The article that made J cry her eyes out
I had planned a long explanation about why this particular part of Douglas R. Hofstadter's book made me cry on the train last weekend. But I can't find the words to express how much this piece touched me. I guess it was a combination of recognition (some sort of relieve that I wasn't imagining this issue) and powerless anger (it that even an expression in english?) - because I know this battle isn't over.
In this column from Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern (Section II, Chapter 7: Sense & Society: Changes in Default Words and Images, Engendered by Rising Consciousness) Hofstadter talks about the deep, hidden, and oft-denied connections between subconscious imagery and discriminatory usage in everyday language. More specifically: default sexism.
It's about how we say "Come on, guys" to a group of people of mixed gender or even a group of girls and how if you would say "Come on, girls" to any other group it's considered demeaning. Or how we have different titles for a married woman and a single woman (who is -in addition- known by her 'maiden' name) I could quote more accurately, but it would just make me angry and upset again, and then I lose the ability to get my point across.
If the examples above make you wonder why I'm making such a big deal of this, you should definitely read the magnificent piece Hofstadter wrote to illustrate the issue. It may not hit you as hard as it hit me, but it will make you think. And I know this is a shitty thing to say: but if you really consider yourself my friend, you need to read it to understand me a little better.
Before I give you the link to the article, I'll let Hofstadter tell you why he wrote it: "I was provoked to write the following piece about a year after the column on sexism came out. [November 1982] It came about this way. One evening I had a very lively conversation at dinner with a group of people who thought of the problem of sexist language as no more than that: dinner-table conversation. Despite all the arguments I put forth, I just couldn't convince them there was anything worth taking seriously there. The next morning I woke up and heard two most interesting pieces of news on the radio: a black Miss America had been picked, and a black man was going to run for president. Both of these violated default assumptions, and it set my mind going along two parallel tracks at once: What if people's default assumptions were violated in all sorts of ways both sexually and racially? And then I started letting the default violations cross all sorts of lines, and pretty soon I was coming up with an image of a totally different society, one in which... Well, I'll just let you read it."
A Person Paper on Purity in Language
In this column from Metamagical Themas: Questing for the Essence of Mind and Pattern (Section II, Chapter 7: Sense & Society: Changes in Default Words and Images, Engendered by Rising Consciousness) Hofstadter talks about the deep, hidden, and oft-denied connections between subconscious imagery and discriminatory usage in everyday language. More specifically: default sexism.
It's about how we say "Come on, guys" to a group of people of mixed gender or even a group of girls and how if you would say "Come on, girls" to any other group it's considered demeaning. Or how we have different titles for a married woman and a single woman (who is -in addition- known by her 'maiden' name) I could quote more accurately, but it would just make me angry and upset again, and then I lose the ability to get my point across.
If the examples above make you wonder why I'm making such a big deal of this, you should definitely read the magnificent piece Hofstadter wrote to illustrate the issue. It may not hit you as hard as it hit me, but it will make you think. And I know this is a shitty thing to say: but if you really consider yourself my friend, you need to read it to understand me a little better.
Before I give you the link to the article, I'll let Hofstadter tell you why he wrote it: "I was provoked to write the following piece about a year after the column on sexism came out. [November 1982] It came about this way. One evening I had a very lively conversation at dinner with a group of people who thought of the problem of sexist language as no more than that: dinner-table conversation. Despite all the arguments I put forth, I just couldn't convince them there was anything worth taking seriously there. The next morning I woke up and heard two most interesting pieces of news on the radio: a black Miss America had been picked, and a black man was going to run for president. Both of these violated default assumptions, and it set my mind going along two parallel tracks at once: What if people's default assumptions were violated in all sorts of ways both sexually and racially? And then I started letting the default violations cross all sorts of lines, and pretty soon I was coming up with an image of a totally different society, one in which... Well, I'll just let you read it."
A Person Paper on Purity in Language