5 ms·

It’s the 21st century. Questions like “do these men think that time is free?” have no place in this century. Why not be accurate and say ‘people’? You chose to

by hluska 6y ago

It’s the 21st century. Questions like “do these men think that time is free?” have no place in this century. Why not be accurate and say ‘people’? You chose to use a number of big words when simple ones would suffice. Why not take the same care in addressing people fairly?

tsimionescu 6y ago
For many non-native speakers, 'man' tends to be used as 'person' instead of 'male', probably because the translation of many common idioms involving 'man' uses a neutral word in their language. For example, when translating between English and Romanian, 'man' often gets translated to 'om', which doesn't imply a gender in modern Romanian. Even in English, 'man' is sometimes used without a gendered connotation. For example, if I say 'man is evil', I am unlikely to be referring to males, but rather people. Similarly, 'hey, man!' is not reserved for males.
- yrimaxi 6y ago
  Singular man is more likely to be gender-neutral. Good example: “man is evil” clearly means people, since one would say “men are evil” if referring to males.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    “Men are evil.” can also refer to humans in general. I just searched for the phrase and it's about half split between either meaning from context inference. Yet, the meaning pertaining to the species is mostly from discussions by educated philosophers, and the other one are annoying identity politics arguments about why one's North American dating life is disappointing, — not exactly the audience I am ever interested in reaching, frankness be.
    - yrimaxi 6y ago
      Not terribly pertinent, then. One is more likely to fall into conversations about mundane topics with uneducated people than to stumble upon existential conversations with educated philosophers, even though the latter might produce a large corpus. One would also think that “man is evil” would be preferred by the erudite philosopher to the more ambigious “men are evil”, although one can never overestimate the fondness that an educated person might have towards pedantry, frankly.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        > Not terribly pertinent, then. One is more likely to fall into conversations about mundane topics with uneducated people than to stumble upon existential conversations with educated philosophers, even though the latter might produce a large corpus. “Mundane people” is an entirely different segment than “raging identity politics aficionados complaining about their romantic life”. The common man on the street will think nothing ill of the word being used as such, even when he be a blue collar construction worker, and will normally interpret it as intended. I have never met such a raging identity politics aficionado in real life. I would assume not living in the U.S.A., where most of them seem to be centred, reduces my chances. But even there, it seems to be a rather small segment that is isolated to weblogs, as even newspaper columns do not seem to find it mainstream enough to dedicate segments to it. I'd gander that if I were to find myself in New York and strike a conversation with a blue collar local and say something such as “A beautiful city isn't it? all these millions of men, working as an organized beehive.”, that he'll not interpret me wrongly or even think much of it.
        dTal 6y ago
        >I'd gander that if I were to find myself in New York and strike a conversation with a blue collar local and say something such as “A beautiful city isn't it? all these millions of men, working as an organized beehive.”, that he'll not interpret me wrongly or even think much of it. Actually I think there's a very good chance she'll object. The problem is that in your mind, males are the "default" human, and using sexist language reinforces this. This is not a recent opinion confined to "raging identity politics aficionados" or "weblogs" - at this point it's the wrong side of history for the better part of half a century. Consider this piece of satire by Douglas Hofstadter, written in 1985, which substitutes racist language for sexist language in a precisely analogous way: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        > Actually I think there's a very good chance she'll object. If you mean to suggest that this position runs across gender lines, then I very much object and find that a naive, but common, assumption. It reminds me of a Canadian act that sought to introduce the word “fisherwoman” as a sign of good faith to the female fishermen, but it revealed that, overwhelmingly, the fishermen, male or female, did not like this change and found the word to sound silly. I have noticed no correlation with the gender as to what position one takes on this, as many females as males seem to either favor, or object to, innovations such as “chairwoman” or “councilwoman”. > The problem is that in your mind, males are the "default" human No, that would be in the mind of those that read the word “man” and must compulsively attach a gender to a statement containing it. I've certainly noticed that those so interested in gender language police invariably seem incapable of abstractly thinking of a person without attaching a gender thereto. > and using sexist language reinforces this The sexist history is to use the word that has always simply meant “human” and giving it a gendered, ageist meaning. — you reverse the history of the word here. > at this point it's the wrong side of history for the better part of half a century. What would you mean with “wrong side of history”? It is undeniable that the meaning of the word “man” to mean “human” is the original meaning of the word and that the secondary usage to mean “adult male human” is a later innovation.
    - hluska 6y ago
      So basically, you won’t be kind because you can’t find suitable sources?? Okay then.
      - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        I'm simply disputing the claim that “Men are evil.” would be construed by English speakers to automatically refer to males. The reason I'm not what you call “kind” is simply because this is how English works, and how it has always worked and how English speakers would interpret and parse that word. I see no reason to avoid using a word in a perfectly acceptable, current, and historic use simply because you find that it has a different, secondary use. You call that “not being kind”. I call it “You don't own the English language any more than I do.” You may speak as you will, I do not deny that the current usage of the word “man” has acquired a secondary meaning of “adult male human” opposed to it's historical meaning of “human" and if you wish to use it as such, then I'm confident I can usually discriminate by context. I merely ask that I be allowed the same and speak as I will and use the word in it's original meaning, that obviously still sees current use.
