4 ms·

> This has become problematic when we use the plural. Grammatically, it's not problematic at all. Some people with new ideas completely out of line with the cu

> This has become problematic when we use the plural. Grammatically, it's not problematic at all. Some people with new ideas completely out of line with the culture at large make a big deal of it.

space_fountain 5y ago
It embeds assumptions about what the societal defaults are, nothing more and nothing less. Like you maybe I'm skeptical that it does harm itself, but certainly societal defaults are problematic. Maybe and probably, there are bigger problems, but whatever.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Why are societal defaults problematic? Providing clear guidance for young people is a good thing.
- soundnote 5y ago
  They have problems, but only insofar as any imperfect solution does. Having societal defaults itself is really good: If someone's confused as to what theyb should do with their life, bam. Here's a recipe that worked for your ancestors for ages, following it is unlikely to fuck you up badly. (This is, of course, a far bigger phenomenon than simply what jobs are called) The freedom to define yourself is a good thing, but most people neither need nor want it, and for many who want it undertaking the excercise is a mistake, because it's more flippant wishy-washyness or deliberate, willful ignorance than self-building, per se. Consider the classic case of the Starbucks barista with a degree in postmodern dance theory.
  - maire 5y ago
    I have to disagree with this. Many women want to have a family and will avoid careers that are not family friendly. This is still true today. But fixing those careers to be family friendly will benefit men as well as women. I went to an all girl college prep high school in the early 1970s. All the girls on college track took an aptitude test. We were told to take both the boys and girls test. There were two tests back then. I scored very high in engineering and math on the boys test, but those options did not even exist on the girls test. I found the girls test ridiculous. This will sound silly but I didn't even consider engineering until after I read The Menace from Earth by Heinlein. I thought engineering meant I wouldn't have a husband and family. I didn't even consider math until after I took this test. I ended up double majoring in Math and Computer Science. This was in the early days before Comp Sci was gendered. 30% of my Comp Sci class was female. Compare that to my daughter's experience. Her Comp Sci classes were about 15% female until she took a Human Factors class which was 50% female. Sometime in the 1980s women enrolling in Comp Sci dramatically declined.
tshaddox 5y ago
Not sure what you mean. It's certainly grammar that is causing the problem. And yes, it's a problem because some people think it's a problem—that's true of all problems by definition.
- iammisc 5y ago
  Most people don't think it's a problem at all.
kennywinker 5y ago
“Completely out of line with the culture” firefighter, for a moment, was an exclusively male job. Fireman made sense. As more women took on that job during the past 50-ish years, calling them “firemen” makes less and less sense. So to say it’s people out of step with culture isn’t quite right. It’s more like entrenched language in conflict with shifting culture. A non-gendered example of this would be something like xerox vs photocopier. There was a time when all photocopiers were xeroxes, but now odds are very low that your xerox machine is a xerox branded photocopier. There are still a few people out there who haven’t bothered to update their language, but largely that shift happened over the past 30 years - and because it’s not very political it was largely a silent shift. “Firemen” is, unfortunately, wrapped up in people’s beliefs about what gender roles SHOULD be - so it’s not going so quietly
- frenchyatwork 5y ago
  The problem here is not that "fireman" couldn't in theory be used to refer to both men and women; but that in English it doesn't, or at least not anymore. Historically, the masculine noun class has been used in gender-indeterminate places, but about 100 years ago that usage stared to disappear from the language, or at least become argot. The phrase "I am no man" in the Lord or the Rings is a play on this disappearance. In English, this disappearance happened alongside a similar change in gender roles; however, in a lot of European languages the social changes occurred, but the linguistic changes did not (and non-European languages often have quite different kinds of noun classes).
  - kennywinker 5y ago
    Interesting. I was aware of the shift... In university I would cringe every time a prof said "man" to refer to human or humanity, which seemed to me to indicate a very recent change. It's a surprising thing to hear it started as far back as Tolkien's time - I remembered that line as a Peter Jackson addition. It would be interesting to hear how women who speak other European languages that didn't make those changes feel about it - they seem so inherently linked to my ear.
- arp242 5y ago

