Hero Games sexist writers guidelines (rant) [LONG]
Grant Enfield
I recently downloaded and read the writers guidelines from Hero Games's
web-site, and I was a little annoyed with some of its assumptions and
suggestions about the sort of writing they're looking for.
While the editors and developers at Hero Games are certainly free, like
every other publisher, to decide what terms are capitalized, what
punctuation goes inside or outside quote marks, when those quote marks are
single or double, and all those other inconsequential matters of taste, I
think that they would provide their players with better products if they
encouraged their writers to omit gender bias.
Readers who dislike sexist language may choose not to buy a book that
assumes that a player, GM, or anyone else who picks up the book is male. The
Hero Games writers guidelines assert that this is just an unavoidable fact
of language: "Like it or not," the guidelines say," English is a
male-default language." (I trust that the guidelines mean to say that
writers of English have traditionally used a masculine pronoun to refer to a
singular general person of either sex. Parts of speech have gender--they
don't have sex.) But this insistence doesn't make it so. All native speakers
of English understand this sentence: "Every student brought their book to
class." And that makes clear that English may also use a pronoun identical
to the plural for a singular person of either sex. Because many writers
continue to insist that such usage is "incorrect," the clear way to avoid
assuming that a player, GM, or anyone else that the writer refers to is male
is to instead refer to players, GMs, and other people in the plural. Plural
pronouns don't carry gender: "All the students brought their books to
class."
Unfortunately, the Hero Games writers guidelines instruct writers, "When
referring to people in general, use 'he,' 'him,' and so forth. Do not vary
from this rule [. . .]." (I'll ignore that pronouns that refer to plural
antecedents like "people" should also be plural.) The writers guidelines
even call it a "trap" to consistently use another style--for example, to use
the third person singular feminine pronoun or both pronouns ("he or
she")--as though otherwise cautious writers would show themselves to be the
unfortunate victims of roadway ambush if they were to avoid sexist language
in their writing.
It would be one thing to me if Hero Games encouraged its writers to avoid
sexist language by referring to plural players or GMs but when unavoidable
to use the third person singular masculine pronoun as is traditional. But to
forcefully insist that their writers use sexist language (even, if the
letter of their style guide should be taken, when the antecedent of a
pronoun is plural) and avoid non-sexist language as a "trap" seems to me to
be another. Even reluctant sexism might be overlooked, but active sexism is
deplorable.
Their proposed titles for forthcoming products only continue the sexist
trend. While the title of the Pulp Hero enemies book _Masterminds and
Madmen_ might be simply a reflection of the sources it intends to depict,
there don't seem to be similar rationales for the titles _Everyman_, _The
Man on the Street_, or _The Evil That Men Do_.
When a publisher issues writers guidelines that encourage less clear
writing, it just seems to me to be less effective than writers guidelines
that would encourage clear writing. But when a publisher releases writers
guidelines that insist that writers use sexist language, it seems to me that
the company encourages sexism generally, and I don't want to support that
sort of company. It also doesn't seem to make good business sense.
End of rant. :)
grant
Michael Sears
news:a5p0j2$n4v$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>
>
> I recently downloaded and read the writers guidelines from Hero Games's
> web-site, and I was a little annoyed with some of its assumptions and
> suggestions about the sort of writing they're looking for.
>
So...does the stick up your ass play RPG's too?
:)
--
Michael Sears armi...@mhcable.com
"No turning back where the end is in sight.
There's a job to be done, a fight to be won."
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
David Johnston
Bryan J. Maloney
Oh, GET a LIFE, son! GET a LIFE!
--
America is a wonderful country. Where else could a young Black man like
Michael Jackson grow up to be a middle-aged White woman?
Mathew
> End of rant. :)
The best thing you ever said in the post. ;-)
My only hope is that that with Champions 5th edition coming out and
being much thicker then 4th, it isn't because they went in and changed
every "he" to "he/she/it/they/whatever".
I just don't know if I could enjoy role playing Spider-person.
Mathew
Dave Van Domelen
column for me when I look at a game in the store. Nothing puts me off faster
than a huge string of "he or she" "him or her" etc. It's just clunky, and
people don't talk like that. In fact, some game companies have a policy of
inserting these hypersensitive constructions into manuscripts if the writer
dares to use regular grammar.
"They" seems to be slowly becoming normal usage for singular
undetermined gender...while still a bit clumsy (saying "they" to refer to
singular is just as bad as saying "it" to refer to persons), at least people
actually talk that way outside of lawsuits and stereotypical academia.
The other good way is to avoid pronouns when possible and always have a
concrete person in mind when using pronouns. It's fine to say "he" if the
example starts off by naming a male character, since it's not a generic
pronoun anymore, it's specific. Switching back and forth as White Wolf does
is okay, but you have to be careful to stay consistent within a passage lest
the reader get thrown for a loop.
Dave Van Domelen, working on a game about giant robots, so he can cheat
and use "it" a lot.
TedJ...@mindspring.com
"Grant Enfield" <enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote in message
news:a5p0j2$n4v$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> referring to people in general, use 'he,' 'him,' and so forth. Do not vary
> from this rule [. . .]."
That could make the section on DNPCs very interesting: if there's general
discussion about a character having a love-interest, both the character
and the love-interest will be referred to as 'he' or 'him', according to
their
rule. Champions, the game where all superheroes are gay men.
Charles Ball
Dude, (please, forgive the assumption.) you're certainly entitled to your
opinion, but come on...
Have we gone so far into the Hell of Political Correctness that we have to
start worrying about offending through the use of a well established
convention of the English language? I, for one, am glad to see that Hero
Games has avoided putting in the literary speed bumps of "s/he,"
"he/she/it," or any other bastardized pronoun used to avoid "gender
specific" language.
Reliance on the more "neutral" plural pronouns are clearly not suitable for
use in every example. Heaven forfend the necessity to refer to a *single*
character in an example...
I find the usage of "neutral" language does more to detract from an
enjoyable read than almost anything else (excepting a lousy plot, flat
characters and generally bad writing).
To echo Mathew's earlier comment, "Spider-person" just doesn't do it.
Neither does "Bat-person," "Super-person," "Iron-guy," or "The People form
U.N.C.L.E." On the other side of the fence we'd have Cat-person, Bat-person
(oops, may have to change that to avoid confusion), and Diana, Princess of
Themiscyra, probably wouldn't have the same impact were she known as
"Wonder-person."
As for "good business sense," it seems to me any company that tries to
please one hundred percent of its intended target audience is doomed to
failure before they've even begun. There are simply too many differing
opinions to make it viable even in theory. In this case, "good business
sense" would seem to dictate they avoid potentially alienating the majority
of the target audience simply to sooth the sensibilities of a small, though
vocal, minority.
If you find it personally objectionable to use language that has a gender
bias, please feel free to avoid doing so. If you can do so in everyday life
without coming off as a complete nut, more power to you.
Be well.
</rant>
Charlie
Brandon Blackmoor
news:a5p0j2$n4v$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>
> that writers use sexist language, it seems to me that the
> company encourages sexism generally, and I don't want to support
> that sort of company.
I agree it's an annoyance, but it's way down the list of things that annoy
me. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I certainly wouldn't boycott anyone
over it.
Maybe someday the rest of our species will catch on to the fact that the
Industrial Revolution came and went, and humans beings now come in male and
female. Until then, this is just one of those nuisances that we'll have to
live with.
--
bblackmoor en blackgate.net
http://www.rpglibrary.org - free games & gaming aids & no banner ads, ever
Mathew
Well, technically when writing a character up you generally know the
characters gender, and you can define the gender of their NPC as well.
This rule is more to do when dealing with non-specific persons in the
rules, you call them male to save time and explanation. A character
sheet is not a non-specific person, it's a specific specific person.
Mathew
TheSaint
Duo?
ST
"Mathew" <mig...@rust.net> wrote in message
news:8825124127060179...@news.rust.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.324 / Virus Database: 181 - Release Date: 14-Feb-02
Wayne Shaw
>Their proposed titles for forthcoming products only continue the sexist
>trend. While the title of the Pulp Hero enemies book _Masterminds and
>Madmen_ might be simply a reflection of the sources it intends to depict,
>there don't seem to be similar rationales for the titles _Everyman_, _The
>Man on the Street_, or _The Evil That Men Do_.
While there may or may not be something to the rest of what you say,
this is really silly; you're talking about book titles using commonly
used phrases and a quote. It'd be about like objecting to a
suppliment named "Man into Superman".
There's such a thing as having social consciousness give you tunnel
vision.
Peter Meilinger
: On Fri, 1 Mar 2002 19:20:13 -0500, TedJ...@mindspring.com wrote:
:> That could make the section on DNPCs very interesting: if there's general
:> discussion about a character having a love-interest, both the character
:> and the love-interest will be referred to as 'he' or 'him', according to
:> their
:> rule. Champions, the game where all superheroes are gay men.
: Well, technically when writing a character up you generally know the
: characters gender, and you can define the gender of their NPC as well.
: This rule is more to do when dealing with non-specific persons in the
: rules, you call them male to save time and explanation. A character
: sheet is not a non-specific person, it's a specific specific person.
It does bring up the question of how many male vs. female example
characters will be used to illustrate rules examples, I suppose.
Of course, with quite a few superhero names you wouldn't be able
to tell. "Dr. Light buys 35 points of Energy Blast with the special
effect of a solid light lance..." and so on.
Personally, I don't much care what gender is used as the default.
When I think about it, I prefer switching back and forth. The
first example is male, the next female, and so on. Not difficult,
and it avoids exactly this sort of situation.
Pete
Mathew
> Matt, do you have 250 point write-ups of Ace and Gary, The Ambiguously Gay
> Duo?
I have considered it in the past, but I have only seen maybe 2 episodes
of that show and didn't think I could do the duo justice.
Perhaps you could fill in the blanks, if your a fan of them. The
definitely have the benefit of skills like KS - Interior Design and a
pretty hefty Reputation.
Mathew
Grant Enfield
"Dave Van Domelen" <dva...@eyrie.org> wrote in message
news:a5p5qb$bbr$1...@usenet.Stanford.EDU...
