17 ms·

Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling wrote favorably about colonialism; they were replaced with more agreeable authors. Use of gendered language is marginalizing

Joseph Conrad and Rudyard Kipling wrote favorably about colonialism; they were replaced with more agreeable authors. Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy.

babyshake 4y ago
> Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. References to brothers or sisters, or mothers or fathers, is offensive to nonbinary people? In all seriousness, not trying to start a flame war, why is that? Is a reference to hair offensive to a bald person?
- snowflakepower 4y ago
  [flagged]
- willcipriano 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - NotYourLawyer 4y ago
    Well said. We live in strange times.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    >For some reason the mental health profession has decided that this particular set of delusions should be reinforced, unlike other types of body dismorphia like anorexia. I think the reason here is pretty simple: Turning someone into patient for life is profitable.
- jrmg 4y ago
  Offensive is probably too strong a word. The reason to replace an aggregate ‘brothers and sisters’ with ‘siblings’, ‘mothers and fathers’ with ‘parents’, or ‘boys and girls’ with ‘children’ is because for all of these the replacement suffices without calling attention to gender when it’s not necessary to do so. There’s also an argument that the ‘X and Y’ phrasing makes the ‘X’ seem more important than the ‘Y’, or makes it seem like the ‘default’ - just a little, but with repetition the impression is reinforced. If there’s an alternative collective word to use, it avoids this ‘ordering’ issue with no real downside. Note that all these arguments make sense in even if you consider gender to be a binary thing.
  - kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
    The words siblings, parents and children all existed when Dahl wrote these books, yet he chose to use brothers and sisters, mom and dad, and boys and girls. He specifically used these words, because he's the author and wanted to convey a specific meaning.
    - jrmg 4y ago
      I wasn’t trying to make a value judgement about replacing the existing words in Dahl’s already-written books. The parent comment wanted an explanation to _why_ someone might select ‘siblings’ over ‘brothers and sisters’ and I answered with my understanding. I do now attempt to use the single-word non-gendered collective nouns in speech myself for the reasons I gave, and I think it’s a good idea to do so. To discuss the edits to Dahl’s work: I would argue that for these ‘Xs and Ys’ examples he was probably just using the popular idioms of the time rather than choosing them to convey a specific meaning as you say. That would certainly be what I would’ve done, without much consideration, 20 years ago! But that’s obviously not the case for all the edits that are reportedly being made. The edits in aggregate do make me uneasy. I’m not sure how I’d feel if they were more limited.
      - vlunkr 4y ago
        > I do now attempt to use the single-word non-gendered collective nouns in speech myself for the reasons I gave I hate to be the guy that cries “1984,” but do we really have to completely neuter our language to avoid every imagined offense? Are there people out there who’s egos are so fragile that they can’t handle “gentlemen” coming after “ladies?”
  - neverrroot 4y ago
    No, it’s not the same thing. Parents it’s plural of parent, “10 fathers” are “10 parents”, so are “10 mothers”. When you want to convey the important point that it’s both mothers and fathers, there is no alternative. Similarly for everything else. Regarding the first occurrence being conceived as more important, it’s the reason usually females appear named first, a sign of courtesy to them. That was sorted out neatly long ago.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Step-brothers, step-sisters, step-mothers and step-fathers exist, as do foster parents, foster sibling, legal guardians, etc. Some kids' mother or father died, or they're divorced, estranged, etc. Using the perspective from the OP, it's a kids' book, using a couple of different synonyms might help them better understand what they're reading and not walk away believing that there's something wrong with their family or themselves.
- mensetmanusman 4y ago
  It’s more interesting to see the word ‘woman’ being canceled in subtle ways at once respectable institutes like The Atlantic.
flandish 4y ago
For sure. Just remember though, without changes the work can “simply” retire and the story approached by those who go into it “in the know.” But … retired stories don’t sell and don’t get turned into remakes, ticket sales, etc… Rewritten stories are fine, I like lots of them (the new ghostbusters, I adored..) but this, to me, seems like prep work for a lazy hollywood..