> This has become problematic when we use the plural. Grammatically, it's not problematic at all. Some people with new ideas completely out of line with the culture at large make a big deal of it.

space_fountain 5y ago

It embeds assumptions about what the societal defaults are, nothing more and nothing less. Like you maybe I'm skeptical that it does harm itself, but certainly societal defaults are problematic. Maybe and probably, there are bigger problems, but whatever.

iammisc 5y ago
Why are societal defaults problematic? Providing clear guidance for young people is a good thing.
soundnote 5y ago
They have problems, but only insofar as any imperfect solution does. Having societal defaults itself is really good: If someone's confused as to what theyb should do with their life, bam. Here's a recipe that worked for your ancestors for ages, following it is unlikely to fuck you up badly. (This is, of course, a far bigger phenomenon than simply what jobs are called) The freedom to define yourself is a good thing, but most people neither need nor want it, and for many who want it undertaking the excercise is a mistake, because it's more flippant wishy-washyness or deliberate, willful ignorance than self-building, per se. Consider the classic case of the Starbucks barista with a degree in postmodern dance theory.
- maire 5y ago
  I have to disagree with this. Many women want to have a family and will avoid careers that are not family friendly. This is still true today. But fixing those careers to be family friendly will benefit men as well as women. I went to an all girl college prep high school in the early 1970s. All the girls on college track took an aptitude test. We were told to take both the boys and girls test. There were two tests back then. I scored very high in engineering and math on the boys test, but those options did not even exist on the girls test. I found the girls test ridiculous. This will sound silly but I didn't even consider engineering until after I read The Menace from Earth by Heinlein. I thought engineering meant I wouldn't have a husband and family. I didn't even consider math until after I took this test. I ended up double majoring in Math and Computer Science. This was in the early days before Comp Sci was gendered. 30% of my Comp Sci class was female. Compare that to my daughter's experience. Her Comp Sci classes were about 15% female until she took a Human Factors class which was 50% female. Sometime in the 1980s women enrolling in Comp Sci dramatically declined.

tshaddox 5y ago

Not sure what you mean. It's certainly grammar that is causing the problem. And yes, it's a problem because some people think it's a problem—that's true of all problems by definition.

iammisc 5y ago
Most people don't think it's a problem at all.

kennywinker 5y ago

“Completely out of line with the culture” firefighter, for a moment, was an exclusively male job. Fireman made sense. As more women took on that job during the past 50-ish years, calling them “firemen” makes less and less sense. So to say it’s people out of step with culture isn’t quite right. It’s more like entrenched language in conflict with shifting culture. A non-gendered example of this would be something like xerox vs photocopier. There was a time when all photocopiers were xeroxes, but now odds are very low that your xerox machine is a xerox branded photocopier. There are still a few people out there who haven’t bothered to update their language, but largely that shift happened over the past 30 years - and because it’s not very political it was largely a silent shift. “Firemen” is, unfortunately, wrapped up in people’s beliefs about what gender roles SHOULD be - so it’s not going so quietly

frenchyatwork 5y ago
The problem here is not that "fireman" couldn't in theory be used to refer to both men and women; but that in English it doesn't, or at least not anymore. Historically, the masculine noun class has been used in gender-indeterminate places, but about 100 years ago that usage stared to disappear from the language, or at least become argot. The phrase "I am no man" in the Lord or the Rings is a play on this disappearance. In English, this disappearance happened alongside a similar change in gender roles; however, in a lot of European languages the social changes occurred, but the linguistic changes did not (and non-European languages often have quite different kinds of noun classes).
- kennywinker 5y ago
  Interesting. I was aware of the shift... In university I would cringe every time a prof said "man" to refer to human or humanity, which seemed to me to indicate a very recent change. It's a surprising thing to hear it started as far back as Tolkien's time - I remembered that line as a Peter Jackson addition. It would be interesting to hear how women who speak other European languages that didn't make those changes feel about it - they seem so inherently linked to my ear.
arp242 5y ago