        hluska 6y ago
        You wrote: “Do these men think that time is free?“ That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’ Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate. So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know. That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’? I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring. Be better. It’s easy.
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        > That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’ Indeed it is not. I merely separately disagreed with that the statement “All men are evil.” would also by necessity be interpreted as such. Either can be, depending on context, but this is not such a context. > Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate.* You seem to be of the minority that has interpreted it as such. I would not quickly use votes for an argument except when they pertain to popular opinion, and this is a matter of which interpretation is more common. I certainly didn't mean any gendered statement, and I also believe that most readers did not read any gender into it. > So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know. I could, and you could also change your language to avoid any and all possible ambiguities that would not be a problem in practice due to the power of contextual inference. You seem to ask that this specific word be given special treatment above all others. > That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’? Such as here, the word “our community” is quite vague. You used the word “our” which is ambiguous in English as it's unclear whether it includes the listener or not, and on top of that also what it includes. I can however perfectly well infer from context that this is an “our” that includes the listener, and can make a reasonable guess to the extent of the “community” you refer to. Finally, do not know that it is “an issue” and I certainly do not know that there are “norms” about this. It very much seems that the majority sides with me on this issue given the votes, at least here. I do not believe I am going against any norms, not that I would consider an argumentum ad populum a strong one, but you were the one that raised it here. > I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring. Well, frankness be, it seems from your language as though your default expectation is that your arbitrary wims, at least on this particular issue should be accommodated, and that everyone who disagrees with you is unkind or lacks sympathy. You call it a conversation, but it seems as though you started it from the assumption that you are right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. > Be better. It’s easy. It is your opinion that this is better that this is better indeed. Not everyone has to agree with you on that matter, and not everyone does.
- hluska 6y ago
  I know that but take a moment to read OP’s finer use of the language and use of more precise language. Every single word is perfectly precise, right down to the tone. That was a pointlessly gendered comment and has no place in our industry. You can keep defending it but I’m not going to stop calling it out. Have a nice Sunday!
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    Is that so? I find I used various open phrases such as “Python developers” without going into the exact semantics of which ones, as I'm sure many objected to it, or “serious enterprises” without naming them, an incomplete list of programming languages, and so forth. It was certainly an informal statement I made, not a formal specification. There was nothing gendered about that statement, and most do not seem to have interpreted it as such, nor was it so intended by me.
    - hluska 6y ago
      You don’t have to get defensive just be aware. The times have changed, the world is different and our default language absolutely has to adapt. Language adapts or does. That’s how English got here. You can adapt too - it’s not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Heck, if you spent an eighth of the time thinking about inclusivity as you do about individual words, I wouldn’t have had to say this. However, again, I’m glad I said something and regardless of what you claim, I’m not going to stop calling these kinds of grammatical monstrosities out. Language is important. Full stop.
  - tsimionescu 6y ago
    My point is that, on an international site where English is only used as a means of communication, you should generally be more sensitive to cultural differences in the use of a language such as English. It is often used as a common common language between people who don't speak English natively, and so idioms and nuances from their own languages seep into this common English. The finer points about the semantics of a word such as 'man'/'men' and when it can be taken to refer to people unambiguously vs when it may accidentally imply you are talking about adult males are likely to be lost on a non-native speaker, especially if they come from a culture/language where this distinction and its implications are not subjects of general interest. Even if they are well-versed in the use of English in general. So it's better to follow HN guidelines and assume the best intentions where meaning is unclear, instead of calling people out on their use of English. Now, if you know for a fact that the GP is a native English speaker, and especially if you know that they are American, then what I'm saying is not very relevant.
cknader 6y ago
Ironically it is accurate. Python2 was written entirely by men and so is virtually all of Python3. Women have better things to do with their time, like studying law or medicine.
nickserv 6y ago
I agree with you and the sentiment but your tone really discredits the argument. Instead of putting others down it's better to assume good faith, and educate in an elevating way. This way feminism gets a good reputation.
Blikkentrekker 6y ago
Well, the other perspective would be that you should stop using the word that refers to human beings and has always done so only for the adult male members thereof. My perspective is that context is usually sufficient and that this is not the only word in English that is used as such. I never find such passionate debates about the word “chess” for instance which can be used for every game that descended from the Indian game, the European variant specifically, or simply any exercise of great tactical planning. Such interesting objectivity men are awarded when politics not be in play.