> A too-aggressive stance on degendering language is actually in the
minus
> column for me when I look at a game in the store. Nothing puts me off
faster
> than a huge string of "he or she" "him or her" etc. It's just clunky, and
> people don't talk like that.
I also don't like "he or she" because it gets to be too much very quickly,
and things like "s/he" look odd to me (and I don't know how to say it).
> "They" seems to be slowly becoming normal usage for singular
> undetermined gender...while still a bit clumsy (saying "they" to refer to
> singular is just as bad as saying "it" to refer to persons), at least
people
> actually talk that way outside of lawsuits and stereotypical academia.
In informal and spoken English (in the United States, anyway), the third
person plural pronouns became third person singular pronouns for people of
unspecified genders a long time ago.
There's no native speaker of English who wouldn't immediately understand
that when every kid took their seat on the bus, the "their" referred to
"every." And only a few listeners would even notice its use.
> The other good way is to avoid pronouns when possible and always have
a
> concrete person in mind when using pronouns. [. . .]
And as I suggested in my original post, writers can use plurals throughout
because when they use plurals, they don't have to worry about specifying
gender because the third person pronouns don't. :)
That's why it struck me as so odd that Hero Games would instruct writers to
use the masculine pronouns. It's so easy to avoid.
grant
Grant Enfield
"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:a5p9d1$98j42$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de...
> I agree it's an annoyance, but it's way down the list of things that annoy
> me. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. I certainly wouldn't boycott anyone
> over it.
What irks me so much is that it's the first thing on their list under
general writing guidelines (not whether the comma goes inside or outside
quote marks or which HERO System terms to capitalize and when and all that).
Rather than not mention it and let writers choose, and rather than choose an
option that's unbiased, Hero Games tells their writers that they must use
biased language.
If I'd just seen in their new products that they use masculine pronouns
throughout, I would've just been annoyed and thought, "how old-fashioned." I
would've assumed they just hadn't thought about it.
But looking at their guidelines, it's clear that they've thought about it
and chosen to be sexist.
Yuck.
grant
Grant Enfield
"Charles Ball" <cgb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WOVf8.27639$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Have we gone so far into the Hell of Political Correctness that we have to
> start worrying about offending through the use of a well established
> convention of the English language?
The well-established convention that assumes that all people are men, you
mean?
> Reliance on the more "neutral" plural pronouns are clearly not suitable
for
> use in every example. Heaven forfend the necessity to refer to a *single*
> character in an example...
In such a case, the book could establish the gender of the character. Mr.
Fantastic is likely to be male, and the Invisible Woman is likely to be
female. What would the objection be to using the appropriate pronouns?
> To echo Mathew's earlier comment, "Spider-person" just doesn't do it.
> Neither does "Bat-person," "Super-person," "Iron-guy," or "The People form
> U.N.C.L.E." On the other side of the fence we'd have Cat-person,
Bat-person
> (oops, may have to change that to avoid confusion), and Diana, Princess of
> Themiscyra, probably wouldn't have the same impact were she known as
> "Wonder-person."
Please don't attribute to me things I haven't argued for. I've suggested
none of the above, and nothing of the like follows directly or logically
from what I've suggested.
> As for "good business sense," it seems to me any company that tries to
> please one hundred percent of its intended target audience is doomed to
> failure before they've even begun.
Um, it seems to me that if you're not trying to please your entire target
audience, then you've targeted the wrong audience. :)
> In this case, "good business
> sense" would seem to dictate they avoid potentially alienating the
majority
> of the target audience simply to sooth the sensibilities of a small,
though
> vocal, minority.
How would using plural pronouns--addressing all those players, GMs, and
readers who happen along--alienate any of them?
That's what strikes me as odd about the guidelines. Why insist on
potentially alienating a minority when it's so easy to eliminate that
potential (by making cases where sex isn't clear plural)?
> If you find it personally objectionable to use language that has a gender
> bias, please feel free to avoid doing so. If you can do so in everyday
life
> without coming off as a complete nut, more power to you.
If you read through many posts here in this newsgroup, you'll find that many
of them do avoid biased language. If you haven't noticed, maybe it's because
doing so isn't awkward or unconventional? :)
grant
Mathew
> What irks me so much is that it's the first thing on their list under
> general writing guidelines (not whether the comma goes inside or outside
> quote marks or which HERO System terms to capitalize and when and all that).
>
> Rather than not mention it and let writers choose, and rather than choose an
> option that's unbiased, Hero Games tells their writers that they must use
> biased language.
The way they carrying on telling people how to write submissions, you'd
think they own the company! Oh wait, they do!
Part of it might simply be something called consistancy. They probably
consider the idea of all the official material being uniform in their
book to be a greater goal then making half of it one way and half the
other way, even if it means means pissing off the small percentage of
their readers who actually give a damn about pronoun gender bias. After
all, even if it pisses you off, I doubt it would stop anyone who is a
fan of Champions from using the rules.
The majority of the book probably being lifted from older editions, they
decided not to have to go in and change all that material to match it,
but rather keep with the existing format! Look at the horrible job they
did at changing Icicle in the hard cover BBB.
If it makes you feel better, think of all the trees lives saved by them
simply saying "he" instead or longer plural pronouns. Less typing means
less pages used to write the book, which means less paper used!
Mathew
REZcat
Ya know, it's not that I don't care.....it's that I couldn't care
less.
Grant Enfield
"Wayne Shaw" <sh...@caprica.com> wrote in message
news:HTWAPNyAODo4Sz...@4ax.com...
> While there may or may not be something to the rest of what you say,
> this is really silly; you're talking about book titles using commonly
> used phrases and a quote. It'd be about like objecting to a
> suppliment named "Man into Superman".
My mentioning these things last gave them more importance than they should
have, I think. I don't think I would've noticed them except that they come
after the guidelines that tell writers to use masculine pronouns. Since I'd
already read those, it stuck out that lots of their titles specify gender.
But I do think that 5th edition would have been a good opportunity for the
HERO System to rename its common skills something besides "Everyman Skills."
grant
Mathew
>
> "Charles Ball" <cgb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:WOVf8.27639$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > Have we gone so far into the Hell of Political Correctness that we have to
> > start worrying about offending through the use of a well established
> > convention of the English language?
>
> The well-established convention that assumes that all people are men, you
> mean?
The species is called huMAN. Man is an acceptable shorthand for the
whole of the species.
This was recently covered in an episode of Angel where a demon says "I'm
not a man", then points "but clearly masculine, you get that right?" He
means huMAN.
Now if you'll excuese me I have to go watch Late Night with David
Letterperson.
Mathew
Grant Enfield
> I just don't know if I could enjoy role playing Spider-person.
So don't. :) (And I didn't suggest anyone should do anything like that.)
What's biased about a man calling himself a man or a woman calling herself a
woman? That's just an accurate description.
On the other hand, many players and GMs are women, and assuming that they're
all men or boys is inaccurate and exclusive. And there's no reason to do it.
grant
Grant Enfield
> The majority of the book probably being lifted from older editions, they
> decided not to have to go in and change all that material to match it,
> but rather keep with the existing format!
5th edition is all new copy written by Steve Long.
And the guidelines are for future projects.
grant
Arthur Samuels
At CalTech in Pasadena there is an instrument called a scanning-tunneling
electron microscope. It is so sensitive, it can resolve pictures of
individual atoms. If I were using that microscope right now, I still would
not be able to detect my level of interest in this issue.
- Arthur
David Johnston
>
> "Charles Ball" <cgb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:WOVf8.27639$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net..
>
> > start worrying about offending through the use of a well established
> > convention of the English language?
>
> The well-established convention that assumes that all people are men, you
> mean?
That's the one.
> In such a case, the book could establish the gender of the character. Mr.
> Fantastic is likely to be male, and the Invisible Woman is likely to be
> female. What would the objection be to using the appropriate pronouns?
There is no objection. If you talk about any specific person, even an
one, according to the guideline you are free to refer to her as female.
It is one when you are talking about "a superhero" or "a character" that
they insist you use the masculine singular rather than the plural.
> > In this case, "good business
> > sense" would seem to dictate they avoid potentially alienating the
> majority
> > of the target audience simply to sooth the sensibilities of a small,
> though
> > vocal, minority.
>
> How would using plural pronouns--addressing all those players, GMs, and
> readers who happen along--alienate any of them?
It would alienate grammar wonks. Of course personally I like to refer
to RPG characters as "it". After all, they aren't really people.
James Nicoll
Dave Van Domelen <dva...@eyrie.org> wrote:
>
> "They" seems to be slowly becoming normal usage for singular
>undetermined gender...while still a bit clumsy (saying "they" to refer to
>singular is just as bad as saying "it" to refer to persons), at least people
>actually talk that way outside of lawsuits and stereotypical academia.
IMS, the use of they in this manner goes back quite a way in
English, although it comes into and goes out of fashion from time
to time.
--
"I think you mean 'Could libertarian slave-owning Confederates, led by
SHWIers, have pulled off a transatlantic invasion of Britain, in revenge
for the War of 1812, if they had nukes acquired from the Sea of Time?'"
Alison Brooks
Grant Enfield
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3C804F...@telusplanet.net...
And here I thought you were "so incredibly not caring about this." :)
> > The well-established convention that assumes that all people are men,
you
> > mean?
>
> That's the one.
It would be a shame to avoid an assumption that's blatantly inaccurate,
wouldn't it?
> It is one when you are talking about "a superhero" or "a character" that
> they insist you use the masculine singular rather than the plural.
Well, the guidelines instruct writers to refer to people in general as
"him." That seems to be an odd choice to me because "people," being plural,
are usually referred to as "them."
At the least, the guidelines encourage writers to use gendered pronouns. "Do
not vary from this rule," they tell them. And that implies to me that
avoiding the use of gendered pronouns for persons of unspecified sex by
making all the antecedents of those pronouns plural would be counter to the
writers guidelines.
> > How would using plural pronouns--addressing all those players, GMs, and
> > readers who happen along--alienate any of them?
>
> It would alienate grammar wonks.
How?
What "grammar wonk" would object when instead of referring to a player, a
GM, or any other as "him," writers refer to players, GMs, and any others as
"them"?
By whose set of standards would that be "incorrect"?
grant
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> But I do think that 5th edition would have been a good opportunity
> for the HERO System to rename its common skills something besides
> "Everyman Skills."
