New report warns of dangers of trashy avatars

Mom?

I don't know if I should mention this but when I was a kid I couldn't fathom what "wife beaters" meant... I pictured something like an egg beater... Which is just gonna get me in trouble on account of it being sexist in its own special way

I didn't say I didn't use those terms. As usual, I'm just attempting to tell the truth about what stuff means. I am sensitive to other people and use language accordingly. However, I recognize it for what it is--catering to people's sensitivities, not participating in something that meaningfully changes anything.

Changing the words we use for things doesn't change the complex of emotions and references that are related to those things. If people of a specific gender or class continue to occupy the preponderance of positions of authority 25 years hence, then some people will demand that we stop calling them "chairs" or whatever and start calling them something else--but that won't change the fact that they are possessors of power and authority that others don't have.

Words are symbols. The meaning adheres to the thing the symbol names, not the symbol itself. If the thing being named has sufficient power, it will overcome all efforts to dilute that power by changing its name.

And once again--it's a "tank top".

Great , my favorite shirt, so now I must either wear sleeves or expose more of my body to the risk of skin cancer in summer by wearing singlets with the added risk of one of my moob's falling out in public

http://www.hanes.com/Hanes/Products/Men-Hanes/Men_ShopByCategory-Hanes/Men_Tshirts-Hanes/Men_Tshirts_Underwear-Hanes/15494.aspx?TRC=SEARCHH&cm_mmc=Google_Hanes-_-Men_AShirt-_-Broad%20Ad_3431700550-_-a%20shirt&gclid=CKPvlvXes50CFc5U2godaAlArQ&ef_id=1728:3:s_cc75fce22eb34524e2e20a2bd92ff6bf_3431700550:StEnWdBbricAAHoBaiUAAACA:20091011003121



"A" shirt and they even have Obama modeling for them. Hell he is everywhere these days.

I think we can all agree that is a risk you should never take... NEVER LOLz

All men should always appear in public heavily clothed.

Yeah, I'd have to either wax or braid my shoulder hair before even considering a sleeveless shirt LOLz

TMI

I thought you'd sympathize (or at least "have my back" on this one, little ferret buddy

You're confusing ferrets and poodles.

I think that being aware of other people's sensitivities in itself constitutes a reasonable justification for being careful to use inclusive language, as clearly do you. I hope that your use of the word "catering" does not imply that you tend to think of other people's sensitivities a little contemptible? You don't feel that you are "pandering" to them, do you?


I will certainly agree that the reality, and not merely the language we use to refer to it, needs to change. But language is one of the means by which that change can be effected. The words we choose communicate our attitudes towards something (see for example my discussion of "catering" versus "pandering" above). Changing words like "Chairman" to "Chair" communicates our determination that the reality of that position should be gender-neutral. That's not going to change the reality on its own, but it's going to help.

I find your view of language a little simplistic, to be honest; nearly a century of the study of semiotics has taught us that language is not as transparent as you here suggest it is, nor do I think that many students of linguistics would subscribe to the notion that "meaning adheres [only] to the thing that the symbol names." (I am reminded of the Laputan philosophers in Gulliver's Travels who decide to dispense with symbols entirely, and communicate solely by carrying or gesturing to the "things" themselves.)

At the very least, you are failing to account for the importance of connotation. On a denotative level, referring to a group of 40 year old women as "the girls" might mean essentially the same thing as "the women," but on a connotative level, it communicates a whole new set of meanings superadded to the mere identification of the "things" referred to.

So too a term like "Chairman"; it has developed connotations to which you may or may not be personally sensitive, but which are certainly present for others. It is reductive to simply ignore the bundles of extra connotative meanings that our choice of words also communicates to our auditors.


Here at least we are in agreement.

I think linguistic relativity is a whole different kettle of fish, really, although I would subscribe to a VERY restricted version of the theory: I think that how we express things does indicate how we view reality, although it need not LIMIT our view of it.


Well, sizable enough that "humankind" is frequently used these days as a substitute.


Of course. But you may be unintentionally or thoughtlessly "attacking" a group or individual if you are using language thoughtlessly.


