
    touch the subject, and rightly so. This is for two reasons. First,
    it's just plain wrong, and an incredible butchery of the English
    language, which, although imperfect, is extremely beautiful.
    Secondly, they'd get fired for producing unprofessional material.
Hopefully we can agree to disagree here. I see your point, but do not agree with it. I am an engineer and I understand the need to correct problems. That might be why I am better able to cope with the change. Creation of a VALID neutral pronoun will not invalidate the written works of history any more than abolishing slavery and the implementation of the equal rights amendment invalidated the Civil War or the Tom Sawyer. At the time, they were valid pints of view. (Please note that the Civil War was not fought over slavery - it was certainly AN issue, but not THE issue).
I think what prompted me to write the first email was the term 'pandering'. I do not think it is pandering because, as I have written too many times today, the bias does exist. Languages evolve, and attempting to halt that process will kill the beauty of the language faster than fixing the problem. Just my opinion. Certainly introduction of certain slang terms hinders the beauty, if you know what I mean, dawg. but much of that stuff is just, you know, like totally a fad. It's cool for a while but then disappears, hopefully. Much of the time, the use of too much slang is a sign of poor education or just ignorance - it can also be sign of cultural identification.
I could counter with the argument that if I am pandering, then you must be on the side of the 'language purist' or perhaps we should call you an 'English Supremist' (The Webster Klux Clan - more attempted humor). By the way, I am not calling you either of those things, nor do I have a 'real problem' with this. It just has been an issue in my past and I understand how some people affect others with, and are affected by, it. For what it is worth, I am a caucasian male of average height, dark hair and brown eyes. 


    Hey, one other thing to think about. There are over 200,000 words
    in the English language. Do you know how many most people use in
    their entire lives? Around 500-900 at most. Before we start
    worrying about changing some of the few words we've bothered to
    allow ourselves to learn between reruns of Gilligan's Island and
    chasing after dates while guzzling cases of lite beer, perhaps we
    should turn towards the concept of simply learning more of our
    language in the first place, so we have a greater mental
    vocabulary to choose from?

    Just my opinion. :)
I agree. The 'problem' is that what we are actually discussing is one of the more common words. Pronouns are fairly important. I assume that you will agree that having a firm foundation for the language will make it better.
I think I am pretty much done on the topic, I have certainly had my say (and am thankful for the opportunity!). A few others have chimed in with their opinions and all have had good things to say, made valid points and kept their tempers. It seems that all of us approach the topic from different directions without really being part of the problem - once again proving that good material attracts good people (a poorly veiled attempt to show that DQ still has legs).
If anybody wants to comment on what I have written here, feel free. I may not respond unless requested or if I feel that I need to clarify something. Hopefully we can all meet up somewhere and play a game. 
--


"If you haven't got your health, at least you have something to talk about."
"They say that everything happens for a reason. I am just tired of that reason being to make me unhappy or embarrassed."
"You can't make a baby in a month using nine women, but it sounds like it would be fun to try!"
"Does it ever occur to women that maybe it is their butts that make their pants look big?"