In one of my favorite movies, Dustin Hoffman, who plays the producer of a theatre, says to Johnny Depp, who plays J.M. Barrie, author and playwright of Peter Pan,
Charles Frohman: You know what happened, James, they changed it.
J.M. Barrie: They changed what?
Charles Frohman: The critics, they made it important... hm, what's it called? What's it called?
J.M. Barrie: Play.
Charles Frohman: Play.
And that really struck a chord with me. Taking something that we all love and changing it into something that it shouldn't be.
I had that realization about something in my life today that I love. Math class. Somewhere in the past 4 years of my life they changed it. I've seen it changed before, but not in my classroom.
I saw it 10 years ago, when I was deciding which middle school I liked best. I went to Vail, a school with a GATE program that looked great, and all was awesome until I went to the math class and saw kids who didn't understand, and didn't ask questions. They were actually afraid to ask questions, and I wondered why that was. Now I know, because they did it to my classroom.
Somewhere in the past three years, they took math class, and made it about knowing the answers. It used to be about finding the answers, about learning how other people found answers. But now it seems to be about having the answers. And when you speak up in class, and say "I'm sorry, I don't understand a word of what you just wrote on the board" or even "wait, what was that?" you get them ost incredulous looks from some students and the teacher who them procedes to explain to you like you are five just how clear it is that this definition makes it. To which I reply "well, it isn't clear because I don't get it" and then they give you a roundabout answer, you figure it out in the book yourself and we forget the whole thing happened.
When did questions become a bad thing? Cuz the way I remember it, and correct me if I'm wrong about this one, Mrs. Kolesikova, but a question was an opportunity the way I remembered it. An opportunity for the teacher to teach someone something, an opportunity for another student to get some clarity on something, and an opportunity for that student to get one of those ever elusive "ah-HA" moments that all mathematicians long for. A question was an indication that your job was not done yet, and that this student wanted to see this the way you saw it, and was brave enough to admit that he or she could not see it yet. Of course he or she can't, that is why they are in your class - to learn about what you have to teach.
So.
When I ask you to go over the first problem of the homework that I just spent the last 15 minutes talking to everyone around me about how nobody had a fucking clue what was going on in that problem, and you tell me "oh, it's a very naïve solution, I'll show you" (that is his word for "simple," I figured out) and then writes the solution and then basically scolds me for not understanding it. I believe his exact words were "we went over this in week three, so you have no excuse for not knowing this." By the way, I checked with the other kids in my class - nobody had seen that before, including the grad student we went to get help from. When you act like a question is a chore that you should put the least amount of effort into, you remember this, Professor: if I don't understand something, it is because you have not done your job in properly explaining something, and I am allowing you the opportunity to fix that.
I noticed something: this is the norm in math classes here...
What happened? Why did they change it?
Friday, February 10, 2012
The Times...
They are a'changin. I wanted to let everyone know that I am making decided changes in my life and the way I live it, and I believe I am so very much better for it. I felt it was good news, after struggling through last year a bit at times, and I wanted to share it with you guys.
Yeah. This year will be better, because I shall make it so.
That is all.
You guys are awesome!
Yeah. This year will be better, because I shall make it so.
That is all.
You guys are awesome!
Thursday, February 2, 2012
How To Not Accidentally Sound Like A Jerk
This is going to be the homophobia edition, because I can't really talk about anything else, but it is important that you know where this is coming from. It is coming from a discussion on race
Angry Eye is an experiment/experience conducted in which college aged students are separated by eye color, and various amounts of learning and tears ensue. I highly recommend you watch it before reading this post, but as it is over 50 minutes long, I'll do my best to write as if you have not.
"When I look at you, I don't see you black"
"When I look at you, I don't see you queer"
"You arn't a black person to me, you are my friend"
"You are not just a queer kid, you are my friend"
Gonna say right off, I want you to understand, never utter these phrases or anything involving these constructions. Ever. Especially those first two. Those are really gnarly, and now I am going to explain to you why that is.
I wrote this with the word black, so I'm just gonna keep it that way, but you can exchange it for the word queer, or alter-abled or any oppressed ethnicity or what have you.