mpalmer 4y ago
I can be (and in fact am) empathetic. At the same time, I still take the position that non-binary people and other cultural minorities can simultaneously enjoy non-edited older fiction and understand that it may not have been written with them in mind (and may even be mocking or a little mean). Write new books. Make them as inclusive or exclusive as you want. I just think it's very telling that you hear so much about "erasure" and yet changing an author's words and intent like this is celebrated.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Yeah, that comment is just saying you can understand the changes empathetically. It's not saying they're good.
  - mandmandam 4y ago
    ... Maybe you should read GP's comment again. It's not asking for empathy, it's judgmental and imo a little unhinged. It claims saying words like 'shrill' are "gendered", and certain authors are "more agreeable" (what the fuck?) as if that justifies these changes. Ask for empathy in a preface, or an introduction, if you have to. Stay the fuck out of Dahl's work. You don't have to like it, but changing it is obscene - Dahl is not alive to permit these changes, and would probably be horrified. They're his fucking words.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      The word "shrill" (unlike "screeching") is absolutely gendered. It's still fine to use it, and I wouldn't have made, well, any of these edits, but there is nothing unhinged about the comment you're replying to. Don't go looking for enemies on HN threads!
      - mandmandam 4y ago
        [flagged]
        4y ago
ilyt 4y ago
Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. > once you take a position of empathy. ...and the usual thinly veiled "if you don't agree with my opinion you're a Bad Person". How about taking position of sensibility for once ?
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  > Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners.
  - ilyt 4y ago
    Sure, disclose it is the edited version for "sensitive readers offended by writing of the time" of minority group on the cover and I'm all fine with it. But it won't happen because that would be honesty and we can't have that from people that push for the changes
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners. Nobody would be upset if they were just making a new version of the book. The issue is they're trying to sweep the original under the rug and eventually memoryhole it.
  - throwaway675309 4y ago
    "You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners" The "owners" (who likely don't have a imaginative bone in their entire skeleton), if you'll pardon my vernacular, should stay the fuck out of the authors original work instead of mucking around with it, particularly inane changes like the removal of the word fat. And by pushing a new addition of the book while discontinuing the originals they seek to erase the authors original work. If anything this particular addition should have a large CliffsNotes banner on the cover.
twoodfin 4y ago
Joseph Conrad wrote favorably of colonialism?! Have you read Heart of Darkness?
- photochemsyn 4y ago
  Well, he said the British were not as bad as the Belgians, I guess... so he must be censored? It's all become satire piled on satire to the point I was entertaining the notion that this story was some kind of early April Fool's edition or something like that.
- ecshafer 4y ago
  Thank God. Saying Conrad wrote favorably about Colonialism is so completely wrong and crazy some would say. Heart of Darkness was one of the most anti-colonial books of the 19th century.
stuaxo 4y ago
Ugh. If it turns out these beloved stories become out of fashion because of stuff like this, so be it. Twisting it into something it isn't, to fit current tastes doesn't seem right.
thewrongthinker 4y ago
[dead]
StanislavPetrov 4y ago
>It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy. It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, and it has nothing to do with empathy.
- boppo1 4y ago
  How would you articulate what it has to do with, exactly? I agree with you but I find this topic too slippery to pin down (which is probably intentional).
ok123456 4y ago
I'm cringing at this unironic use of the word 'empathy'.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  People really need to understand that empathy isn’t strictly good. I’m also surprised how little empathy people see in others. The call for more empathy tends to come off as very self centered and emotional. Childish, really.
nonethewiser 4y ago
[flagged]
mensetmanusman 4y ago
Empathy isn’t usually associated with rewriting history, but rather with an urge to volunteer to help the homeless.
tohnjitor 4y ago
You should take your own advice and not force your perspective on other people.

