Lit Ignorance is Bias: The Diversity Manifesto

I think what's striking to me is more the kicking and screaming that accompanies requests for changes in vernacular. For example, although I (used) to not find the r---- word offensive, when people started telling me it was offensive and hurtful, it was really not that difficult for me to make the modicum of effort to remove it from my vocabulary out of consideration if anything else.

Yet, I have had experiences where it is trying to pull teeth trying to get people to think about how words they use can hurt or other was negatively impact other people. For example, the words "homosexual" or "transsexual" have definitely fallen out of vogue or hell I have even had this conversation about the word "oriental" or "negro" or "redskin" or "female" where the other person goes off on "political correctness gone mad" or "I will use the word I want to us end you can't tell me what to do" or "my third cousin's best friend's neighbor doesn't think that is offensive" or "the dictionary etc etc."

And it's like...there are other words out there that can convey your point just as well or even more accurately, that won't lead to arguments like the one we are having now, that will make you sound at best less ignorant and at worst less like an unsafe person to be around.

The amount of effort justifying using these words can't be more than the minimum effort it takes to switch it up. Is it just a cognitive dissonance issue where being called out results in such a strong ego injury that they can't increase their vocab?

 

Some websites, for example Mark Reads have completely banned words like "mad" and "crazy" because they are used as ableist slurs. I have taken care to drop them from my vocabulary as well. It is not hard because I only ever used them in phrases like "the mad scientist trope". After coming up with synonyms everything has gone on as usual.

As someone whose mother language doesn't have gendered pronouns I think English could use a pronoun that means "he or she, I don't know which". Using they when speaking of one person sounds goofy, and s/he-constructs are poor in about any writing. I believe Swedish has come up with hen for that, but I don't know how well it has been received.

 

Eh, I find "they" usually works in that type of simulation.

In grade school, my teachers were always adamant that "they" should only be used as a plural, but that restriction simply doesn't exist anymore under common usage. I think using "they" is fine for informal settings, as the alternatives are worse, in my opinion.

"It" is terrible and offensive. "s/he" looks weird and doesn't work in spoken English. A neologism would be unfamiliar. "He or she" and "him or her" are probably the most grammatically correct, but they break the flow of the sentence and can be confusing if you have to refer to the person multiple times. Consider: "He or she said that he or she thought that he or she should have done what he or she wanted to in the first place." Yuck!

 

Could be that I translate it too literally in my head. The problem isn't so much the word they, it's the plural form of the verb after it. Then again "they eats food" sounds worse so I don't know.

 

"[Name] eats food" tends to work best for that. Or just make the sentence reflect the plural pronoun.

For gender-neutral pronouns, I alternate between "they" and "one."

 

A lot of written stuff seems to alternate between him/her - if your son/if your daughter - etc. I agree, "they" is a plural and it sounds wrong to refer to a singular person. S/he is a bit awkward, but I'll use it in certain written situations where the alternation between gender pronouns doesn't work well.

Biggest issue is that English doesn't have gender-neutral pronouns and so far invented ones are awkward and not commonly accepted.

Where we've made strides is our social understanding - the expansion of the concept - to be more inclusive. It's hit or miss - advertising traditional "boys' toys" as for "him" certainly sounds exclusive or does "Disney princess" for "her." Heck, I was very unobtrusive in the 60's when I (a female) checked The Boys' Sherlock Holmes out of the library - because "it wasn't for me." Legos (what's its plural?) was marketed to boys (my brother had a set and wouldn't share and I wanted some, too).

I don't get upset about humanity, or mankind, or a lot of terms but when there is a better non-gender-specific alternative, I do get a bit internally grumpy.

To sum up, or go off track, or whatever, I have less of an issue with some words as to the context of some words as well as subtle or intentional gender role reinforcing: the "I want a hero" vs. "I want to be a hero" that is "appropriately" color coded and marketed to just one gender segment. Pink Superman shirts or whatever because girls want pink (and yes, many young girls do - even as an adult female, I like pink as well) but there shouldn't be limits on choices - artificial limits from outside. (Just as an aside, I think it's cool that so many men in the workplace now wear pink and blue and green and purple shirts and/or ties - they're not hung up on color nor are they artificially limited in their color selection.)

 

It seems it is being over all accepted, after some discussion, I have seen it in newspapers and to my understanding the legal people like it since they don't need to written his or her and I find it rather useful myself.

To my understanding so is Lego both plural and singular, but you can be talking about lego bricks or lego sets or similar

 

One does not simply walk into Mordor


Couldn't resist.

 

Simply walk into Mordor by Benjamin Collison

Couldn't resist.

 

Hmm - context is everything? If someone wishes to find offence, they will likely do so, nonetheless you are encouraged to make it as hard as possible for them within reason.

More seriously, in this area, I think JF makes the point very well here:

I've probably been guilty of some real howlers in this respect, but would like to think I do try to make an attempt, even if it's unsuccessful and I end up on a language mine.

A Q I had for this thread, given that it deals with the ideas of stereotypes and representation, what effect might the Gone Girl popularity have? I've had a quick look at some Guardian articles over here and it doesn't look like my kind of story at all, but does seem to be putting a new coat of paint on old stereotypes? Would that be accurate?

 

I do want to see it, but I don't know enough about the story to make that call.

 

I don't even know what it is. I only just now learned of its existence, and that was only because I ran across something concerning Gone Girl and Anabelle.

 

I only knew of it as this super-popular novel that came out last year but that was it.

 

Y'all...Rebels came out and didn't suck. Rebels came out and didn't suck.

*snarfs down Sabine Wren Subway Kids Meal*

 

So I was having an interesting discussion on Tumblr with someone about how Star Wars has a tendency to cast PoC actors and then paint them different colors, or specify that PoC characters are "near-human" (Adi Gallia, Quinlan Vos, Depa Billaba, etc). (Have to say, Rebels is already doing better than like 90% of Star Wars media on that front).

Anyway, it got me thinking - are there any major or reasonably-major white characters who get specified as near-human?

 

Well I guess Anakin is half-midi-chlorian.

But no, I can't think of anyone. I'm sure they exist, but "major"? Doubtful.

 

Maybe Asajj Ventress, if you take a literal definition of "white".

 

There is the kiffar Teph

 

I know this might be sort of silly, but I saw this yesterday and thought it might fit here, most of us being Disney fans and all. (Which we sort of have no choice in these days.) There's one cuss word in the text, but last I checked was accepted on this site if hidden behind the spoiler tag....

Why Gaston May be the Most Terrifying Disney Villain:

Spoiler

It's interesting how many parallels Gaston shows here to Anakin. Popular boy, physically the most powerful and makes a big deal about it to everyone he meets, sort of the misogynist wife-beater, gets seriously pissed if things don't go his way... hey wait TCW, why were you making this fella cool again?

 

*starts countdown to Jello's response*

Meanwhile:

http://www.clickhole.com/article/5-disney-princesses-reimagined-caucasian-698

 

This may come across as a stupid question, but why would you categorize Quinlan Vos as a person of colour? My impression (from the comics, I never really paid attention at the split second where he appears in TPM and I didn't watch TCW) was that he was represented a Mediterranean type. Did I miss something?

 

Eh? Wouldn't have pegged Jello as a Gaston fan!

 

To my understanding so is it so that americans have a tendency to count mediterraneans as person of colours.
When it comes to Quinlan Vos so have he been drawn in different skin tones, from around light tan to around light brown.

 

Whether to classify Mediterranean people as nonwhite is a fascinating conversation in and of itself, but to me I've always seen Quin as latino.

Well, I didn't characterize his response--I just know that likes to chime in on Disney social commentary.