"When I look at you, I don't see you as black"
What is intended: you are my friend, and I think of you as my friend, and I don't think of you as "that black person"
What this means to the speaker: I do care about you as a person, and I want to make it clear to you that I am not racist because you are my friend and it is the worst thing to have your friends think poorly of you.
What this implies to the listener: people whom you do not care about and who are not your friends (people not me), you do think of them as black. Furthermore, by being your friend, in your eyes, I have un-othered* myself. I have been granted this privilege of no longer being othered by you, the otherer, because you are in power, and I am not, and as long as things remain that way, you want me to remain at a place where being your friend is the best thing I can do, because I am stuck this way.
Appropriate response: fuck you
*My definition: To be an other in a society like ours is to be a minority, and one that receives different treatment disproportionate to your difference. Handicapped spaces are an example of differing treatment that is not disproportionate, because the difference between alter-abled, and whatever you call someone who is not, often implies a more difficult time moving around. Putting a group alter-abled people in a separate school because their legs don't work is othering.
Many people on the privileged side of privilege are confused about this response, which I will reiterate, is quite reasonable. The point that you are missing is that what you intend and what it implies to a person who has been othered by society are completely different. This is not a bad thing, you should not be ashamed of your privilege, but you should be aware of it, and when someone gets (in your opinion) disproportionately pissed off at something you believed to be completely innocuous, chances are pretty good it is because you did not understand their point of view.
In such a situation, because you are trying to say "I care about you," now would be a great time to prove it. Explain that you did not understand what was so harmful about that statement, and then (second most importantly) ask them to explain it, and (most importantly) accept it as a truth, not an opinion. They experienced your words in this way, that is a fact. You are not here to argue if their experience is justified, you are here to understand why what happened happened and you are here to make sure it doesn't happen again, because they were hurt by your words, and you don't like hurting your friends, do you?
I was asked by a friend of mine, how would I avoid this negative implication. Simple answer, you can't. It simply cannot be done. This phrase will, and has in my experience, triggered anger nearly 100% of the time. It can't be done. The best thing you can do is understand why, and how to deal with it once it happens.
So I have had a lot of people of varying closeness in my life, and at one time or another, being human, many of them have made mistakes. Many of them have said "oh man, that is so gay" or "look at that faggot" or anything along those lines. It happens. I understand that. You have been trained to use the word gay as a synonym for "thing I don't like" and the word faggot to mean "that person I don't like" and this is not your fault. I understand that. It is the fault of those who came before you. It is your job now to be aware of that, and to take steps to change it.
When I point out that someone has made a booboo, there are, in general, three (four) categories that the reactions I receive fall into.
1. That wasn't what I meant
2. Oops
3. OH MY GOD I AM SO SORRY
(and the unspoken fourth category, because the people who say this are not my friends, and therefore I have no business trying to get them to understand)
4. Fuck you faggot
Two of these categories of response are acceptable, one is unnecessary, one makes all othered people sigh, and one of them will result in someone punching you in the face.
Gonna tackle them one by one.
1. That's not what I meant, you are taking this too seriously, calm down, etc.
These are the biggest privilege denying responses there are, and as a responsible friend to an othered person (hint, that is almost every single college aged person in America), it is your job to understand where your friend is coming from, and this response is not the way to tell them "I want to learn."
This is the one that will make people sigh, because we hear it all the time. If this kind of response were applied to a statement about women and a feminist spoke up, this response would be a great example of "mansplaining." It happens. All. The. Time. Remember people, I don't blame you for your training, but once I point out that you have done wrong, I expect you to be an adult about it and own up to it.
This is the most common response.
2. Best response you can give. Obviously, don't say "oops" but admit that what you said was wrong, and then ask how it was wrong (and listen to the response) and then, for the love of all that is good, don't make the same mistake twice. I know that what you did was most likely a knee jerk reaction to something. I know your brain went through the process of "I don't like that thing, that thing is (... umm... what's the word people use most ofte)GAY" and I don't blame you for that. So when I point it out, go "whoops" and mean it, and then try not to do it again. If you do, try to be mindful and correct yourself.