In Jazz I call them "Everyone Skills".
Brandon Blackmoor
>
> But looking at their guidelines, it's clear that they've thought about
> it and chosen to be sexist.
Well, keep in mind they are game geeks at heart, and they're Hero players on
top of that. ;)
Wayne Shaw
I'm sorry, but I still think it's a silly objection. Like it or not,
that's a commonly used term for the common man (yes, I know that's
another one; sue me) that almost everyone knows. It's one thing to
try to modify current language; it's another thing to expect people to
ignore the past century of reference just because it's generally
predicated on sexist language.
Charlie Ball
initially replied to only to him. The Senior Moments abound...}
> > Have we gone so far into the Hell of Political Correctness that we have
to
> > start worrying about offending through the use of a well established
> > convention of the English language?
>
> The well-established convention that assumes that all people are men, you
> mean?
Do I? I believe I was referring to the convention that assigns the male
gender to those individuals whose gender is not otherwise specified (or
implied by prior statements) for the sake of convenience. And I do mean, for
the sake of convenience -- not to be intentionally degrading or insulting to
those of the feminine gender. If any offense is garnered from such usage,
I'd posit that the offense is *most often* in the mind of the reader, not
the writer.
> > Reliance on the more "neutral" plural pronouns are clearly not suitable
> for
> > use in every example. Heaven forfend the necessity to refer to a
*single*
> > character in an example...
>
> In such a case, the book could establish the gender of the character. Mr.
> Fantastic is likely to be male, and the Invisible Woman is likely to be
> female. What would the objection be to using the appropriate pronouns?
None, but that would be a specific case when referring to a specific
character, but I believe your main objection was the use of the masculine
pronouns in reference to "generic" character's where gender hasn't been
specified.
> > To echo Mathew's earlier comment, "Spider-person" just doesn't do it.
> > Neither does "Bat-person," "Super-person," "Iron-guy," or "The People
form
> > U.N.C.L.E." On the other side of the fence we'd have Cat-person,
> Bat-person
> > (oops, may have to change that to avoid confusion), and Diana, Princess
of
> > Themiscyra, probably wouldn't have the same impact were she known as
> > "Wonder-person."
>
> Please don't attribute to me things I haven't argued for. I've suggested
> none of the above, and nothing of the like follows directly or logically
> from what I've suggested.
>
My apologies, here. It wasn't my intent to put words in your mouth, merely
to carry your objection to its logical absurdity. Gender bias in English
goes well beyond prounoun usage and, if you're going to eliminate it in this
case, why not carry it all the way?
> > As for "good business sense," it seems to me any company that tries to
> > please one hundred percent of its intended target audience is doomed to
> > failure before they've even begun.
>
> Um, it seems to me that if you're not trying to please your entire target
> audience, then you've targeted the wrong audience. :)
>
8^)
Perhaps, but as the saying goes, "If you try to please everybody, nobody
will like it..."
> > In this case, "good business
> > sense" would seem to dictate they avoid potentially alienating the
> majority
> > of the target audience simply to sooth the sensibilities of a small,
> though
> > vocal, minority.
>
> How would using plural pronouns--addressing all those players, GMs, and
> readers who happen along--alienate any of them?
>
> That's what strikes me as odd about the guidelines. Why insist on
> potentially alienating a minority when it's so easy to eliminate that
> potential (by making cases where sex isn't clear plural)?
Considering the prevalence of gender bias in English, I believe most people
aren't aware of it to the degree where they would be inclined to edit
themselves. HERO could either try to educate every writer to be constantly
on the lookout for gender bias issues in the material they submit OR they
could just enforce the "traditional" usage which most people already use (or
often backslide into using). I think the latter option is easier.
> > If you find it personally objectionable to use language that has a
gender
> > bias, please feel free to avoid doing so. If you can do so in everyday
> life
> > without coming off as a complete nut, more power to you.
>
> If you read through many posts here in this newsgroup, you'll find that
many
> of them do avoid biased language. If you haven't noticed, maybe it's
because
> doing so isn't awkward or unconventional? :)
>
Actually, I haven't noticed because I haven't read most of your posts... 8^)
I usually just skim the subjects for things that might interest me. If I
have something to contribute, I will. Mostly, anything I might have added
has been said by someone else and I try to avoid posting "me, too" messages.
Either everyone else is too quick, or, more likely, I'm just too slow...
Be well,
Charlie
RJM Hughes
You're right, and I commend you for having the intelligence and
decency to care about this.
Sears, Johnston, and Maloney are just acting like louts to demonstrate
the typical (i.e. dull, sullen, and stubborn) response that men
generally have to sexism being challenged. Don't take the
stoned-frat-boy comments seriously.
I came across your post on the Herogames forum, and mistakenly thought
it had been originally posted somewhere other than
rec.frp.games.super-heroes. Thus, I copied it, as well as my reponse
to it, and posted them here.
Making this look even worse, I hit Post instead of Preview, so I
didn't even get to edit it. My apologies, and anyone wanting to
respond with personal attacks should feel free to point out how weak
my Web-Fu is.
I basically said everything that I had to say in my response, so hang
in there. We need more people like you.
RJM Hughes
You're obviously interested enough to write a response. Does that
mean the level of interest required to make a post is so small it's
sub-atomic?
I suspect you actually find the topic irritating, and would like to
see it closed. So here's the question: If it doesn't affect you
directly, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything you're
doing, why should you care?
*cough*cough*prickling of conscience*cough*cough*
TheSaint
http://www.quicktimeflix.net/agd/
I might give it a try. I like the unusual wite ups after all.
ST
"Mathew" <mig...@rust.net> wrote in message
news:8825129713053181...@news.rust.net...
David Johnston
>"Arthur Samuels" <arthur....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<2aZf8.9321$106.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> > (snip gender-bias pronoun rant)
>>
>> At CalTech in Pasadena there is an instrument called a scanning-tunneling
>> electron microscope. It is so sensitive, it can resolve pictures of
>> individual atoms. If I were using that microscope right now, I still would
>> not be able to detect my level of interest in this issue.
>>
>> - Arthur
>
>You're obviously interested enough to write a response. Does that
>mean the level of interest required to make a post is so small it's
>sub-atomic?
>
>I suspect you actually find the topic irritating, and would like to
>see it closed.
Boring things usually are irritating, yes.
So here's the question: If it doesn't affect you
>directly, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything you're
>doing, why should you care?
It does affect something we are doing. It affects rgfsh.
>
>*cough*cough*prickling of conscience*cough*cough*
Assuming that authors of Hero books includes female example
characters, the language issue is a trivial one. It would be nice
if English had a good indeterminate gender third person singular
pronoun. It doesn't.
Mathew
> Here is their episoide collection.
> http://www.quicktimeflix.net/agd/
>
> I might give it a try. I like the unusual wite ups after all.
I tired them and all I get is errors that I cannot download them. Too
bad. Do they work for you?
I saw that someone converted Mojo Jojo as a villain to Champions on the
GNBORH, I wonder if someone will convert the Power Puff Girl or other
modern cartoons?
Mathew
Robert Scott Clark
>All native speakers
>of English understand this sentence: "Every student brought their book to
>class." And that makes clear that English may also use a pronoun identical
>to the plural for a singular person of either sex.
All native speakers of English understand, "I be twenty fi' year old,"
also, but that dosn't make it correct English.
Robert Scott Clark
>On the other hand, many players and GMs are women, and assuming that they're
>all men or boys is inaccurate and exclusive.
There is no such assumption in the book, only the assumption that the
readers have some mastery of the English language. Sadly, this
assumption was false in your case.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>Personally, I don't much care what gender is used as the default.
>When I think about it, I prefer switching back and forth. The
>first example is male, the next female, and so on. Not difficult,
>and it avoids exactly this sort of situation.
>
If you want to be ultra-non-sexist, you could ignore plain alteration
and use reverse steriotypes in examples - make the hero who is a nurse
in HIS secret identity be male. Heck, these days you can have a
female professional basketball player.
Robert Scott Clark
>"Arthur Samuels" <arthur....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<2aZf8.9321$106.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>> > (snip gender-bias pronoun rant)
>>
>> At CalTech in Pasadena there is an instrument called a scanning-tunneling
>> electron microscope. It is so sensitive, it can resolve pictures of
>> individual atoms. If I were using that microscope right now, I still would
>> not be able to detect my level of interest in this issue.
>>
>> - Arthur
>
>You're obviously interested enough to write a response. Does that
>mean the level of interest required to make a post is so small it's
>sub-atomic?
Actually, I think he, like me, is more interested in making fun of the
people who ARE interested in the issue than we are in the issue.
Arthur Samuels
news:a54a5ab7.0203...@posting.google.com...
> You're obviously interested enough to write a response. Does that
Well, I AM a comedian. Can't resist the temptation to tell a joke.
> I suspect you actually find the topic irritating, and would like to
> see it closed. So here's the question: If it doesn't affect you
> directly, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything you're
> doing, why should you care?
Actually, I do. Not a lot, but I find the feminization of our culture
annoying. They take it too far. I remember in English class, we were
taught that the male pronoun is always used when the gender of the subject
is not known or when writing in general. Has that rule changed? What's
next? Personhole cover? Person on the street interview? The Amazing
Spider-Person? X-Persons?
- Arthur (unrepentant Male Chauvinist Pig)
Chris Blake
Tatt...@hotmail.com wrote on 3/2/02 5:21 PM:
> Sears, Johnston, and Maloney are just acting like louts to demonstrate
> the typical (i.e. dull, sullen, and stubborn) response that men
> generally have to sexism being challenged. Don't take the
> stoned-frat-boy comments seriously.
First point, Stoned frat boys wouldn't comment they'd simply beat the crap
out of you.
Second point, it's this kind of intellectual elitism and snobbery that makes
it very hard to agree with you. Stop pretending to be so omniscient that you
know their motivations for saying what they said. I highly doubt they are
all three card carrying members of the great white male conspiracy out to
drown out the voices of you and Grant, the only two caring individuals left.
> We need more people like you.
I suppose we do. I'm glad he pointed out the flaws in the editorial policy.
