Shaping thoughts
Mon Sep 28, 2009 21:37 EST (UTC -5)We're getting deep into the fall semester. Guess who has exams on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday? That's right, me! Basically, I should be studying all week. In the meantime, I leave you with a thought I've been wondering about.
Whether we realize it or not, the language we use carries our biases. When talking about generic people, we used to just say "he," but then we realized that women are also people, so now we say "he or she."
I think it's pretty clear that it works the other way around. For example, using positive language will help you maintain a positive attitude. And I'd bet that kids who are taught to say "he or she" find the previous usage of "he" at least a bit inconsiderate. (Especially if those kids are girls.)
The Free Software Foundation realizes the power of language to shape our thoughts. It publishes a list of Confusing Words and Phrases That Are Worth Avoiding. I don't think the list (which includes "cloud computing," "intellectual property," and "software industry") is going to be taken seriously by many people very soon, but the entries raise interesting points that help you get into their worldview. Here's just one example.
Please avoid using the term "PowerPoint" to mean any kind of slide presentation. PowerPoint is just the name of one particular proprietary program to make presentations, and there are plenty of free alternatives, such as TeX's beamer class and OpenOffice.org's Impress.
People who say "a PowerPoint" when they mean "a digital slide presentation" might not be aware that other slide presentation programs exist. If you insist on saying "slide presentation" around them, they should deduce that Microsoft® Office® PowerPoint® isn't the only player in town. Mission accomplished!
Here's another example. If someone asks me what an atheist is, and I say, "someone who doesn't believe in God," then I've presupposed that people only worship one god, whose name is (rather boringly) "God." But if I tell someone that an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in gods, I hope to kick open a door in his (or her) mind: we're all atheists with respect to some gods. Talk about broadening your horizons.
Anyway, this is what I'm getting at: our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender friends are still getting a bad rap. To be sure, their condition is improving, but they're still demonized by a large swath of our society and denied their civil rights in many states. It's no wonder that LGBT teenagers are much more likely to attempt suicide than their straight friends. How can you be well-adjusted when half of the world won't accept who you are?
A lot of the injustice, I think, stems from the fact we as a society still consider people straight until proven gay (or bi, or anything else). Look anywhere. Gay characters on TV are often reduced to cliches (if they exist at all); only men and women fall in love with each other. We say "homoerotic," but we don't say "heteroerotic" because that would just mean "erotic." A school that my friends went to wouldn't let students buy their prom tickets together unless they were boy-girl couples. They couldn't even buy tickets for their same-sex friends.
We can't presuppose people's sexual orientation and expect them to stand up to us if we're wrong. We need to change the way we think about others, and I think the best way to do that is to start with our words. We need some "his-or-hers" to fight heteronormativity. I don't think it would be as easy as dropping "or her" into every sentence, but there must be words and phrases we can use to train ourselves out of that old mindset and to teach our children what's taken us so long to learn ourselves.
So, what steps can we take to make our language, thoughts, and attitudes more reflective of our vast landscape of sexual orientation and gender identity? That's something for you to ponder and discuss here. Right after these links.
From mental_floss: The Strange Summer Jobs of 23 Famous People. (Via The Presurfer)
One of the dumb things about our current copyright system is that you no longer have to file for copyright; works are copyrighted automatically. There's no way to tell who's really responsible for a particular work, especially years down the line when it's no longer being commercially exploited but may be of historical or scholarly interest. Safe Creative hopes to fix those problems by serving as a copyright registry. (Via Jamendo Blog)
. 
12 comments
#1 by kristen: Mon Sep 28, 2009 23:29 EST (UTC -5)
we're all atheists with respect to some gods. forreal. very intriguing point.
i liked this post alot (as in, more than alittle).
#2 by Fan: Tue Sep 29, 2009 02:42 EST (UTC -5)
"Please avoid using the term "PowerPoint" to mean any kind of slide presentation." Haha, it gives me peace of mind knowing that I'm not the only person to notice and to be slightly bothered (in an OCD kind of way) every time someone refers to all tissues as Kleenex, all pain killers / headache relievers as Motrin or Advil...