3. This one is almost the best response. Some people might love this one. I don't. And here's why.
That's it - I just don't need one. You are my friend, and all I need to know is that you recognize that what you said is wrong and will try not to do it again. Mistake leads to apology leads to forgiveness leads to move on. If you dwell on any of those steps, you will not be the better for it.
4. Fuck you faggot.
Fuck you, you privilege-denying, slur-slinging, homophobic, insecure, sack of ignorant shit, you have no place in my life, begone with your hate filled discriminatory ways.
Have I said things that were interpreted in other ways than I intended? Does the sun rise in the morning? Am I white? Uhhh, yeah. Did I react perfectly every time? Psh.
Do I endeavor to be better? Absolutely. Do I believe I deserve some of that benefit of the doubt? Yes. Do I believe I should be excused from my mistakes? No, but I believe I should be forgiven.
In this instance, I do my best to apply the golden rule. I treat those who make mistakes with the same level of forgiveness and compassion with which I would expect to be treated.
So, How To Not Accidentally Sound Like A Jerk: can't be done. However, what you can do is this: realize when you have been a jerk, apologize for being a jerk, and hope that your friends and you have a loving enough relationship so that they can forgive you, and then you in turn forgive them when they make mistakes, because everybody does it. Everybody has some privilege.
My roommate and I have been working on an idea of the überprivilege. It is the following (in America, mind you)
Straight, white, cissexual, male, able-bodied, young, thin, christian, there may have been others but that's what I've got.
If you are a gay, african, transwoman, alter-abled, old, heavy, and muslim in america, you might have a case for not having any privilege. But if you have any of those privileges, be aware of them, and be aware that you are at risk for saying something stupid and offending someone you love. Just remember that you love them and can convey that, and you'll be fine, I expect.
Angry Eye is an experiment/experience conducted in which college aged students are separated by eye color, and various amounts of learning and tears ensue. I highly recommend you watch it before reading this post, but as it is over 50 minutes long, I'll do my best to write as if you have not.
"When I look at you, I don't see you black"
"When I look at you, I don't see you queer"
"You arn't a black person to me, you are my friend"
"You are not just a queer kid, you are my friend"
Gonna say right off, I want you to understand, never utter these phrases or anything involving these constructions. Ever. Especially those first two. Those are really gnarly, and now I am going to explain to you why that is.
I wrote this with the word black, so I'm just gonna keep it that way, but you can exchange it for the word queer, or alter-abled or any oppressed ethnicity or what have you.
"When I look at you, I don't see you as black"
What is intended: you are my friend, and I think of you as my friend, and I don't think of you as "that black person"
What this means to the speaker: I do care about you as a person, and I want to make it clear to you that I am not racist because you are my friend and it is the worst thing to have your friends think poorly of you.
What this implies to the listener: people whom you do not care about and who are not your friends (people not me), you do think of them as black. Furthermore, by being your friend, in your eyes, I have un-othered* myself. I have been granted this privilege of no longer being othered by you, the otherer, because you are in power, and I am not, and as long as things remain that way, you want me to remain at a place where being your friend is the best thing I can do, because I am stuck this way.
Appropriate response: fuck you
*My definition: To be an other in a society like ours is to be a minority, and one that receives different treatment disproportionate to your difference. Handicapped spaces are an example of differing treatment that is not disproportionate, because the difference between alter-abled, and whatever you call someone who is not, often implies a more difficult time moving around. Putting a group alter-abled people in a separate school because their legs don't work is othering.
Many people on the privileged side of privilege are confused about this response, which I will reiterate, is quite reasonable. The point that you are missing is that what you intend and what it implies to a person who has been othered by society are completely different. This is not a bad thing, you should not be ashamed of your privilege, but you should be aware of it, and when someone gets (in your opinion) disproportionately pissed off at something you believed to be completely innocuous, chances are pretty good it is because you did not understand their point of view.
In such a situation, because you are trying to say "I care about you," now would be a great time to prove it. Explain that you did not understand what was so harmful about that statement, and then (second most importantly) ask them to explain it, and (most importantly) accept it as a truth, not an opinion. They experienced your words in this way, that is a fact. You are not here to argue if their experience is justified, you are here to understand why what happened happened and you are here to make sure it doesn't happen again, because they were hurt by your words, and you don't like hurting your friends, do you?