However I doubt anyone needs more people like you, who set themselves above
the unwashed masses in an attempt to right injustices. In other words give
it a miss, you ain't that noble.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Chris Blake
Samuels at arthur....@worldnet.att.net wrote on 3/2/02 7:11 PM:
> - Arthur (unrepentant Male Chauvinist Pig)
>
Yeahhh Pigs!!!!!
Chris Blake
at rgo...@telusplanet.net wrote on 3/2/02 5:49 PM:
> Assuming that authors of Hero books includes female example
> characters, the language issue is a trivial one. It would be nice
> if English had a good indeterminate gender third person singular
> pronoun. It doesn't.
I nominate the word "goo" and it's various conjugate forms.
Grant Enfield
"Brandon Blackmoor" <bblac...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:a5r2pd$979b6$1...@ID-97660.news.dfncis.de...
> > But looking at their guidelines, it's clear that they've thought about
> > it and chosen to be sexist.
>
> Well, keep in mind they are game geeks at heart, and they're Hero players
on
> top of that. ;)
*I'm* a game geek, and a Hero player on top. :)
grant
Grant Enfield
"Charlie Ball" <cgb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3rag8.29206$ZC3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Do I? I believe I was referring to the convention that assigns the male
> gender to those individuals whose gender is not otherwise specified (or
> implied by prior statements) for the sake of convenience.
Doing so, of course, assumes that the unspecified sex is male, that male is
the default, normal, or natural state of people and that being female is an
aberrant, exceptional, or unnatural state.
And it's equally convenient to make the unspecified antecedent plural and
avoid all that.
> If any offense is garnered from such usage,
> I'd posit that the offense is *most often* in the mind of the reader, not
> the writer.
*All* offense occurs where listeners, readers, or whomever sit. Yet many
people make reasonable efforts to avoid being offensive rather than insist
that they will be offensive and then explain that it's not their
fault--people who didn't want to be offended shouldn't read or listen or
whatever.
And that's a very silly position for people who are trying to sell a product
to take.
> Heaven forfend the necessity to refer to a *single*
> character in an example...
> >
> > In such a case, the book could establish the gender of the character.
Mr.
> > Fantastic is likely to be male, and the Invisible Woman is likely to be
> > female. What would the objection be to using the appropriate pronouns?
>
> None, but that would be a specific case when referring to a specific
> character, but I believe your main objection was the use of the masculine
> pronouns in reference to "generic" character's where gender hasn't been
> specified.
My response was to the above objection that writers might need to refer to
single characters in examples. If writers chose to do that, they could
simply specify the sex of the characters and use the appropriate pronouns.
> It wasn't my intent to put words in your mouth, merely
> to carry your objection to its logical absurdity. Gender bias in English
> goes well beyond prounoun usage and, if you're going to eliminate it in
this
> case, why not carry it all the way?
How is it biased to refer to a male as "he" or as a "man" or a female as
"she" or as a "woman"?
Occluding women behind the "generic" pronoun "he" is quite different from
Wonder Woman calling herself a woman. What's logically absurd is to try to
portray them as the same sort.
> Perhaps, but as the saying goes, "If you try to please everybody, nobody
> will like it..."
On the other hand, if you intentionally do what you know will offend some
people, you know with certainty that some people won't like it. What's the
point of that?
> Considering the prevalence of gender bias in English, I believe most
people
> aren't aware of it to the degree where they would be inclined to edit
> themselves. HERO could either try to educate every writer to be constantly
> on the lookout for gender bias issues in the material they submit OR they
> could just enforce the "traditional" usage which most people already use
(or
> often backslide into using).
Hero Games has posted writers guidelines that are more than thirty pages
long. They *are* trying to educate every writer that works for them. In this
case, they're educating their writers to use biased language rather than to
avoid it.
If they were simply doing what's easiest, they wouldn't bother telling their
writers to refer to people in general as "he"--they just wouldn't mention it
at all.
And that adds significance to the issue for me. This isn't a case where Hero
Games has overlooked biased language. They've looked right at it and chosen
to use it in spite of the easy alternatives.
grant
Grant Enfield
> I find the feminization of our culture annoying.
I find it strange that avoiding the use of a masculine pronoun to refer to
potentially female persons appears to you to be "feminizing."
Wouldn't it be the traditional inclusion of women in the masculine pronoun
that's feminizing because in that case what's labeled as masculine might
actually be female? On the other hand, the feminine pronouns are exclusively
feminine--no man will be identified as "she" in the traditional usage.
Or is it just the acknowledgment that women might be players, GMs, or
readers that annoys you?
> I remember in English class, we were
> taught that the male pronoun is always used when the gender of the subject
> is not known or when writing in general. Has that rule changed?
That "rule" was made up by Victorian grammarians who wanted to distinguish
between "correct" usages and "incorrect" usages as a way of keeping class
distinctions after voting rights were expanded to include lots of the
"riff-raff."
That "rule" has nothing to do with how the language works and everything to
do with privileging the taste of certain speakers.
grant
Mathew
Isn't the name "Hero" a male form of the word? EGADS!
Watch out or next thing you know it will be "Hero and/or Heroine 5th
edition" RPG. Or more correctly "Undetermined persons of Heroic nature
RPG 5th edition!"
Mathew
Grant Enfield
"Robert Scott Clark" <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3c816462...@news-central.giganews.com...
> >All native speakers
> >of English understand this sentence: "Every student brought their book to
> >class." And that makes clear that English may also use a pronoun
identical
> >to the plural for a singular person of either sex.
>
> All native speakers of English understand, "I be twenty fi' year old,"
> also, but that dosn't make it correct English.
This use of "correct" is useful in distinguishing between levels of
formality, not in identifying grammatically viable or unviable
constructions. Formality is a matter of convention and taste not of
essential qualities. So, yes, most educated native speakers of English would
recognize that sentence as informal.
Even picky readers who expected a high degree of formality would recognize
that the following sentences mean the same things:
1) Every student brought his book to class.
2) Every student brought his or her book to class.
3) All the students brought their books to class.
The readers who might object to sentence (2) because they think it sounds
awkward won't object to sentence (3). And the third sentence eliminates the
unnecessary gendered pronoun.
Why insist on using biased language when such an alternative exists?
grant
Robert Scott Clark
>
>> I remember in English class, we were
>> taught that the male pronoun is always used when the gender of the subject
>> is not known or when writing in general. Has that rule changed?
>
>That "rule" was made up by Victorian grammarians who wanted to distinguish
>between "correct" usages and "incorrect" usages as a way of keeping class
>distinctions after voting rights were expanded to include lots of the
>"riff-raff."
It's telling when in order to support your point you have to decend
into absurd conspiracy theory. I think the gunman - oh, I mean
gunperson - on the grassy knoll started this whole he/she/it thing.
Robert Scott Clark
>
>"Robert Scott Clark" <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3c816462...@news-central.giganews.com...
>
>> >All native speakers
>> >of English understand this sentence: "Every student brought their book to
>> >class." And that makes clear that English may also use a pronoun
>identical
>> >to the plural for a singular person of either sex.
>>
>> All native speakers of English understand, "I be twenty fi' year old,"
>> also, but that dosn't make it correct English.
>
>This use of "correct" is useful in distinguishing between levels of
>formality, not in identifying grammatically viable or unviable
>constructions. Formality is a matter of convention and taste not of
>essential qualities. So, yes, most educated native speakers of English would
>recognize that sentence as informal.
And as informality in approached, percieved intelligence is lowered.
>
>Even picky readers who expected a high degree of formality would recognize
>that the following sentences mean the same things:
>
>1) Every student brought his book to class.
>
>2) Every student brought his or her book to class.
And anyone with a moderate education would recognize this one as
clunky.
>
>3) All the students brought their books to class.
>
>The readers who might object to sentence (2) because they think it sounds
>awkward won't object to sentence (3).
They should, as it is just as awkward, and unlike the second is
actually incorrect to boot.
>And the third sentence eliminates the
>unnecessary gendered pronoun.
>
>Why insist on using biased language when such an alternative exists?
An alternate that mismatches number. I would also object to "I asked
them to hold his tongue", unless, of course, I were requesting that
they attack someone and stick their hands in his mouth.
>
>
>
>
>grant
>
Grant Enfield
> Isn't the name "Hero" a male form of the word?
Many writers use "hero" to refer to men or women. "Heroine" then in the
sense of a female hero is obsolete.
In the specialized case of character roles in literary romances, "hero" and
"heroine" have distinct meanings.
And of course, "Hero" is a given name for women. For examples see the Hero
and Leander story or Shakespeare's _Much Ado about Nothing_.
Next question? :)
grant
Grant Enfield
> Actually, I think he, like me, is more interested in making fun of the
> people who ARE interested in the issue than we are in the issue.
Exactly. Because even when you have no counterargument, you can always try
to undermine the significance with ridicule or dismissive comments.
"Jane, you ignorant slut. . . ." :)
grant
Grant Enfield
> It's telling when in order to support your point you have to decend
> into absurd conspiracy theory.
Again, when you don't have a counterargument, insist that the argument is
"absurd."
Perhaps you should look at school grammars for the last few centuries and
see. The issue of pronoun use has been a matter of debate since at least the
seventeenth century.
grant
Mathew
So if "hero" can be male of female, can't "he" be too? And thus
everything you posted is completelty obsolete?
Mathew
Grant Enfield
> >3) All the students brought their books to class.
> >
> >The readers who might object to sentence (2) because they think it sounds
> >awkward won't object to sentence (3).
>
> They should, as it is just as awkward, and unlike the second is
> actually incorrect to boot.
I would like you, or anyone else, to point to the perceived incorrectness in
sentence (3):
All the students brought their books to class.
> >Why insist on using biased language when such an alternative exists?
>
> An alternate that mismatches number.
Please, point out the mismatched number in "All the students brought their
books to class."
Thanks in advance for being helpful. :)
grant
Grant Enfield
> So if "hero" can be male of female, can't "he" be too?
I think a case could be made for that if "she" weren't so commonly used. :)
grant
Mathew
So you admit, "he" as gender neutral can be correct. So who gets to
decide? How about the owners of the company who prints the books? After
all it's their money spent in the printing.