babyshake 4y ago

> Use of gendered language is marginalizing to nonbinary people. References to brothers or sisters, or mothers or fathers, is offensive to nonbinary people? In all seriousness, not trying to start a flame war, why is that? Is a reference to hair offensive to a bald person?

snowflakepower 4y ago
[flagged]
willcipriano 4y ago
[flagged]
- NotYourLawyer 4y ago
  Well said. We live in strange times.
- ilyt 4y ago
  >For some reason the mental health profession has decided that this particular set of delusions should be reinforced, unlike other types of body dismorphia like anorexia. I think the reason here is pretty simple: Turning someone into patient for life is profitable.
jrmg 4y ago
Offensive is probably too strong a word. The reason to replace an aggregate ‘brothers and sisters’ with ‘siblings’, ‘mothers and fathers’ with ‘parents’, or ‘boys and girls’ with ‘children’ is because for all of these the replacement suffices without calling attention to gender when it’s not necessary to do so. There’s also an argument that the ‘X and Y’ phrasing makes the ‘X’ seem more important than the ‘Y’, or makes it seem like the ‘default’ - just a little, but with repetition the impression is reinforced. If there’s an alternative collective word to use, it avoids this ‘ordering’ issue with no real downside. Note that all these arguments make sense in even if you consider gender to be a binary thing.
- kQq9oHeAz6wLLS 4y ago
  The words siblings, parents and children all existed when Dahl wrote these books, yet he chose to use brothers and sisters, mom and dad, and boys and girls. He specifically used these words, because he's the author and wanted to convey a specific meaning.
  - jrmg 4y ago
    I wasn’t trying to make a value judgement about replacing the existing words in Dahl’s already-written books. The parent comment wanted an explanation to _why_ someone might select ‘siblings’ over ‘brothers and sisters’ and I answered with my understanding. I do now attempt to use the single-word non-gendered collective nouns in speech myself for the reasons I gave, and I think it’s a good idea to do so. To discuss the edits to Dahl’s work: I would argue that for these ‘Xs and Ys’ examples he was probably just using the popular idioms of the time rather than choosing them to convey a specific meaning as you say. That would certainly be what I would’ve done, without much consideration, 20 years ago! But that’s obviously not the case for all the edits that are reportedly being made. The edits in aggregate do make me uneasy. I’m not sure how I’d feel if they were more limited.
    - vlunkr 4y ago
      > I do now attempt to use the single-word non-gendered collective nouns in speech myself for the reasons I gave I hate to be the guy that cries “1984,” but do we really have to completely neuter our language to avoid every imagined offense? Are there people out there who’s egos are so fragile that they can’t handle “gentlemen” coming after “ladies?”
- neverrroot 4y ago
  No, it’s not the same thing. Parents it’s plural of parent, “10 fathers” are “10 parents”, so are “10 mothers”. When you want to convey the important point that it’s both mothers and fathers, there is no alternative. Similarly for everything else. Regarding the first occurrence being conceived as more important, it’s the reason usually females appear named first, a sign of courtesy to them. That was sorted out neatly long ago.
heavyset_go 4y ago
Step-brothers, step-sisters, step-mothers and step-fathers exist, as do foster parents, foster sibling, legal guardians, etc. Some kids' mother or father died, or they're divorced, estranged, etc. Using the perspective from the OP, it's a kids' book, using a couple of different synonyms might help them better understand what they're reading and not walk away believing that there's something wrong with their family or themselves.
mensetmanusman 4y ago
It’s more interesting to see the word ‘woman’ being canceled in subtle ways at once respectable institutes like The Atlantic.

flandish 4y ago

For sure. Just remember though, without changes the work can “simply” retire and the story approached by those who go into it “in the know.” But … retired stories don’t sell and don’t get turned into remakes, ticket sales, etc… Rewritten stories are fine, I like lots of them (the new ghostbusters, I adored..) but this, to me, seems like prep work for a lazy hollywood..

