Oh, right, you're one of those "social justice" people.(thefeaze.livejournal.com)
thefeaze.livejournal.com
Oh, right, you're one of those "social justice" people.
http://thefeaze.livejournal.com/37137.html
12 comments
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.
"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.
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there are so many problems of greater significance (sexist or otherwise) to worry about than the pronoun usage of your outdated textboook in your outdated cs introduction.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?
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?
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.
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.
"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.
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.
I understand that what people think feminism is will be dictated by the literature and rhetoric with which they grew up
Actually, my view of feminism is taken directly from experiences with self-professed feminists. And they often are looking for preferential treatment, not equal. Most women I know have a distinct distaste for the term 'feminist', mostly because of that. Including my wife. And her mother. Both of whom are liberal, educated, very strong and independent women. The broad brush applicability of feminism doesn't work outside the reality distortion field of academia.
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')
The gender pronoun issue, in common parlance, is not nearly as serious as the examples you provided afterward. Those are clear instances of harassment and potential discrimination against women. I'd be fighting that battle first, because you've got better odds at winning it. The former is more of a nuisance by comparison.
Something that you'll find is that it's very difficult to change other people's thinking. If they're sexist creeps, your rhetoric will have little, if any, effect on them. Better to fight battles to get rid of those jerks in the first place than complain about their output.
Actually, my view of feminism is taken directly from experiences with self-professed feminists. And they often are looking for preferential treatment, not equal. Most women I know have a distinct distaste for the term 'feminist', mostly because of that. Including my wife. And her mother. Both of whom are liberal, educated, very strong and independent women. The broad brush applicability of feminism doesn't work outside the reality distortion field of academia.
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')
The gender pronoun issue, in common parlance, is not nearly as serious as the examples you provided afterward. Those are clear instances of harassment and potential discrimination against women. I'd be fighting that battle first, because you've got better odds at winning it. The former is more of a nuisance by comparison.
Something that you'll find is that it's very difficult to change other people's thinking. If they're sexist creeps, your rhetoric will have little, if any, effect on them. Better to fight battles to get rid of those jerks in the first place than complain about their output.
In the comparison between racism and sexism, the incident in the blog post would be comparable to a text book with a picture on the cover. The picture shows a generic programmer at work. While one could use a shot of a person of moderately dark skin with a unisexual haircut taken from an angle where no facial features are recognizable.
Yet generally it's a white male. Or a black male. Or a white/black/asian/indian/latin man/woman.
It's not an issue of racism in this case, it's merely the fact that it's convenient to pick someone and take a normal picture. That's why "he" is often used. It's just more convenient to stick with it. Any more meaning than that is just inventing interpretation.
Yet generally it's a white male. Or a black male. Or a white/black/asian/indian/latin man/woman.
It's not an issue of racism in this case, it's merely the fact that it's convenient to pick someone and take a normal picture. That's why "he" is often used. It's just more convenient to stick with it. Any more meaning than that is just inventing interpretation.
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.
She is going to be deluged with bile, and nobody deserves that crap.
"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?
Girl? Shouldn't that be "woman" if you are concerned about gender treatment in language?
Not to mention ageism. There are so many -isms we can apply here.
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.
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.
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?
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?
"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.
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.
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...
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.
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...
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.
"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?
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?
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.
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.
"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:
"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.
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.
"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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
Options exist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-neutral_pronoun#English), but none of them are widely accepted.
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.
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.
"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.
Indeed.
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.
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.
[deleted]
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Good point.
I miss college.
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.