People shouldn't be intimidated by being called sexist because they made
a legitimate decision on the proper use of the English language. Such
language is threatening and uncalled for.
Mathew
Yakumo Fujii
<enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote:
>
>"Robert Scott Clark" <cla...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>news:3c857d94...@news-central.giganews.com...
<snip>
>Perhaps you should look at school grammars for the last few centuries and
>see. The issue of pronoun use has been a matter of debate since at least the
>seventeenth century.
Perhaps it is. But why should it be a debate -here-? For that
matter... are any of the female gamers here upset about this issue? I
haven't seen anyone claiming to be a female gamer to be upset about
this.
I think the one of the real questions is... who's being harmed by
this? Is anyone? I don't see anyone claiming harm, except for you, and
I'm pretty positive you're not a female. Is it oppressive? Does it
harm the quality of the work? White Wolf has always used 'she' in
favor of 'he'. Does that make their books better than the Hero Games
books (or for that matter the D&D books, or the GURPS books, etc...)
Furthermore, is this the forum for such a topic? The initial post may
have been on-topic for r.g.f.s-h, but the continuance of it has little
if anything to do with super-hero fantasy roleplaying games. It is
probably best in one of the many language usenet groups that exist.
And, to Mr. Hughes--flinging your moral mud and calling posters names
doesn't make you any better than those you presumably find offensive.
'This is a boring, irritating topic' does not equate to 'I am an
offensive, insensitive boor with no sensitivity at all'. I think most
of the people here would rather this thread stop taking up space in
the newsgroup; I know I'm one, but ignoring it hasn't helped.
Chris Goodwin
>
> "Arthur Samuels" <arthur....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:FSdg8.11318$106.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > I find the feminization of our culture annoying.
>
> I find it strange that avoiding the use of a masculine pronoun to refer to
> potentially female persons appears to you to be "feminizing."
"He" is not always the masculine pronoun. It is in certain cases the
gender indeterminate pronoun. The fact that it happens to share the
pronunciation and spelling of the masculine pronoun is a coincidence.
Not unlike German, where the third person feminine pronoun is "sie" and
the second person formal pronoun is "Sie".
> That "rule" was made up by Victorian grammarians who wanted to distinguish
> between "correct" usages and "incorrect" usages as a way of keeping class
> distinctions after voting rights were expanded to include lots of the
> "riff-raff."
>
> That "rule" has nothing to do with how the language works and everything to
> do with privileging the taste of certain speakers.
And your citation for this assertion is exactly what? Specifically the
assertion that the motive of Victorian grammarians was to keep class
distinctions?
--
Chris Goodwin
If babies could purr, cats would be out of a job.
arc...@nc.rr.com
Chris Blake
arche...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/2/02 9:50 PM:
> And your citation for this assertion is exactly what? Specifically the
> assertion that the motive of Victorian grammarians was to keep class
> distinctions?
He doesn't really have to. It's standard M.O. that (almost) everything the
Victorians did was for race/class distinctions. Phrenology, Social
Darwinism, the eight hour workday, wages, all sorts of fun stuff.
Grant Enfield
> So you admit, "he" as gender neutral can be correct.
No, I'm pointing out that unlike "hero," "doctor," "lawyer," firefighter,"
"teacher," "student," "attendant," "counselor," "aide," or any other of the
thousands of words that describe a person but give no indication of sex,
"he" refers to men, and "she" refers to women.
If people stopped using "she," the way they've stopped using "poetess,"
"aviatrix," or similar words coined to note what seemed to speakers to be
the exceptional event of being a woman, then there'd be an argument that,
like "poet," "he" wouldn't refer to either a man or a woman.
"He," "him," and "his" are masculine pronouns. When "he" comes through the
door, he's a male. Many writers, readers, speakers, and listeners think that
at the least it makes no sense and at worst it's offensive to use masculine
pronouns to refer to people who might be women. Using "he" to refer to a
student, child, doctor, lawyer, player, or GM assumes that he or she is male
when there's no reason to; she very well may be a woman.
> So who gets to decide?
Mostly readers. It's on their side of things that understanding takes place.
No matter what writers write, it's readers who're there to decide what their
words mean.
> How about the owners of the company who prints the books? After
> all it's their money spent in the printing.
And they're certainly free to decide what language their writers use. I'm
simply saying that I think it's a poor choice to insist on using language
that a significant number of readers will find objectionable, especially
when there's an alternative that no one will object to.
> People shouldn't be intimidated by being called sexist because they made
> a legitimate decision on the proper use of the English language. Such
> language is threatening and uncalled for.
Deciding to use "nigger," "spic," or "kyke" to refer to black, Hispanic, or
Jewish people is legitimate as far as the English language is concerned.
That's what those words *mean*, after all. And publishers or writers could
insist that they made a legitimate decision and meant no offense by it, but
I think very few readers would accept that.
Using "he" to refer to doctors, lawyers, presidents, students, and so on
isn't a case of using the only pronoun available in English to refer to a
person of unspecified gender. Only the third person singular pronouns
indicate gender--none of the other pronouns mark gender. Using "he" to refer
to doctors, lawyers, presidents, students, and so on is traditional because
traditionally doctors, lawyers, presidents, students, and so on were men. No
writer would write "every woman brought his book to class" and argue that
"his" refers to the antecedent "every" and neither indicate gender.
Aren't the only reasons writers have to continue to refer to a player or a
GM as "him" instead of players and GMs as "them" that those writers are
either ignorant of alternatives or desiring to continue to privilege men as
the default, normal, and natural sex?
grant
Robert Scott Clark
>in article 3C818E93...@yahoo.com, Chris Goodwin at
>arche...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/2/02 9:50 PM:
>
>> And your citation for this assertion is exactly what? Specifically the
>> assertion that the motive of Victorian grammarians was to keep class
>> distinctions?
>
>He doesn't really have to. It's standard M.O. that (almost) everything the
>Victorians did was for race/class distinctions. Phrenology, Social
>Darwinism, the eight hour workday, wages, all sorts of fun stuff.
That's a grotesque generalization.
Grant Enfield
"Chris Goodwin" <arche...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3C818E93...@yahoo.com...
> "He" is not always the masculine pronoun. It is in certain cases the
> gender indeterminate pronoun. The fact that it happens to share the
> pronunciation and spelling of the masculine pronoun is a coincidence.
This claim has little historical support.
It seems much clearer that "he" is a masculine pronoun and that the sex of
an unspecified antecedent is assumed to be male. "Each student brought his
book to school" is traditional, but no writer would write "each girl brought
his book to school" because using "his" to refer to a girl seems ridiculous.
It's not a grammatical issue of matching one indefinite singular to
another--it's a sensible issue. And the traditional course has been that
writers assume unspecified antecedents are male.
> > That "rule" has nothing to do with how the language works and everything
to
> > do with privileging the taste of certain speakers.
>
> And your citation for this assertion is exactly what? Specifically the
> assertion that the motive of Victorian grammarians was to keep class
> distinctions?
It's not a "conspiracy"--some sort of "let's make up rules willy-nilly so
only the in-crowd knows what they are." But the style of English speaking
and writing that gets labeled "correct" or "proper" is the style used by the
upper class.
The "rule" is not a grammatical one because it has nothing to do with how
the language works. All native speakers of English understand the sentence
"Each child brought their book to class," and that shows that the language
*works* and that it's grammatically viable to use "their" or "his" or "her"
interchangeably.
Because it's not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of taste or artificial
distinction. "Educated" speakers of English will note that "Each child
brought their book to class" is "incorrect" because they've been taught the
"rule" that educated speakers use singular pronouns to refer to "each,"
"every," and so on.
Nobody learns English grammar in school until the nineteenth century; the
"grammar" in grammar school had always been Latin grammar. "Rules" like
using singular pronouns to refer to "each" show up in English textbooks and
reflect not English grammar but Victorian taste. Because more and more
people could become wealthy, and because more and more of the population
became enfranchised, fewer and fewer class markers existed. So language
became increasingly important as a class marker. (Of course, language has
always been a class marker, but it's become more and more important as
others have failed.) Think of how _My Fair Lady_ emphasizes the importance
of language as a class marker.
grant
Jamie Rosen
>
> I suspect you actually find the topic irritating, and would like to
> see it closed. So here's the question: If it doesn't affect you
> directly, and it doesn't have anything to do with anything you're
> doing, why should you care?
>
I'm going to go out on a limb here, Grant and RJM, and assume you're both
men. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've found that it's mostly men who
whinge about this sorts of things in a setting as trivial as an RPG, while
it's mostly women who actually do it when things are important, or at
least much more fundamental aspects of society, such as the wage gap
between men and women.
Might I suggest you collaborate on writing a letter to the academie in
France who determine the rules for the French language (I forget the
actual name at the moment)? For in French, if there is *one male* person
in a group, they are referred to as "ils" (the masculine third-person
plural) -- surely this is a more grievous (or at least more blatant)
instance of sexism! And the French language actually has a group that
controls the rules of the language, so your attempts would be far more
societally meaningful than posts to rec.games.frp.superheroes are.
Personally, I am opposed to using 'they' as an ungendered pronoun because
it simply promotes the loss of individualism in today's society and the
rise of the hive mentality. Groupthink is already prevalent enough that we
don't need to be inculcating our youth in it in the hopes of avoiding
'teaching' them sexism. The accepted ungendered pronoun amongst many
people who have a specific need for one tends to be either 'e' (I believe) or
'zie'. Since neither term possesses any oppressive political undertones, I
respectfully suggest that it would be better to adopt one of these than
the proposed 'they'.
--
"Do you hear Me? I don't want you to kill anybody. I'm against it, across
the board. How many times do I have to say it? Don't kill each other
anymore -- ever! I'm fucking serious!" -- God
Mathew
>
> "Mathew" <mig...@rust.net> wrote in message
> news:8826125927060191...@news.rust.net...
>
> > So you admit, "he" as gender neutral can be correct.
>
> No, I'm pointing out that unlike "hero," "doctor," "lawyer," firefighter,"
> "teacher," "student," "attendant," "counselor," "aide," or any other of the
> thousands of words that describe a person but give no indication of sex,
> "he" refers to men, and "she" refers to women.