by hluska 6y ago

tsimionescu 6y ago

For many non-native speakers, 'man' tends to be used as 'person' instead of 'male', probably because the translation of many common idioms involving 'man' uses a neutral word in their language. For example, when translating between English and Romanian, 'man' often gets translated to 'om', which doesn't imply a gender in modern Romanian. Even in English, 'man' is sometimes used without a gendered connotation. For example, if I say 'man is evil', I am unlikely to be referring to males, but rather people. Similarly, 'hey, man!' is not reserved for males.

yrimaxi 6y ago
Singular man is more likely to be gender-neutral. Good example: “man is evil” clearly means people, since one would say “men are evil” if referring to males.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  “Men are evil.” can also refer to humans in general. I just searched for the phrase and it's about half split between either meaning from context inference. Yet, the meaning pertaining to the species is mostly from discussions by educated philosophers, and the other one are annoying identity politics arguments about why one's North American dating life is disappointing, — not exactly the audience I am ever interested in reaching, frankness be.
  - yrimaxi 6y ago
    Not terribly pertinent, then. One is more likely to fall into conversations about mundane topics with uneducated people than to stumble upon existential conversations with educated philosophers, even though the latter might produce a large corpus. One would also think that “man is evil” would be preferred by the erudite philosopher to the more ambigious “men are evil”, although one can never overestimate the fondness that an educated person might have towards pedantry, frankly.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      > Not terribly pertinent, then. One is more likely to fall into conversations about mundane topics with uneducated people than to stumble upon existential conversations with educated philosophers, even though the latter might produce a large corpus. “Mundane people” is an entirely different segment than “raging identity politics aficionados complaining about their romantic life”. The common man on the street will think nothing ill of the word being used as such, even when he be a blue collar construction worker, and will normally interpret it as intended. I have never met such a raging identity politics aficionado in real life. I would assume not living in the U.S.A., where most of them seem to be centred, reduces my chances. But even there, it seems to be a rather small segment that is isolated to weblogs, as even newspaper columns do not seem to find it mainstream enough to dedicate segments to it. I'd gander that if I were to find myself in New York and strike a conversation with a blue collar local and say something such as “A beautiful city isn't it? all these millions of men, working as an organized beehive.”, that he'll not interpret me wrongly or even think much of it.
      - dTal 6y ago
        >I'd gander that if I were to find myself in New York and strike a conversation with a blue collar local and say something such as “A beautiful city isn't it? all these millions of men, working as an organized beehive.”, that he'll not interpret me wrongly or even think much of it. Actually I think there's a very good chance she'll object. The problem is that in your mind, males are the "default" human, and using sexist language reinforces this. This is not a recent opinion confined to "raging identity politics aficionados" or "weblogs" - at this point it's the wrong side of history for the better part of half a century. Consider this piece of satire by Douglas Hofstadter, written in 1985, which substitutes racist language for sexist language in a precisely analogous way: https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.html https://www.cs.virginia.edu/~evans/cs655/readings/purity.htm...
