1 2 3 4
color behaviour

Playing to both galleries, eh, Mick?

Ross Howard
Matti Lamprhey wrote on 01 Oct 2004:
Matti Lamprhey wrote on 01 Oct 2004: You'll have to ... all like to prepare and eat pablum all the time.

The problem, familiar to producers and consumers of news of all kinds, is not distortion or censorship but selection:[/nq]Would that it were that simple. When the speaker/writer (SW) leaves out information like the sex or age or race or religion or profession or national origin or whatever else might be considered potetntially offensive by the SW, the SW is censoring, not selecting. If the SW chooses to include information that the SW considers important information, the charge of sexism becomes a personal judgment by the accuser. What makes you so certain that you are correctly judging John's decision in this case? What makes you a better judge of what is sexist and what is pertinent here? I have difficulty deciding whether Mickwick wants to be taken seriously about being more likely to believe a woman than a man charging sexism, but I certainly don't give a damn whether it was a man or a woman who made the charge and will make my own decision.

I think many women cry "sexism" far too easily these days, just as many people far too easily label things "racism" or "reverse racism". I think the student was as wrong to claim sexism as you are. Would she have claimed sexism had the statement been "The woman who opened the desk drawer was the professor" and John made the same response? I doubt it.
John could have told us many things about the person who made the "sexism" charge whether they were young or old,

This is ageist and you know it.
smiling or frowning,

This is lookism: some people cannot smile and others cannot frown, so there is nothing to be gained by knowing this information.
admirable or contemptible in some manner; instead he just provided their sex.

No, he provided "her" sex. This is where the stupidity of the whole exercise comes into play. We know that "they" is a woman, so you ought to say "she". You can do that, you know, without committing some mortal or even venial PC sin.
This was presumably because it was thought to be an important factor in our judgement of its validity. It was a sexist thing to do.

That you make an unfounded presumption based on one of your stereotypes of people who identify the sex of a speaker when you think it is irrelevant shows only that you have a low opinion of John's character. You haven't even asked him to explain but have rushed to judgement. Why?

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Matti Lamprhey wrote on 01 Oct 2004:

John could have told us many things about the person ... contemptible in some manner; instead he just provided their sex.

No, he provided "her" sex. This is where the stupidity of the whole exercise comes into play. We know that "they" is a woman, so you ought to say "she". You can do that, you know, without committing some mortal or even venial PC sin.

I was going to comment on this apparently pointless use of singular 'they', but I decided that Matti was being humorous.

Regards,
Mark Barratt
Matti Lamprhey wrote on 01 Oct 2004:

It was a sexist thing to do.

That you make an unfounded presumption based on one of your stereotypes of people who identify the sex of a ... have a low opinion of John's character. You haven't even asked him to explain but have rushed to judgement. Why?

Do I have to say again that I was only half-serious in the first place? Of course I don't have a low opinion of John's character, and if I had written his original post I'd almost certainly have mentioned that the "sexism" claimer was female without considering why I was doing so. It would be interesting to know whether, had John been female, he would have been just as likely to have done mentioned it.

Actually, a female writing what John wrote would not only have told us that it was a woman, but also what kind of clothes she was wearing and that she had too much make-up.
Matti
Matti Lamprhey wrote on 01 Oct 2004: You'll have to ... all like to prepare and eat pablum all the time.

The problem, familiar to producers and consumers of news of all kinds, is not distortion or censorship but selection: John ... was thought to be an important factor in our judgement of its validity. It was a sexist thing to do.

A communication was received from an apparently conscious intelligent entity... no, wait, does it matter they weren't a rock?

The sex of the person who made the comment was part of the flavor of the experience for me; not one related to animus of any kind on my part, but information that would have been strange to exclude. If I were discounting or resenting the comment based on the sex of its source, that would be sexism.
There's a lawsuit against Wal-mart alleging sexual discrimination in the promotion of employees. Should the news report about this hide the fact that it was brought by a group of women?

john
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
John O'Flaherty wrote on 01 Oct 2004:
A communication was received from an apparently conscious intelligent entity... no, wait, does it matter they weren't a rock? The ... of employees. Should the news report about this hide the fact that it was brought by a group of women?

***!

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
color behaviour

Playing to both galleries, eh, Mick?

Drat! Rumbled again!
But are there only two galleries? When my house-master told me that I would always play to the galleries I assumed that there would be more.

Whom can I sue?

Mickwick
I have difficulty deciding whether Mickwick wants to be taken seriously about being more likely to believe a woman than a man charging sexism,

Seriously.
but I certainly don't give a damn whether it was a man or a woman who made the charge and ... cry "sexism" far too easily these days, just as many people far too easily label things "racism" or "reverse racism".

I know and acknowledge that sexism, racism etc. are serious and genuine problems but, as you say, such charges are made so frequently these days and so many of these charges are so obviously spurious that I am fed up with the whole thing - but not yet fed up enough to ignore the whole thing. Listening with more attention to a woman who complains of (anti-woman) sexism than to a man who makes the same complaint is all part of an increasingly necessary winnowing.
One day soon, I won't bother. I'll just assume that all charges of sexism, racism etc. are false. (Well, perhaps not, but you now what I mean.)

Mickwick
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Mickwick wrote on 02 Oct 2004:

I see a distinction here. I'm certainly prepared to listen to a woman more closely and carefully about anti-woman sexism, too, just as I almost always discount what anti-abortion males have to say about abortion. But I am not likely to believe a woman's charge of sexism if she cannot support it. Such charges need more support than that the an alleged victim is crying "X-ism", because "X-ism" translate all too frequently into "Wolf!" than into something of substance.
One day soon, I won't bother. I'll just assume that all charges of sexism, racism etc. are false. (Well, perhaps not, but you now what I mean.)

Yes, I do know what you mean.

Franke: EFL teacher & medical editor
For email, replace numbers with English alphabet.
Show more