I was asked by a friend of mine, how would I avoid this negative implication. Simple answer, you can't. It simply cannot be done. This phrase will, and has in my experience, triggered anger nearly 100% of the time. It can't be done. The best thing you can do is understand why, and how to deal with it once it happens.
So I have had a lot of people of varying closeness in my life, and at one time or another, being human, many of them have made mistakes. Many of them have said "oh man, that is so gay" or "look at that faggot" or anything along those lines. It happens. I understand that. You have been trained to use the word gay as a synonym for "thing I don't like" and the word faggot to mean "that person I don't like" and this is not your fault. I understand that. It is the fault of those who came before you. It is your job now to be aware of that, and to take steps to change it.
When I point out that someone has made a booboo, there are, in general, three (four) categories that the reactions I receive fall into.
1. That wasn't what I meant
2. Oops
3. OH MY GOD I AM SO SORRY
(and the unspoken fourth category, because the people who say this are not my friends, and therefore I have no business trying to get them to understand)
4. Fuck you faggot
Two of these categories of response are acceptable, one is unnecessary, one makes all othered people sigh, and one of them will result in someone punching you in the face.
Gonna tackle them one by one.
1. That's not what I meant, you are taking this too seriously, calm down, etc.
These are the biggest privilege denying responses there are, and as a responsible friend to an othered person (hint, that is almost every single college aged person in America), it is your job to understand where your friend is coming from, and this response is not the way to tell them "I want to learn."
This is the one that will make people sigh, because we hear it all the time. If this kind of response were applied to a statement about women and a feminist spoke up, this response would be a great example of "mansplaining." It happens. All. The. Time. Remember people, I don't blame you for your training, but once I point out that you have done wrong, I expect you to be an adult about it and own up to it.
This is the most common response.
2. Best response you can give. Obviously, don't say "oops" but admit that what you said was wrong, and then ask how it was wrong (and listen to the response) and then, for the love of all that is good, don't make the same mistake twice. I know that what you did was most likely a knee jerk reaction to something. I know your brain went through the process of "I don't like that thing, that thing is (... umm... what's the word people use most ofte)GAY" and I don't blame you for that. So when I point it out, go "whoops" and mean it, and then try not to do it again. If you do, try to be mindful and correct yourself.
3. This one is almost the best response. Some people might love this one. I don't. And here's why.
- If I care enough to point out that what you said was not ok, you are already my friend and I already like you.
- If you are my friend, chances are you are not a racist/homophobic sack of shit.
- If you are not a homophobic sack of shit, chances are occurrences like this are fairly rare.
- If occurrences like this are fairly rare, you deserve the benefit of the doubt that this was the result of societal training and not you being a supreme douchecanoe.
- If the occurrence was the result of societal training, I don't need a huge apology.
That's it - I just don't need one. You are my friend, and all I need to know is that you recognize that what you said is wrong and will try not to do it again. Mistake leads to apology leads to forgiveness leads to move on. If you dwell on any of those steps, you will not be the better for it.
4. Fuck you faggot.
Fuck you, you privilege-denying, slur-slinging, homophobic, insecure, sack of ignorant shit, you have no place in my life, begone with your hate filled discriminatory ways.
Have I said things that were interpreted in other ways than I intended? Does the sun rise in the morning? Am I white? Uhhh, yeah. Did I react perfectly every time? Psh.
Do I endeavor to be better? Absolutely. Do I believe I deserve some of that benefit of the doubt? Yes. Do I believe I should be excused from my mistakes? No, but I believe I should be forgiven.
In this instance, I do my best to apply the golden rule. I treat those who make mistakes with the same level of forgiveness and compassion with which I would expect to be treated.
So, How To Not Accidentally Sound Like A Jerk: can't be done. However, what you can do is this: realize when you have been a jerk, apologize for being a jerk, and hope that your friends and you have a loving enough relationship so that they can forgive you, and then you in turn forgive them when they make mistakes, because everybody does it. Everybody has some privilege.