mpalmer 4y ago

I can be (and in fact am) empathetic. At the same time, I still take the position that non-binary people and other cultural minorities can simultaneously enjoy non-edited older fiction and understand that it may not have been written with them in mind (and may even be mocking or a little mean). Write new books. Make them as inclusive or exclusive as you want. I just think it's very telling that you hear so much about "erasure" and yet changing an author's words and intent like this is celebrated.

tptacek 4y ago
Yeah, that comment is just saying you can understand the changes empathetically. It's not saying they're good.
- mandmandam 4y ago
  ... Maybe you should read GP's comment again. It's not asking for empathy, it's judgmental and imo a little unhinged. It claims saying words like 'shrill' are "gendered", and certain authors are "more agreeable" (what the fuck?) as if that justifies these changes. Ask for empathy in a preface, or an introduction, if you have to. Stay the fuck out of Dahl's work. You don't have to like it, but changing it is obscene - Dahl is not alive to permit these changes, and would probably be horrified. They're his fucking words.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    The word "shrill" (unlike "screeching") is absolutely gendered. It's still fine to use it, and I wouldn't have made, well, any of these edits, but there is nothing unhinged about the comment you're replying to. Don't go looking for enemies on HN threads!
    - mandmandam 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - 4y ago

ilyt 4y ago

Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. > once you take a position of empathy. ...and the usual thinly veiled "if you don't agree with my opinion you're a Bad Person". How about taking position of sensibility for once ?

heavyset_go 4y ago
> Your triggers are your responsibility; you can just not read author instead of pushing for and celebrating desecration of their work. The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners.
- ilyt 4y ago
  Sure, disclose it is the edited version for "sensitive readers offended by writing of the time" of minority group on the cover and I'm all fine with it. But it won't happen because that would be honesty and we can't have that from people that push for the changes
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > The same argument can be made about people who are triggered by this edition of the book. You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners. Nobody would be upset if they were just making a new version of the book. The issue is they're trying to sweep the original under the rug and eventually memoryhole it.
- throwaway675309 4y ago
  "You can just not read the new edition instead of pushing for and celebrating the silencing of its owners" The "owners" (who likely don't have a imaginative bone in their entire skeleton), if you'll pardon my vernacular, should stay the fuck out of the authors original work instead of mucking around with it, particularly inane changes like the removal of the word fat. And by pushing a new addition of the book while discontinuing the originals they seek to erase the authors original work. If anything this particular addition should have a large CliffsNotes banner on the cover.

twoodfin 4y ago

Joseph Conrad wrote favorably of colonialism?! Have you read Heart of Darkness?

photochemsyn 4y ago
Well, he said the British were not as bad as the Belgians, I guess... so he must be censored? It's all become satire piled on satire to the point I was entertaining the notion that this story was some kind of early April Fool's edition or something like that.
ecshafer 4y ago
Thank God. Saying Conrad wrote favorably about Colonialism is so completely wrong and crazy some would say. Heart of Darkness was one of the most anti-colonial books of the 19th century.

stuaxo 4y ago

Ugh. If it turns out these beloved stories become out of fashion because of stuff like this, so be it. Twisting it into something it isn't, to fit current tastes doesn't seem right.

thewrongthinker 4y ago

[dead]

StanislavPetrov 4y ago

>It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, once you take a position of empathy. It's easy to figure out why these changes are being made in particular, and it has nothing to do with empathy.

boppo1 4y ago
How would you articulate what it has to do with, exactly? I agree with you but I find this topic too slippery to pin down (which is probably intentional).

ok123456 4y ago

I'm cringing at this unironic use of the word 'empathy'.

nonethewiser 4y ago
People really need to understand that empathy isn’t strictly good. I’m also surprised how little empathy people see in others. The call for more empathy tends to come off as very self centered and emotional. Childish, really.

nonethewiser 4y ago

[flagged]

mensetmanusman 4y ago

Empathy isn’t usually associated with rewriting history, but rather with an urge to volunteer to help the homeless.

tohnjitor 4y ago

You should take your own advice and not force your perspective on other people.