You seem to not understand what so many other people do. He can be
gender neutral. If intent of the speaker is to be the gauge an insult,
then no insult exists, since it is stated by the authors that male
pronouns is meant to be neutral.
> Deciding to use "nigger," "spic," or "kyke" to refer to black, Hispanic, or
> Jewish people is legitimate as far as the English language is concerned.
> That's what those words *mean*, after all. And publishers or writers could
> insist that they made a legitimate decision and meant no offense by it, but
> I think very few readers would accept that.
Do you realize how stupid you sound when you equate the use of masculine
pronouns with insulting slang words like those?
To my knowledge words like those are NOT legitimate uses of the english
language to describing languages in any dictionary. If they exist in any
dictionary at all they say they are negative and insulting terms for
description. Simple pronouns are not.
If you honestly believe what you just said then I cannot carry on an
intelligent conversation with you any more. You have no concept of
reality. In a way I guess you win, because I have given up trying to
explain the obvious to you.
Congrats! You're hopeless.
Mathew
Robert Scott Clark
>
>It seems much clearer that "he" is a masculine pronoun and that the sex of
>an unspecified antecedent is assumed to be male. "Each student brought his
>book to school" is traditional, but no writer would write "each girl brought
>his book to school" because using "his" to refer to a girl seems ridiculous.
No, "his" to refer to someone who's gender is known to be female is
ridiculous.
>It's not a grammatical issue of matching one indefinite singular to
>another--it's a sensible issue. And the traditional course has been that
>writers assume unspecified antecedents are male.
Absurd statement.
Jamie Rosen
>
> Many writers use "hero" to refer to men or women. "Heroine" then in the
> sense of a female hero is obsolete.
<snip>
> Next question? :)
I would like to point out that you are speaking out of both sides of your
mouth. On the one hand, the usage of a default-male term is sexist and
should be excluded; on the other hand, the usage of a default-male term is
perfectly alright because the female term is 'obsolete'. Had you at least
picked an example where the derivative term was in fact obsolete (say,
authoress), I would have let this hypocrisy pass, but since heroine (or at
least superheroine) is still in quite heavy use, I must object. Especially
since the other part of the justification you give ('many writers use
hero') is one you would doubtless have objected to had it been used to
justify the use of 'he'.
Unless you would prefer they be referred to as 'bad girls' and 'good
girls', as the trend has been.
I do understand the bind you have inadvertantly put yourself in, however;
it is a problem that has plagued feminism for quite some time. Is it
desirable to be viewed as no different from men, or should the goal be to
glorify 'femininity' (I use quotation marks because I am somewhat leary of
dividing behaviour into categories based upon what is between one's legs)?
Is the stay-at-home mother and housewife a traitor to the cause, or is
treating her with scorn simply another way of disempowering females
everywhere by demeaning women and the (perceived) womanly role? It is, to
put it mildly, quite the dilemma, but to have fallen prey to it so visibly
and awkwardly is unfortunate on your part.
Robert Scott Clark
>On Sat, 2 Mar 2002 22:15:34 -0500, "Grant Enfield" wrote:
>
>> Deciding to use "nigger," "spic," or "kyke" to refer to black, Hispanic, or
>> Jewish people is legitimate as far as the English language is concerned.
>> That's what those words *mean*, after all.
Wrong. "Nigger" does not mean "black person". "Nigger" is a
pejorative term for a black person. The contextual meanings of words
carry as much meaning as the literal meanings.
Wilson Zorn
> this? Is anyone? I don't see anyone claiming harm, except for you, and
> I'm pretty positive you're not a female. Is it oppressive? Does it
This reminds me of the Life of Brian moment where Eric Idle's character in
the particular Palestinian org (I don't recall if it was the People's Front
of Judea or whichever version) speaks up adding "or her" to everything and
going on from there, I don't have the text handy but I imagine most of you
recall it.
Incidentally, I actually think that while I don't necessarily agree with
everything Grant's stated, he's making a valid point which Hero should
consider as their own stance seems a bit hard-edged.
Grant Enfield
"Jamie Rosen" <dq...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:a5s7j4$9bv$1...@freenet9.carleton.ca...
> I would like to point out that you are speaking out of both sides of your
> mouth. On the one hand, the usage of a default-male term is sexist and
> should be excluded; on the other hand, the usage of a default-male term is
> perfectly alright because the female term is 'obsolete'.
Let me paste in what I posted elsewhere in this thread:
I'm pointing out that unlike "hero," "doctor," "lawyer," firefighter,"
"teacher," "student," "attendant," "counselor," "aide," or any other of the
thousands of words that describe a person but give no indication of sex,
"he" refers to men, and "she" refers to women.
If people stopped using "she," the way they've stopped using "poetess,"
"aviatrix," or similar words coined to note what seemed to speakers to be
the exceptional event of being a woman, then there'd be an argument that,
like "poet," "he" wouldn't refer to either a man or a woman.
"He," "him," and "his" are masculine pronouns. When "he" comes through the
door, he's a male. Many writers, readers, speakers, and listeners think that
at the least it makes no sense and at worst it's offensive to use masculine
pronouns to refer to people who might be women. Using "he" to refer to a
student, child, doctor, lawyer, player, or GM assumes that he or she is male
when there's no reason to; she very well may be a woman.
> Had you at least
> picked an example where the derivative term was in fact obsolete (say,
> authoress), I would have let this hypocrisy pass, but since heroine (or at
> least superheroine) is still in quite heavy use, I must object.
When used to mean a female hero, "heroine" is used about as often as and by
the same folks who use "policewoman," "stewardess," "waitress," and so
forth. Those words are still viable words--people recognize their
meanings--but for the most part listeners or readers recognize them as "old
fashioned" or dated.
Just as "doctor," "lawyer," "police officer," filght attendant," and
"server" don't indicate sex, neither does "hero."
Furthermore, "hero" referring to a person of either sex isn't the result of
the waning of an equally viable word. "Heroine" (much like "poetess" or
"authoress") was invented to point to the exceptional case of a person being
female. The meaning of "heroine" didn't collapse into "hero" until after its
meaning was cut out from "hero" in the first place.
That's not like having the gendered pronouns "he" that refers to men and
"she" that refers to women.
They're different.
grant
Grant Enfield
> >It's not a grammatical issue of matching one indefinite singular to
> >another--it's a sensible issue. And the traditional course has been that
> >writers assume unspecified antecedents are male.
>
> Absurd statement.
Again, rather than provide a counterargument, you can always just say, it's
absurd. Maybe no one will notice?
Just in case I was unclear though, writers aren't using "his" (third person
singular "indefinite") to refer to the antecedent "each" (third person
singular indefinite). They're using "his" (third person singular masculine)
to refer to the antecedent "each student" (third person singular presumed to
be male).
Excusing the use of masculine pronouns to refer to persons who are likely to
be (or actually are) female as an unavoidable function of the language is
either ignorant or shameful. It's not the *language* that assumes that a
student (or whomever) is male--it's the *users* of the language. Those users
are either ignorantly following the instruction they've been given, or
they're actively subsuming women into male pronouns.
And the whole thing can be avoided by swapping that singular student for
plural students, which is what the Hero Games writers guidelines should
suggest.
grant
Brandon Blackmoor
> gender indeterminate pronoun. The fact that it happens to share the
> pronunciation and spelling of the masculine pronoun is a coincidence.
This is, of course, utter bullshit.
--
bblackmoor en blackgate.net
http://www.rpglibrary.org - free games & gaming aids & no banner ads, ever
David Johnston
> Incidentally, I actually think that while I don't necessarily agree with
> everything Grant's stated, he's making a valid point which Hero should
> consider as their own stance seems a bit hard-edged.
They already have considered the question, and made their decision. That's
why they decided to put their disclaimer into their rules in response to
the White Wolf approach.
Grant Enfield
> You seem to not understand what so many other people do. He can be
> gender neutral.
In the sentence, "He walked into the room," what sex does "he" appear to be?
Does "he" appear to be of indeterminate sex, or does "he" appear to be male?
In the sentence, "Each student read his book," what sex does each student
appear to be?
In the sentence, "Each student read her book," what sex does each student
appear to be?
Does "he" or "his" appear to be gender-neutral or masculine?
> If intent of the speaker is [not] to be [. . .]an insult,
> then no insult exists, since it is stated by the authors that male
> pronouns is meant to be neutral.
Okay. I don't mean to be insulting when I say "asshole" because, you see, my
friends and I have called each other "asshole" since we were kids and we've
always meant it to be inclusive and to show our respect for each other,
understand, asshole?
> To my knowledge words like those are NOT legitimate uses of the english
> language to describing languages in any dictionary.
They're just words. They mean what I say they mean, don't they? I'm the one
writing them, so don't I have the right to decide what they mean?
> If they exist in any
> dictionary at all they say they are negative and insulting terms for
> description. Simple pronouns are not.
Contemporary dictionaries, for the most part, *describe* how words are used.
They don't *prescribe* how they should be used.
And just for kicks, check a dictionary like the American Heritage College
Dictionary, Third Edition, for example, to see what it has to say about
using pronouns like "he."
> If you honestly believe what you just said then I cannot carry on an
> intelligent conversation with you any more. You have no concept of
> reality. In a way I guess you win, because I have given up trying to
> explain the obvious to you.
This has become one of my favorite rhetorical devices: the appeal to what's
"obvious" or "common sense" or just "reality."
"It's *obvious* that 'he' is gender-neutral. *Anybody* with any *common
sense* can see how *obvious* that is."
Doesn't that just mean: "It's obvious *to me* that 'he' is gender-neutral
because that's what someone told me, and I don't look at it any other way.
Anyone who looks at things the way I do (and doesn't look at them any other)
will see easily that it looks that way to me"?
How can you argue with that?
grant
Grant Enfield
> Wrong. "Nigger" does not mean "black person". "Nigger" is a
> pejorative term for a black person. The contextual meanings of words
> carry as much meaning as the literal meanings.
I thought the argument was that language was all about grammar and
syntax--that it was a "rule," a grammatical "fact" that pronouns that look
like the masculine ones are used for the third person where sex was unknown,
that it didn't matter if readers thought that "he" when used to refer to a
person who's likely to be a woman was silly or offensive because those were
the rules.