You SAY this, but the fact is that, here and in RL, you DO make an effort, in your use of language and other means of communication, to ensure that you are being kind and sensitive to people. This is no different, really. No, you won't get it right every time; I certainly don't. But you TRY.


"radical feminist" = anyone who believes that feminism is about more than no longer holding doors open for females, or paying the tab at dinner.

It's not whether the language we use need limit our view of reality, it's whether it does and we don't realize it.



Google results:

humankind: 4.8 million results
mankind: 34.7 million results

What does that prove? I have no idea.



Sure, except that you can't call it "thoughtless" if you are making a sincere effort to communicate. There really is a limit to which you can control the interpretations of your words as each person individually will run them through their own set of biases.

And you can't call it an "attack" if it is unintentional.



Of course. But try as I might, I quite often have people completely misinterpret what I've said. Am I responsible for all of the life experiences and cultural differences that might lead someone to misinterpret me? I don't think so. I do make an effort but it only goes so far. Sometimes people actually refuse to hear what you are saying because of their own biases.



I guess this is a whole notha can of worms. I tend to put the radical label on them if they yell at me for holding a door... or for having a penis

Here is what I wonder.

If you know that a word like "mankind" offends some segment of the population, even if it is only a minority of the population, and you have some sort of logical argument about how they shouldn't be logically offended, is it really so hard to use something like "humankind" and just not offend them? It seems to me that it takes less effort to use a term like "humankind" in place of "mankind" than it takes to convince them that they have no logical reason to be offended by being reminded that it is indeed still a man's world.

The effort to which the gendered language is defended convinces me that the defenders indeed realize the power of the language.

Well . . . maybe. But that would rather seem to support my point, no?


Without insisting on too much, I'd say that upwards of 12% constitutes a fairly "sizable" proportion.


Of course. A reasonable person isn't asking you to be clairvoyant, or to tailor EVERYTHING you say to someone else's sensitivities.

And I agree about "attack". That's why I put it in quotation marks.


Of course.


Well, the point is that "radical" is used as a pejorative. I get called a "radical feminist" all the time, which I find rather amusing: clearly such people have NO idea how "radical" feminists can actually be. It's a bit like calling Obama a "socialist."

So, I wouldn't yell if you held a door open for me. And I don't actually BLAME you for having a penis (I know it's not really your fault ). So, AM I a "radical feminist"?

Oh, BEAUTIFULLY said, Amity!!



("I wish I had said that!"
"Oh, you will, Oscar, you will . . ."

no. if he were doing that, he wouldn't have said "have my back". he would have said "have my leg".

Being aware of people's sensibilities just means that you can be more effective in manipulating them; your attempted argument regarding "justification" is a complete non sequitur.

"radical feminist"=pleonasm.

Pep (a tank top is knitted.)

PS Amity is pretty much on the ball. Non-judgmentally.

That's about the same proportion as left-handers.

Pep (Which doesn't make it right. )

I'd suggest using a real world like humanity instead.

Made-up words offend people too.

So does thread wandering. How DARE these people with their petty neuroses take over EVERY subject to convert it around to THEIR juvenile requirements! I'm going to write to The Times!

The people in question choose to let one word "remind" them of something that I don't think is necessarily true, at least in civilized countries.



I would argue that a lot of people (male or female) have no idea that anyone would find the word "mankind" offensive. I will stick with "peeps" if it's all the same to you all



PS It just occurred to me the utter pointlessness of this argument as the word "man" appears in both "mankind" and "humankind"....

Oh god, where to begin . . .

Smify, we've come an awfully long way. And, I am entirely confident that there is enough good will to ensure that one day this will NOT be true. But I could quote stats on gender disparities in income, both across and within professions, entire professions that are resistant to women, stats on domestic abuse, on the gendered distribution of poverty, on imbalances on health care spending and research . . . and on and on.


"This is one small step for me; one giant leap for peeps"

Uh huh?


Nah . . . again, the two words have no association whatsoever. The first is from Old English, but "humanity" is derived ultimately from Latin: the "man" part of "humanity" doesn't mean "man."

Humanity works for me just fine.

(I have to take this from a mustelid???? Why don't you keep your wet little nose out of other species' business, eh? )