All vehicles are female.
"He Retains the Advantage" - The Importance of Pronouns in Chess
Sort:
I think this probably does more damage.
http://www.chess.com/blog/crisfoisor/can-the-blondes-play-excelent-chess
May 31, 2014
0
#44
CardSure wrote:
Why are boats "she's" anyway? Is it because a bottle of champagne hits them hard?
I recall reading someplace that the words for "ship" in the Romance languages are feminine nouns. Take that with a grain of salt though.
JamieDelarosa wrote:
CardSure wrote:
Why are boats "she's" anyway? Is it because a bottle of champagne hits them hard?
I recall reading someplace that the words for "ship" in the Romance languages are feminine nouns. Take that with a grain of salt though.
Interesting.
Elubas wrote:
Mika_Rao wrote:
Elubas wrote:
Look, what matters is what people mean. If a french person tells me "merci" I know they've sent me a good message, even though to me such a word sounds like a combination of pointless sounds. The words for symbolizing gratitude are different, but the overall idea we are symbolizing is the same. What difference does it make what sound/word they use to make me aware of this? Whatever works.
And if "merci" didn't sound like a combination of pointless sounds? If it sounded like a word that challenged your concept of self or self worth?
As you say, words = meaning is the point.
I'm not sure I understand. If "he" is used to mean "male or female," the message, "male or female" has been sent. The "challenge of self worth" if I understand you correctly only comes in if you don't look at the message sent (in this case "male or female") but only on one particular usage of the term ("male").
It's a male pronoun. Only in context does it not specify a gender. The reader understands it means "person" but the word used sounds like "male person." In a chess book, the literal interpretation implies only male persons are chess players. Both the type of game and the game itself are known to be male dominated. For a female reader I can easily see how the usage could bring up uncomfortable feelings of self worth or identity (if your identity is strongly tied to chess).
Put in perspective, it may be a trivial problem, but it's not hard for me to sympathize with the OP's position.
rooperi wrote:
There are probably greater injustices done to women than using a gender neutral "he".
That doesn't mean that this one isn't important. No one should feel that they have been excluded when reading the chess literature because of historical convention. All aspects of the chess community should be open to all.
"In a chess book, the literal interpretation implies only male persons are chess players."
Honestly I just completely disagree with this, for the exact same reasons I mentioned earlier.
I understand the psychology of the situation too, but what can I say, all of the problems go away if you just look at what they're really saying. Honestly, yeah, I kind of do expect people to realize that. They're essentially creating a problem for themselves that doesn't exist. That's not a way to be happy :)
To add to post #51, I do it myself. Let's take cases of sexual abuse, or crimes in general. People are quick to either assume it was a male in a specific case, or to talk about all the men who rape and such.
Psychologically, sometimes I may think, wow do they realize that women can commit crimes too? But rationally I know that this isn't true -- of course they know. It makes sense to talk about all of the men who commit rape/sexual abuse because it's more common than times where females commit rape, thus focusing on the former potentially saves more people from rape. I don't let my psychological instincts get in the way of me appreciating that.
I can't believe we are still having this debate. I think wider society has long since decided that gender exclusive language is a subtle form of discrimination. Hence, words such as chairman and stewardess have been changed.
When I was a child at junior school, we were taught in English classes that, where the gender of the subject was not determined, the male "he, him or his" was correct. Isn't it typical of today's politically correct attitudes to complain about this age old linguistic device?
I feel like we need a new law similar to Godwins law.
On the Internet in gender discussion, sooner or later someone will mention rape.
Elubas wrote:
"In a chess book, the literal interpretation implies only male persons are chess players."
Honestly I just completely disagree with this, for the exact same reasons I mentioned earlier.
I understand the psychology of the situation too, but what can I say, all of the problems go away if you just look at what they're really saying. Honestly, yeah, I kind of do expect people to realize that. They're essentially creating a problem for themselves that doesn't exist. That's not a way to be happy :)
Bottom line, the practical solution is for the individual change how they look at / react to the situation. I agree.
RG1951 wrote:
When I was a child at junior school, we were taught in English classes that, where the gender of the subject was not determined, the male "he, him or his" was correct. Isn't it typical of today's politically correct attitudes to complain about this age old linguistic device?
Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but its near irrelevance as a problem from society's POV or not, it's something that individuals have to deal with. Inane PC-ness or not, I can sympathize with individuals who have to come to terms with this.
RG1951 wrote:
When I was a child at junior school, we were taught in English classes that, where the gender of the subject was not determined, the male "he, him or his" was correct. Isn't it typical of today's politically correct attitudes to complain about this age old linguistic device?
Oh please. When I was in school, we used a Latin textbook from the 50s, with a number of sexist scenarios, such as a master being pleased with the allure of his female servant.
On the point of grammar, it sounds like you grew up in an era where you were rapped on the knuckles for splitting infinitives, which most grammarians nowadays recognise as a bogus rule. Similarly, a number of style guides no longer advocate for a generic 'he'.
Splitting infinitives is still a major crime. Offenders are asking to harshly be punished.
Ah yes, splitting infinitives, something one should not lightly do.
DavidChCh wrote:
Oh the slippery slope of grammar relativism, soon txtspk will replace the official english language
I didn't realize we we're discussing religion. What are you, the Grand Wizard of the Church of Chaucer?
Wikipedia actually has a suprisingly extensive article on this issue of a generic 'he'. Singular 'they' was used by respected authors for centuries, such as Chaucer, Shakespeare and Austen. It was during the 19th century that prescriptive grammarians imposed a generic 'he' in the place of a singular 'they'. So far from being a slippery slope, we are actually emerging from the dark ages of grammar.
Why are boats "she's" anyway? Is it because a bottle of champagne hits them hard?