Whether a word is pejorative isn't about grammar--it's about what readers
and listeners understand. During integration plenty of white folks insisted
that "nigger" or "colored" was just what black folks were called and could
be used with no offense at all.
That seems to me to be very much like what people are insisting about the
use of masculine pronouns to refer to a person who's likely to be a woman:
"it's not meant to be offensive," "some women don't mind it," "that's how
we've always done it," "it's just the way things are."
grant
Jamie Rosen
> "Mathew" <mig...@rust.net> wrote in message
> news:882613834202193...@news.rust.net...
>
>> You seem to not understand what so many other people do. He can be
>> gender neutral.
>
> In the sentence, "He walked into the room," what sex does "he" appear to be?
> Does "he" appear to be of indeterminate sex, or does "he" appear to be male?
Without context, this one appears to be male because it is a specific
individual who has obviously been referred to prior to this sentence.
> In the sentence, "Each student read his book," what sex does each student
> appear to be?
Cannot be determined. There is the possibility, of course, that each
student read the book of the individual in the first sentence.
> In the sentence, "Each student read her book," what sex does each student
> appear to be?
Female.
I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but it didn't work. I also
suggest taking the energy you are more or less wasting here and putting it
to more constructive uses, rather than meaningless pose-striking in an
(ultimately) unimportant forum.
Gypsy
> Perhaps it is. But why should it be a debate -here-? For that
> matter... are any of the female gamers here upset about this issue? I
> haven't seen anyone claiming to be a female gamer to be upset about
> this.
>
I can't speak for all the female gamers out there but I for one am not
in the least upset about Hero's guidelines. The lack of a gender neutral
singular pronoun is a fact of life. Expecting everyone to use plurals or
awkward constructs to appease the few people who might be upset by the
use of grammatically correct english would upset me.
I don't believe anyone, male or female, is harmed by the use of "he" as
a generic pronoun. I do believe that the people who are offended by this
are not secure enough in their own identities to realize this.
One day we'll be able to decide on a gender neutral singular pronoun and
this won't be an issue. Until then please don't use contrived methods to
get around using "he."
Everyone knows what is meant when "he" is used, the other methods just
jar you out of whatever you're reading.
>
> Furthermore, is this the forum for such a topic? The initial post may
> have been on-topic for r.g.f.s-h, but the continuance of it has little
> if anything to do with super-hero fantasy roleplaying games. It is
> probably best in one of the many language usenet groups that exist.
>
I couldn't agree more and I'm sorry for continuing it in this forum. I
just wanted to say that as a woman I'm not in the least offended about a
company telling it's writers to use proper grammar.
--
KL
Imagination is the seed of intelligence. Nourish it and watch it grow.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Triskele Legion
Oxxx[]::::::::::::::::::::>
Gypsy
>
> "Mathew" <mig...@rust.net> wrote in message
> news:882613834202193...@news.rust.net...
>
> > You seem to not understand what so many other people do. He can be
> > gender neutral.
>
> In the sentence, "He walked into the room," what sex does "he" appear to be?
> Does "he" appear to be of indeterminate sex, or does "he" appear to be male?
>
Male.
> In the sentence, "Each student read his book," what sex does each student
> appear to be?
>
Indeterminate.
> In the sentence, "Each student read her book," what sex does each student
> appear to be?
>
Female.
> Does "he" or "his" appear to be gender-neutral or masculine?
>
Glen
>sentence (3):
>
>All the students brought their books to class.
>
I think I can handle this one.... :)
The first sentence had made reference to one book per student.
This one says that each student brings 2 or more books to class.
IMHO, the GUIDELINES are there to tell people wanting to submit
works to avoid using the he/she, he or she, or switch back and forth
from he to she to he, methods of gender that has grown prevalent in
recent RPG writings. I doubt they limit people from using genderless
forms of writings such as those you are proposing, Mr. Enfield.
Glen
Arthur Samuels
"Grant Enfield" <enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote in message
news:a5rt5r$lp6$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
>
> "Arthur Samuels" <arthur....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:FSdg8.11318$106.7...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> > I find the feminization of our culture annoying.
>
> I find it strange that avoiding the use of a masculine pronoun to refer to
> potentially female persons appears to you to be "feminizing."
Language and thought are inextricably intertwined. As the great
philosopher George Carlin says: "Language always gives you away". Our
culture is becoming more and more female-dominated. Hence the passivity of
passengers when threatened by fanatics with box-cutters. Real men would
fight back. Hence the disarmament of citizens: most women fear guns, while
most men would prefer to be armed. In the 19th Century, when the US culture
was masculine, carrying a gun was routine. Also, a gun is very much a
phallic symbol (fine with me!).
Point: the VAST majority of HERO players are guys. I'd estimate in excess
of 90%. If your group is unlike that, it is exceptional. Most fans of
comic-book supers are male.
Point: in standard grammatical usage, the male pronoun is used by default
when the gender is unknown. My current girlfriend is getting her Master's
in English and can verify that for me, if necessary.
- Arthur
Chris Blake
klge...@mindspring.com wrote on 3/3/02 2:18 AM:
> I couldn't agree more and I'm sorry for continuing it in this forum. I
> just wanted to say that as a woman I'm not in the least offended about a
> company telling it's writers to use proper grammar.
>
> --
> KL
A-men Sister!
Can we all just shut up now?
Chris Blake
at cla...@mindspring.com wrote on 3/2/02 10:27 PM:
"grotesque" wow. I got grotesque. Most everyone else get described as absurd
and I get "grotesque." I can go to bed happy now!
Rod Currie
to refer to both women and men is female bobsledders who
have decided (according to Olympic commentators) to use
the terms "brakeman" to denote the women who controls
the brakes and "2-man" or "4-man" to refer to the number of
women in the sled.
Rod
Charlie Ball
"David Johnston" <rgo...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3C81A9...@telusplanet.net...
I'd say the decision is a fair one. With all talk of historical references
and of proper usage, I decided to do a foolish thing: I looked up the word
"he." This is what I found:
Main Entry: 1he
Pronunciation: 'hE, E
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hE; akin to Old English hEo she,
hit it, Old High German hE he, Latin cis, citra on this side, Greek ekeinos
that person
Date: before 12th century
1 : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer <he is my father> --
compare HIM, HIS, IT, SHE, THEY
2 -- used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified
<he that hath ears to hear, let him hear -- Matthew 11:15 (Authorized
Version)> <one should do the best he can>
Item 2 seems pretty clear on the usage. To be fair, there were also two
entries that had "he/she" and "s/he." I still feel that the use of these two
forms are clunky, if not downright annoying.
Charlie
TedJ...@mindspring.com
> Well, technically when writing a character up you generally know the
> characters gender, and you can define the gender of their NPC as well.
> This rule is more to do when dealing with non-specific persons in the
> rules, you call them male to save time and explanation. A character
> sheet is not a non-specific person, it's a specific specific person.
I meant for references where the characters are non-specific. For
example, suppose you have discussions of subplots for different
types of DNPCs, and it says the following:
"If the character is married, has he kept his superheroing secret
from his spouse, or has he told him? If the spouse was told, was
he reluctant to marry the character because of it? Has he ever
threatened divorce because of the character's superhero activities?"
That's written in line with their guidelines, using 'he' and 'him' as
the generic terms. But it doesn't sound like 'he' and 'him' have a
generic meaning that can refer to male or female; it sounds like
the superhero's in a gay marriage.
Charlie Ball
> > Do I? I believe I was referring to the convention that assigns the male
> > gender to those individuals whose gender is not otherwise specified (or
> > implied by prior statements) for the sake of convenience.
>
> Doing so, of course, assumes that the unspecified sex is male, that male
is
> the default, normal, or natural state of people and that being female is
an
> aberrant, exceptional, or unnatural state.
It assumes no such thing. I looked up "he" in the Merriam-Webster
dictionary. Here's the entry.
Main Entry: 1he
Pronunciation: 'hE, E
Function: pronoun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English hE; akin to Old English hEo she,
hit it, Old High German hE he, Latin cis, citra on this side, Greek ekeinos
that person
Date: before 12th century
1 : that male one who is neither speaker nor hearer <he is my father> --
compare HIM, HIS, IT, SHE, THEY
2 -- used in a generic sense or when the sex of the person is unspecified
<he that hath ears to hear, let him hear -- Matthew 11:15 (Authorized
Version)> <one should do the best he can>
Using "he" in a generic sense (and I believe it is obvious to a reader as to
when that is) does not, in my opinion, assume that being female is an
aberrant, exception, or unnatural state.
>
> And it's equally convenient to make the unspecified antecedent plural and
> avoid all that.
Only if the example in question should refer to a group rather than a single
individual. To use a specific character (hence removing the question of
gender) might color a given example to apply to only a given genre. Hence a
need for a generic pronoun.
>
>
> > If any offense is garnered from such usage,
> > I'd posit that the offense is *most often* in the mind of the reader,
not
> > the writer.
>
> *All* offense occurs where listeners, readers, or whomever sit. Yet many
> people make reasonable efforts to avoid being offensive rather than insist
> that they will be offensive and then explain that it's not their
> fault--people who didn't want to be offended shouldn't read or listen or
> whatever.
>
> And that's a very silly position for people who are trying to sell a
product
> to take.
Reasonable effort is right. In this case, I don't see anything reasonable in
requiring an expanded word count (which would be necessary to make the
material free of gender bias). It would only serve to increase the cost to
produce the final piece and drive up the final price.
> > > In such a case, the book could establish the gender of the character.
> Mr.
> > > Fantastic is likely to be male, and the Invisible Woman is likely to
be
> > > female. What would the objection be to using the appropriate pronouns?
As I've said previously, no objection at all since the use of gender
specific pronouns would be proper.
> Hero Games has posted writers guidelines that are more than thirty pages
> long. They *are* trying to educate every writer that works for them. In
this
> case, they're educating their writers to use biased language rather than
to
> avoid it.
>
> If they were simply doing what's easiest, they wouldn't bother telling
their
> writers to refer to people in general as "he"--they just wouldn't mention
it
> at all.
>
> And that adds significance to the issue for me. This isn't a case where
Hero
> Games has overlooked biased language. They've looked right at it and
chosen
> to use it in spite of the easy alternatives.