My roommate and I have been working on an idea of the überprivilege. It is the following (in America, mind you)
Straight, white, cissexual, male, able-bodied, young, thin, christian, there may have been others but that's what I've got.
If you are a gay, african, transwoman, alter-abled, old, heavy, and muslim in america, you might have a case for not having any privilege. But if you have any of those privileges, be aware of them, and be aware that you are at risk for saying something stupid and offending someone you love. Just remember that you love them and can convey that, and you'll be fine, I expect.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Christmasness
SO! For christmas, there were two things I wanted. Just two. And my lovely family helped me out with both of them. One is silly, one is serious. Oh, and I shaved my head, in case any of you guys didn't know that...
I got a sonic screwdriver! For those of you who don't know, this comes from a TV show called Doctor Who. He is a time traveling alien with awesome technology, and this particular item, which can open doors, reprogram stuff, take readings of stuff (mine does none of these, mine just glows and makes noise and expands and contracts) and various other awesome things that need to be done, and the writers need a one-size-fits-all tech device to handle these jobs. I have become quite the Whovian in the past 6 months (watched the entire 6 season reboot run in about 2 or 3 months). Anyway, this is the screwdriver of the 11th doctor, who is my favorite, and I very much identify with him. So now I have his screwdriver, and I just like to point it and make it make noises because it makes me feel awesome. Doctor Who is all about living in this world, but that this universe is way more cool and complicated than we ever expected. This screwdriver is my way of playing make-believe. Long story short: Doctor Who is all about remembering the giddy joy of being a child seeing new things.
So I'd like to thank Jim for getting it for me, it makes me very happy, and I hope to hold on to it for a long time!
In other Doctor Who news: my roomie bought me this TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space - it's the Doctor's time machine, and it is a huge spaceship that is bigger on the inside and disguises itself as a 1950's London police box) mug. This thing is awesome, when you pour hot liquid into it, the TARDIS disappears from this side of the mug
And reappears on the other side! (The weird noise is the TARDIS engines, I just love that noise. The song is the Doctor Who theme song, 11th doctor rendition)
So those were silly gifts, but I also bought for myself with my christmas money a pair of fire fans.
I had been training with someone elses fire fans, but they were a bit flimsy and old, and they eventually broke (note: I didn't break them, they were very old and lived a long life, I just worked them very hard when I adopted them) and so I had to get some new ones. I went and bought the big brother (heavyweight) version of the fans I had before, and they FINALLY got here. Anyway, I had my first burn with them on wednesday night, so this is the fans after just being used. Very grateful to my family who helped me buy them, and helped me to continue my fan crusade (that's another post, I fear) and circus/fire exploration.
Then, I went and bought myself a present, one that I have wanted for a while, and I am actually going to get to wear it for a party next month (and anytime I want, really...)
I bought myself... wait for it: a corset! Yes, I know, not exactly the body for a corset, but I got an underbust one, and those work surprisingly well for male bodies.
It is all black and shiny and has shiny buckles on it. Not real buckles, purely decorational, but they do their job well. Anyway, I love it.
So I think that's it for christmas stuffs. Thank you again to the family for being so fantastic while I was up there, and for helping me get my fire fans. Hopefully there will be a video of those soon.
Happy New Year, and I love you!
So I'd like to thank Jim for getting it for me, it makes me very happy, and I hope to hold on to it for a long time!
In other Doctor Who news: my roomie bought me this TARDIS (Time And Relative Dimension In Space - it's the Doctor's time machine, and it is a huge spaceship that is bigger on the inside and disguises itself as a 1950's London police box) mug. This thing is awesome, when you pour hot liquid into it, the TARDIS disappears from this side of the mug
So those were silly gifts, but I also bought for myself with my christmas money a pair of fire fans.
Then, I went and bought myself a present, one that I have wanted for a while, and I am actually going to get to wear it for a party next month (and anytime I want, really...)
I bought myself... wait for it: a corset! Yes, I know, not exactly the body for a corset, but I got an underbust one, and those work surprisingly well for male bodies.
So I think that's it for christmas stuffs. Thank you again to the family for being so fantastic while I was up there, and for helping me get my fire fans. Hopefully there will be a video of those soon.