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        > Actually I think there's a very good chance she'll object. If you mean to suggest that this position runs across gender lines, then I very much object and find that a naive, but common, assumption. It reminds me of a Canadian act that sought to introduce the word “fisherwoman” as a sign of good faith to the female fishermen, but it revealed that, overwhelmingly, the fishermen, male or female, did not like this change and found the word to sound silly. I have noticed no correlation with the gender as to what position one takes on this, as many females as males seem to either favor, or object to, innovations such as “chairwoman” or “councilwoman”. > The problem is that in your mind, males are the "default" human No, that would be in the mind of those that read the word “man” and must compulsively attach a gender to a statement containing it. I've certainly noticed that those so interested in gender language police invariably seem incapable of abstractly thinking of a person without attaching a gender thereto. > and using sexist language reinforces this The sexist history is to use the word that has always simply meant “human” and giving it a gendered, ageist meaning. — you reverse the history of the word here. > at this point it's the wrong side of history for the better part of half a century. What would you mean with “wrong side of history”? It is undeniable that the meaning of the word “man” to mean “human” is the original meaning of the word and that the secondary usage to mean “adult male human” is a later innovation.
  - hluska 6y ago
    So basically, you won’t be kind because you can’t find suitable sources?? Okay then.
    - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
      I'm simply disputing the claim that “Men are evil.” would be construed by English speakers to automatically refer to males. The reason I'm not what you call “kind” is simply because this is how English works, and how it has always worked and how English speakers would interpret and parse that word. I see no reason to avoid using a word in a perfectly acceptable, current, and historic use simply because you find that it has a different, secondary use. You call that “not being kind”. I call it “You don't own the English language any more than I do.” You may speak as you will, I do not deny that the current usage of the word “man” has acquired a secondary meaning of “adult male human” opposed to it's historical meaning of “human" and if you wish to use it as such, then I'm confident I can usually discriminate by context. I merely ask that I be allowed the same and speak as I will and use the word in it's original meaning, that obviously still sees current use.
      - hluska 6y ago
        You wrote: “Do these men think that time is free?“ That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’ Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate. So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know. That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’? I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring. Be better. It’s easy.
        Blikkentrekker 6y ago
        > That’s not even the same structure as ‘all men are evil.’ Indeed it is not. I merely separately disagreed with that the statement “All men are evil.” would also by necessity be interpreted as such. Either can be, depending on context, but this is not such a context. > Instead what you wrote is gendered and thus completely inaccurate.* You seem to be of the minority that has interpreted it as such. I would not quickly use votes for an argument except when they pertain to popular opinion, and this is a matter of which interpretation is more common. I certainly didn't mean any gendered statement, and I also believe that most readers did not read any gender into it. > So again, you could have used ‘people’ to be respectful and inclusive but you’re choosing to stick with ‘man’ because that’s what you know. I could, and you could also change your language to avoid any and all possible ambiguities that would not be a problem in practice due to the power of contextual inference. You seem to ask that this specific word be given special treatment above all others. > That’s unkind. You know that this is an issue within our community but you are fully choosing to go against the norms because of ‘your language’? Such as here, the word “our community” is quite vague. You used the word “our” which is ambiguous in English as it's unclear whether it includes the listener or not, and on top of that also what it includes. I can however perfectly well infer from context that this is an “our” that includes the listener, and can make a reasonable guess to the extent of the “community” you refer to. Finally, do not know that it is “an issue” and I certainly do not know that there are “norms” about this. It very much seems that the majority sides with me on this issue given the votes, at least here. I do not believe I am going against any norms, not that I would consider an argumentum ad populum