By easy, I was referring to the editing process. If you've ever tried
editing material from a variety of authors, you know that it can be a royal
pain when you have to continually shift mental gears to understand what the
author is trying to say. If some are using gender free language and others
are using traditionally accepted grammatical sturcutre, it can take
considerably longer to get through a stack of material than if all of the
authors are writing the same way.
HERO's decision to go with traditional usage *is* their decision. They are
not in the business of correcting perceived social ills (and I'm not
convinced that Gender Bias in a language falls in that category), they are
in the business of writing, producing and selling gaming material --
hopefully for a profit. Anything that would increase production costs
(through, a longer editorial process, increased printing/material costs,
etc.) would be ill advised.
Charlie
Zoom
#1: When not describing a specific individual it is easier and less
confusing to the reader to keep one consistent phrasing rather than to
constantly switch back and forth. Thus if you are talking about Batman
you would say “He” or Wonder Woman you would say “She”, but if you
are talking about something that is gender unknown, it’s just easier and
takes up less space to say “He”.
#2: If each example had to have “He or She” in it, Hero Games would
have to pay excessive amounts of writer’s royalties to accomplish
nothing. At $.03+ a word, having to add “or She” into every sentence
would cost Hero Games a fortune. Do you have any idea how many
times the word “He” is written in a 150K word manuscript (about the size
of a 200 page book)? The cost to add those two words would equate to
hundreds of dollars, and yet would add nothing to the ideas trying to be
expressed in the books.
In this “PC” world, people are just going to have to understand that we
use words for efficiency and expediency. Using “He” is not derogatory to
a woman unless it is a female character being called a “He”. If you think
about it from a consistency and financial standpoint the use of “He”
makes perfect sense.
TheSaint
correctness) is quite Quixotic. PC is not reasonable its emotional. It
argues that since someone has suffered we all should.
ST
"Zoom" <Zo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c82436c$0$35565$1dc6...@news.corecomm.net...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.324 / Virus Database: 181 - Release Date: 14-Feb-02
Chris Goodwin
> > > That "rule" has nothing to do with how the language works and everything
> to
> > > do with privileging the taste of certain speakers.
I responded with.....
> > And your citation for this assertion is exactly what? Specifically the
> > assertion that the motive of Victorian grammarians was to keep class
> > distinctions?
Grant responded with a bunch of other stuff that doesn't appear to be a
citation. Grant, please provide a citation for the above.
--
Chris Goodwin
If babies could purr, cats would be out of a job.
arc...@nc.rr.com
Chris Goodwin
>
> in article 3C818E93...@yahoo.com, Chris Goodwin at
> arche...@yahoo.com wrote on 3/2/02 9:50 PM:
>
> > assertion that the motive of Victorian grammarians was to keep class
> > distinctions?
>
> Victorians did was for race/class distinctions. Phrenology, Social
> Darwinism, the eight hour workday, wages, all sorts of fun stuff.
Cite?
Chris Goodwin
>
> "Chris Goodwin" <arche...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:3C818E93...@yahoo.com...
> >
> > "He" is not always the masculine pronoun. It is in certain cases the
> > gender indeterminate pronoun. The fact that it happens to share the
> > pronunciation and spelling of the masculine pronoun is a coincidence.
>
> This is, of course, utter bullshit.
You are correct. Grant was so focussed on his agenda and what he
thought was my agenda that he apparently failed to read what I actually
wrote.
Grant Enfield
"Charlie Ball" <cgb...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:E8qg8.32618$0C1.2...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> With all talk of historical references
> and of proper usage, I decided to do a foolish thing: I looked up the word
> "he."
You do understand that dictionaries aren't some sort of unbiased,
"objective," disinterested third-party arbiters of language, that they have
points of view too, right?
> Item 2 seems pretty clear on the usage. To be fair, there were also two
> entries that had "he/she" and "s/he." I still feel that the use of these
two
> forms are clunky, if not downright annoying.
So the dictionary you used offered alternatives, and you want to both appeal
to its authority and reject its alternatives?
No one has argued that using masculine pronouns in a sentence like "Every
student brought his book to class" is "incorrect," "improper," or doesn't
work. I've argued that using masculine pronouns to refer to a person who's
likely to be a woman is both silly and biased and that it can be easily
avoided in equally correct, proper, and workable ways: "All the students
brought their books to class."
grant
Grant Enfield
> It assumes no such thing. I looked up "he" in the Merriam-Webster
> dictionary. [. . .] Using "he" in a generic sense
> does not, in my opinion, assume that being female is an
> aberrant, exception, or unnatural state.
Look it up in a different dictionary. Try the American Heritage College
Dictionary, Third Edition and see what they say.
> Only if the example in question should refer to a group rather than a
single
> individual. To use a specific character (hence removing the question of
> gender) might color a given example to apply to only a given genre.
And if then writers are using generic examples for multiple genres, wouldn't
they apply to multiple characters, in which case refering to "characters"
(plural) would be perfectly appropriate?
> Reasonable effort is right. In this case, I don't see anything reasonable
in
> requiring an expanded word count (which would be necessary to make the
> material free of gender bias). It would only serve to increase the cost to
> produce the final piece and drive up the final price.
Swtiching to plurals occasionally adds a word. These additions can't really
be more than revisions for clarity.
As I understand modern printing, all type is set electronically and paper
cost is per sheet (not per page). Even if revising to eliminate gender bias
added an entire page to a book, it's highly unlikely that the extra page
would require an extra sheet.
> By easy, I was referring to the editing process. If you've ever tried
> editing material from a variety of authors, you know that it can be a
royal
> pain when you have to continually shift mental gears to understand what
the
> author is trying to say. If some are using gender free language and others
> are using traditionally accepted grammatical sturcutre, it can take
> considerably longer to get through a stack of material than if all of the
> authors are writing the same way.
In that light, there's no difference between the guidelines instructing
writers to employ biased language and the guidelines instructing writers to
consistently avoid biased language. In either case, the manuscripts would be
doing the same thing.
grant
Wilson Zorn
posted a reply to say something we all know and doesn't change the fact that
I think they should consider Grant's statements.
Grant Enfield
> Grant responded with a bunch of other stuff that doesn't appear to be a
> citation. Grant, please provide a citation for the above.
For a short history of "good English," which points to the explosion of
textbooks full of "rules" for "standard" English by grammarians in the late
18th century, you can see the Usage chapter of Joseph M. Williams, _Style:
Toward Clarity and Grace_ (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
Is that what you wanted?
grant
Beastttt
It's a lot shorter than any other
in various things I have read on the web here from various writer is that the
get paid by the WORD COUNT
about 5 cents a word at last time I saw a writer talk about this(I think it
was John Wick of Orkworld/7th Sea/LoT5R
"they" 4 letters plural meaning not singular as in 1 character , GM or player
"he/she" two words(try finding all the places you would find this it does add
up)
"s/he" I don't like the use like and how would you pronounce that any way
"he" is short ,everybody understands it
Most of the time polictically correct is just a pain in the ass
That's why I gave it up for Lent : )
Beast
Master Carpenter of the Black Dawn
Member of the Seadogs of St.Dymphna The Seadogs of St. Dymphna
Goosewells of St.Ives St. Ives Historical Society - Main
Queen's Guard The Yeomen of the Guard
Knotworking for a better tomorrow
Best customer at the Belle (and coming soon Captain Sir John Perrot)
Yeoman Robert "Beast" Mitchell
ICQ # 54753359
Soiled Doves Fan John 117
Kali Ma
Robert Scott Clark wrote:
>
> "Grant Enfield" <enf...@wam.NO.umd.SPAM.edu> wrote:
>
> >On the other hand, many players and GMs are women, and assuming that they're
> >all men or boys is inaccurate and exclusive.
>
> There is no such assumption in the book, only the assumption that the
> readers have some mastery of the English language. Sadly, this
> assumption was false in your case.
Well... Apparently, authorial intent of "gender-neutral masculine
pronouns" (can you see the contradiction in that sentence) is apparently
not how it's actually read.
http://www.apa.udel.edu/apa/publications/texts/nonsexist.html
"Second, empirical evidence supports Moulton's claim that regardless of
the author's intention the generic 'man' is not interpreted gender
neutrally.2 Casey Miller and Kate Swift (1976) cite a study in which
college students chose pictures to illustrate chapters of a sociology
textbook. Those with chapters entitled "Society," "Industrial Life," and
"Political Behavior" tended to select pictures of both females and
males. However, when the same chapters were named "Social Man,"
"Industrial Man," and "Political Man," students of both sexes tended to
select pictures of males only. With some chapters the differences
[between the two groups] reached magnitudes of 30 to 40 percent. The
authors concluded, "This is rather convincing evidence that when you use
the word man generically, people do tend to think male, and tend not to
think female" (Miller and Swift, 1976, p. 21). This study also finds
that the generic 'man' leaves out more than women: "As the image of
capitalist, playboy, and hard hat are called forth by the word 'man', so
is the other side of the coin called forth by 'behavior' or
'life'--women, children, minorities, dissent and protest" (Miller and
Swift, 1976, p. 23)."
Personally, I don't care that Hero's guidelines specify masculine
pronouns for indefinite usage. I find it troubling that phrases such as
"Like it or not, English is a male-dominated language." and "don't fall
into the trap common in many gaming products, of referring to players as
'he' and GMs as 'she.'" are necessary to support this decision.
--
Watch This Space | res0...@verizon.net | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "No turning on the lights in the evil room,
dammit!" | -- http://www.sluggy.com
Kali Ma
David Johnston wrote:
>
> It would alienate grammar wonks. Of course personally I like to refer
> to RPG characters as "it". After all, they aren't really people.
My reaction is far closer to neutral here. I mean, except for the way
Hero phrases the requirement, I don't care that this is the direction
chosen. On the other hand, I'm all for alienating the grammar wonks.
They're usually wrong about any heated issue *anyway*.
Kali Ma
Charlie Ball wrote:
>
> Using "he" in a generic sense (and I believe it is obvious to a reader as to
> when that is) does not, in my opinion, assume that being female is an
> aberrant, exception, or unnatural state.
The American Psychiatric Association disagrees with you.