Happy New Year, and I love you!
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Gender Neutral Pronouns
So you hear queer people bitching about pronouns sometimes. That's cool, not really my gig - I don't care. A pronoun is so small it doesn't really factor into how I see the world, which is why I have no objection to the pronouns used for me since birth. No problem at all. But I want to address those gender neutral pronouns (GNPs) and some of the linguistic problems with them, and why I believe they will never catch on*. I should note that I do believe that one day we will have a third set of pronouns to serve as an umbrella term for queer folks, or better yet readjust our current understanding of our pronoun system to better reflect the spectrum rather than binary, and then our language would hardly have to change at all, but I'm getting ahead of myself.
*I should also note, I am doing this from a descriptive point of view, not a prescriptive one. Meaning that I don't care about what your "correct" grammar is. I am talking about how people actually talk. You'll see what I mean later.
There are four sets of pronouns I want to cover today. The first one: they
I will use each one of these in a sentence so you can see how they play out.
What are they doing?
What did you do to them?
Their foot itches.
Let go of that cookie, it's theirs.
They really care about themself/themselves (that one is tough, but irrelevant)
So, what's the problem here? I have several identifiable problems with this set, so let's identify them.
1) 'they' is already a word in our english language, and while changing the meaning of a word is challenging but not impossible, the meaning it already has would either go away or generate a new word for itself, and then we'd be right back where we started.
1b) additionally, this word already stands in as a gender neutral pronoun, insofar as it stands for when the correct pronoun to use is unclear. For example, in the sentence "someone robbed a bank this morning, but they have yet to be caught." This is an example of the "singular they" that is in common (and reasonable) usage.
2) the use of this preexisting word is problematic in another way as well. It brings up the is/are problem. Because 'they' is a commonly used plural pronoun, our brains automatically adjust our language to think in plurals when using this word (they have, not they has). If this set of pronouns were to be introduced, we would run across one of two kinds of problems. On one hand, all 'they' would stay plural and even as a singular pronoun would remain plural. This introduces a form of ambiguity. In the above sentence about the robber, it is clear from the first sentence that we are talking about a single person of unknown identity, so the use of they is just a placeholder, known to substitute for just one person. But lets say you and hanging out with your friends, who just happen to be all the genderqueer people you know (for me, this is known as "an average time out"). You are talking with your friend, and you point to the group and say "what do they want?" or "what are they doing?" Your friend does not know if you are talking about one person, or the group. However, this problem could be avoided by separating singular and plural constructions, which would then sound like this.
"Someone robbed a bank last night, but they hasn't been caught"
"Look at those ruffians, they are such lowlifes"
"Well would you look at that, they is jumping up and down!"
With this construction, we can tell the difference between our singular they and our plural they. If we were going to use this form of GNPs, this is how I would do it because I do not like ambiguity. Does it sound strange? Absolutely. Is 'sounding strange' the only thing wrong with this construction? I think so.
Alright, I'm gonna let that one go for now, we'll come back to it.
The second set: X
This one is really easy to show why it is a terrible idea, so I'll do it now.
I am going to give you a sample sentence, then I am going to rewrite it in IPA
the way it is written, then I am going to write it in IPA the way it is actually said, and then I am going to translate that into what the writing would be for it. You'll see what I mean.
Sample "What is xe doing?"
IPA written /wʌt ɪs zi duiŋ/
IPA spoken /wʌɾɪziduiŋ/
Written form of IPA spoken "What is he doing?"
The reason for this (if you don't believe me, read the sample sentence at a normal speed, maybe put a sentence or two before it to get in the speaking mindset) is assimilation and the fact that english is not spoken how it is written. We ignore many of the spaces in our speech (as do nearly all languages I've heard) and so our words get smooshed together. Now, the first word (what) ends in a voiceless stop, and it is followed by a vowel. It turns from a /t/ into a tap (that little funny looking r thing: ɾ) in this case. The same thing happens in the word 'butter' - say it quickly and you'll notice your /t/ is not the same /t/ as it 'table.' Now here is the interesting part. The word preceding the pronoun is 'is' which ends with a voiceless fricative. The following word begins with a voiced fricative with the same place of articulation (/s/ and /z/ are the same sound, one voiced one not). In english, two adjacent consonants cannot disagree on voicing. In order to get out the /s/ and the /z/ separately, you have to work really hard, and you will usually glide over it all as a /z/. This is due to assimilation. Now I want you to read the sentence "what is he doing?" very quickly, and you will notice that your /s/ still turns into a /z/ sound. I actually have no explanation for why this happens, all I know is that it does.