Reading Stallman's article On Hacking reminded me of another article by Paul Graham about The Word "Hacker". While I disagree with a few of the viewpoints he reveals in this essay, it's an interesting read. Even if some parts of it are upsetting and presumptuous. But he mentions Feynman... maybe that balances it out?
Here's an interesting article as well: Gay Language and Indonesia: Registering Belonging. It's a little thick for pleasure reading, especially this week, but to quote the article, it "asks how this form of speaking [Bahasa Gay language] might contribute to better understanding how gay subjectivity is bound up with conceptions of national belonging."
Well, back to studying for me. Good luck! :)
#3 by Jordon Kalilich: Tue Sep 29, 2009 08:44 EST (UTC -5)
The Paul Graham article is really interesting; thanks for sharing it. I might delve into the other article once my exams are over with. Good luck to you as well!
#4 by kevin: Tue Sep 29, 2009 20:42 EST (UTC -5)
Amazingly good post all-around Jordon! I have to say that this: "we're all atheists with respect to some gods" is brilliant! Never thought about it that way, and it's a really good perspective. Danke for broading my horizons lol.
#5 by kevin: Tue Sep 29, 2009 20:42 EST (UTC -5)
*broadening my horizons
#6 by Jordon Kalilich: Tue Sep 29, 2009 20:43 EST (UTC -5)
Ne dankinde!
#7 by Kirsten: Tue Sep 29, 2009 23:59 EST (UTC -5)
Ok, back to the budget issue - I found this tonite. Some of the tips seem obvious, but every single tip links to another article, so there's some major link chasing and more tips to be found.
Now I need to go get a kleenex facial tissue. The wind has picked up here something awful and the dust is creating a major mucous party in my sinuses.
#8 by Jenny: Fri Oct 02, 2009 08:32 EST (UTC -5)
I agree with ALMOST everything here. I think it is essential to stop assuming eveyone we meet in day to day life is straight and for it to be any kind of issue if they are not. How often, and are we not all guilty of, the odd whisper in the office/at school etc 'oo didn't you know? yes, he's gay...' Why do we not have this reaction when someone is straight? I think the only thing that can reallly change this issue is time and an open minded education.
However, I also believe the world is becoming a bit too Politicall Correct, I mean, does it really matter that we call our presentations powerpoints, or our vacum cleaners hoover? Is this not the natural progress and development of language?
#9 by Jordon Kalilich: Sat Oct 03, 2009 18:09 EST (UTC -5)
@Kirsten: Thanks for the link!
@Jenny: I, too, am guilty of the odd whisper. At the same time, I wonder: why should I particularly care? Why is it a big deal? As long as people assume that everyone is straight, this will continue. Also, avoiding genericizing trademarks isn't "political correctness"; it's being more accurate. People sometimes genericize trademarks, but that doesn't mean they should.
#10 by Jenny: Mon Oct 05, 2009 05:41 EST (UTC -5)
Hey Jordan, perhaps you are right about being more accurate, but I do wonder why genericizing is something one should or shouldn't do? I think there are cases where it is inappropriate or incorrect to do so, but perhaps sometimes it is in fact funny or just easier to do so. However this is quite a slippery slope and could lead to total degredation of the English language... I'm not sure whether it is development or ruin of language actually!
#11 by Jordon Kalilich: Mon Oct 05, 2009 17:40 EST (UTC -5)
Here's another example from the FSF:
If lots of people get into the habit of saying that a digitally manipulated image is "photoshopped," then they're equating a particular program (Photoshop) with the very act of editing images; they're blocking the possibility of alternatives from their minds. Can you photoshop something with the GIMP? Yes, in a manner of speaking, but it's not Photoshop. Once a brand name becomes entrenched in people's minds, it can be hard to take alternatives seriously.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective. If you own a trademark, you don't want it to be genericized because then you can't claim ownership of it anymore.
#12 by Jenny: Tue Oct 06, 2009 05:03 EST (UTC -5)
Yes I suppose so... though if I created an object or designed something I think I would be quite proud if it became such a used and useful tool that it was spoken of generically! Though of course I would not be happy if I was a competitor in the same field. I don't think it would be a matter of being taken seriously, I just think comepetitors or alternatives would not be used! I guess that it what certain economies are based on... I think it is down to perspective and opinion. Could debate it forever!