a strong one, but you were the one that raised it here. > I’m sorry but I thought we could have a conversation. This many replies in and I realize that you don’t actually have much sympathy, understanding or even basic caring. Well, frankness be, it seems from your language as though your default expectation is that your arbitrary wims, at least on this particular issue should be accommodated, and that everyone who disagrees with you is unkind or lacks sympathy. You call it a conversation, but it seems as though you started it from the assumption that you are right, and everyone who disagrees is wrong. > Be better. It’s easy. It is your opinion that this is better that this is better indeed. Not everyone has to agree with you on that matter, and not everyone does.
hluska 6y ago
I know that but take a moment to read OP’s finer use of the language and use of more precise language. Every single word is perfectly precise, right down to the tone. That was a pointlessly gendered comment and has no place in our industry. You can keep defending it but I’m not going to stop calling it out. Have a nice Sunday!
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  Is that so? I find I used various open phrases such as “Python developers” without going into the exact semantics of which ones, as I'm sure many objected to it, or “serious enterprises” without naming them, an incomplete list of programming languages, and so forth. It was certainly an informal statement I made, not a formal specification. There was nothing gendered about that statement, and most do not seem to have interpreted it as such, nor was it so intended by me.
  - hluska 6y ago
    You don’t have to get defensive just be aware. The times have changed, the world is different and our default language absolutely has to adapt. Language adapts or does. That’s how English got here. You can adapt too - it’s not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Heck, if you spent an eighth of the time thinking about inclusivity as you do about individual words, I wouldn’t have had to say this. However, again, I’m glad I said something and regardless of what you claim, I’m not going to stop calling these kinds of grammatical monstrosities out. Language is important. Full stop.
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  My point is that, on an international site where English is only used as a means of communication, you should generally be more sensitive to cultural differences in the use of a language such as English. It is often used as a common common language between people who don't speak English natively, and so idioms and nuances from their own languages seep into this common English. The finer points about the semantics of a word such as 'man'/'men' and when it can be taken to refer to people unambiguously vs when it may accidentally imply you are talking about adult males are likely to be lost on a non-native speaker, especially if they come from a culture/language where this distinction and its implications are not subjects of general interest. Even if they are well-versed in the use of English in general. So it's better to follow HN guidelines and assume the best intentions where meaning is unclear, instead of calling people out on their use of English. Now, if you know for a fact that the GP is a native English speaker, and especially if you know that they are American, then what I'm saying is not very relevant.

cknader 6y ago

Ironically it is accurate. Python2 was written entirely by men and so is virtually all of Python3. Women have better things to do with their time, like studying law or medicine.

nickserv 6y ago

I agree with you and the sentiment but your tone really discredits the argument. Instead of putting others down it's better to assume good faith, and educate in an elevating way. This way feminism gets a good reputation.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago

Well, the other perspective would be that you should stop using the word that refers to human beings and has always done so only for the adult male members thereof. My perspective is that context is usually sufficient and that this is not the only word in English that is used as such. I never find such passionate debates about the word “chess” for instance which can be used for every game that descended from the Indian game, the European variant specifically, or simply any exercise of great tactical planning. Such interesting objectivity men are awarded when politics not be in play.