My problem with these pronouns is that in the subject sense at least (and I'd be willing to say that subject case is the most important) it is indistinguishable in many cases from masculine pronouns. The rest of them will work - xem, xyr, xyrs, xemself - but if you can't put together the words 'is' and 'xe' without clarifying, you will have a lot of problems.
Number three: ze
Now, you may notice the subject form is 'ze' which is different from 'xe' is writing, but they are both pronounced the same way /zi/ (unless you are trying to tell me that 'xe' is pronounced /xi/ which is a velar fricative. Say "chutzbah' with that really cool sounding hebrew h sound and you'll see what /xi/ sounds like - and that would just be silly, because that sound doesn't appear in our language ever). If they are pronounced the same way (since we are talking about how language is spoken, not how it is written) the same argument that I put up before works again.
I should make note, however, that the rest of them (hir, etc.) are really good. I can find no reason not to use them. Because they end in rhotics rather than nasals (r as supposed to n/m) they are easily differentiable from the other pronouns. I also cannot think of any sentences with ambiguity in them as a result. Also, none of these pronouns are already words.
The word 'hear' you pronounce /hiɹ/
The word 'ear' you would pronounce /iːɹ/
And the word 'hir' you would pronounce /iɹ/
There doesn't seem to be much difference between 'ear' and 'hir' but also notice that one is a body part noun, and one is a pronoun. If you can think of any structures that would use these words in the same way interchangeably, then you win and there is a reason not to use these pronouns.
Number four: the Fonz
Sorry, I had to make a Fonzie joke when I saw the 'EY!'
I would need some clarification on pronunciation (does eir sound like 'air' or 'eyer'? By the way, I was very pleased to find out that there is in fact a word for "one who eyes") but this is also a tricky one. So I will take it step by step
Ey (/eʲ/): I love this one. The vowel is different from any other subject pronoun (/hi/, /ʃi/) and is not already a word in our language other than the expletive used by the Fonz, and I don't think we are in danger of getting those mixed up.
Em: This is terrible, it sounds just like a commonly spoken version of "them" (don't believe me, say "what did you do to them?" in normal speech - it will come out "what did you do to'em" most of the time) and so we'd be better off using the singular they (first set) which is a bad idea in itself.
Eir (air): In case you forgot what a possessive adjective is, since I did, I'll remind you with a sample: don't move that one, eir leg is broken. You might notice that this is the same as the use of the singular they again, but merely removing the 'th-' from the beginning (and for this reason, I suspect the creators of this set intended it to be pronounced 'air'). However, in this case, because nobody shortens "their" as they do with "them" this one is not under the same problem. But then again, if you are going to use 'eir', you might as well not invent a new word and just stick with 'their.'
Eir (eyer): First of all, it would be the only two syllable pronoun of its class, which is a disadvantage, because the point of a pronoun is to shorten things, and a two syllable pronoun seems silly.
Eirs: it's the same as eir, just go read that.
Emself: shortening of "themself" so just go read the object argument.
--------------------
So, if I were king of language, I have a clear set of pronouns. They are not put into clean, predictable sets like these are, but english has never been clean and predictable. If it were, it would be spanish. English is insane - we do all sorts of things that make absolutely no sense, but we get by with little to no communication error.
Sure, I might say "the kangaroo is ready to eat" and some people think about feeding a 'roo and some people think about dinnertime, but generally we can figure out what's going on.
I have no problem with irregularity, as long as I can say it easily and people will understand my meaning.
So here is my constructed list of gender neutral pronouns as stolen from this list.
Subject: Ey
Object: Hir
Poss Adj: Hir
Poss Prn: Hirs
Refx: Hirself
AS LONG AS THE H IS SILENT! This will never work if the 'h' is not silent. That gets really hard to say really quickly. Plus, just as with 'he' in the sentence 'what is he doing?' the h disappears very quickly in speech, so I'm not that worried.
Now, we just need a gender neutral colloquialism.
Here are some sentences to get you going
"Hey, what's goin on man?"
"Woah, dude! Look at that!"
"Alright guys..."
You get the picture. In each one of these situations, the person speaking could have been a man or a woman speaking to a man or a woman (though the second one I wrote with a male speaking in mine... kind of a surfer). But still, my point remains. In my speech, I use dude, man, and guys as gender neutral words. I refer to a large group as guys, and dude and man are just words to signify that I am talking to the person I am with.
Also, the words 'woman,' 'lady,' and 'girl' do not work in this case. If you say woman when you are talking to that same woman (not when you say "hey, look at that woman), you are risking getting a slap. You can never start a sentence with "hey, woman" and get away with it. A similar problem stands for lady. I dunno about you guys, but it seems incredibly patronizing to me (also, a higher class term, hardly one I want to turn into a colloquialism). Girl presents yet another similar problem, because it is a juvenile term for woman, and no woman would ever get away with saying "hey, what's going on boy" to a man. That wouldn't fly, so I wouldn't expect or wish "hey, what's goin on girl" to fly either. Now that I write that, I realize we as a culture say that all the time, but we also say "quit being a pussy" - just cuz we say it doesn't make it ok.
There are no acceptable female or neutral equivalents for this part of speech. Hey people - any ideas?
*I should also note, I am doing this from a descriptive point of view, not a prescriptive one. Meaning that I don't care about what your "correct" grammar is. I am talking about how people actually talk. You'll see what I mean later.
There are four sets of pronouns I want to cover today. The first one: they
I will use each one of these in a sentence so you can see how they play out.
What are they doing?
What did you do to them?
Their foot itches.
Let go of that cookie, it's theirs.
They really care about themself/themselves (that one is tough, but irrelevant)
So, what's the problem here? I have several identifiable problems with this set, so let's identify them.
1) 'they' is already a word in our english language, and while changing the meaning of a word is challenging but not impossible, the meaning it already has would either go away or generate a new word for itself, and then we'd be right back where we started.
1b) additionally, this word already stands in as a gender neutral pronoun, insofar as it stands for when the correct pronoun to use is unclear. For example, in the sentence "someone robbed a bank this morning, but they have yet to be caught." This is an example of the "singular they" that is in common (and reasonable) usage.
2) the use of this preexisting word is problematic in another way as well. It brings up the is/are problem. Because 'they' is a commonly used plural pronoun, our brains automatically adjust our language to think in plurals when using this word (they have, not they has). If this set of pronouns were to be introduced, we would run across one of two kinds of problems. On one hand, all 'they' would stay plural and even as a singular pronoun would remain plural. This introduces a form of ambiguity. In the above sentence about the robber, it is clear from the first sentence that we are talking about a single person of unknown identity, so the use of they is just a placeholder, known to substitute for just one person. But lets say you and hanging out with your friends, who just happen to be all the genderqueer people you know (for me, this is known as "an average time out"). You are talking with your friend, and you point to the group and say "what do they want?" or "what are they doing?" Your friend does not know if you are talking about one person, or the group. However, this problem could be avoided by separating singular and plural constructions, which would then sound like this.
"Someone robbed a bank last night, but they hasn't been caught"
"Look at those ruffians, they are such lowlifes"
"Well would you look at that, they is jumping up and down!"
With this construction, we can tell the difference between our singular they and our plural they. If we were going to use this form of GNPs, this is how I would do it because I do not like ambiguity. Does it sound strange? Absolutely. Is 'sounding strange' the only thing wrong with this construction? I think so.
Alright, I'm gonna let that one go for now, we'll come back to it.
This one is really easy to show why it is a terrible idea, so I'll do it now.
I am going to give you a sample sentence, then I am going to rewrite it in IPA
the way it is written, then I am going to write it in IPA the way it is actually said, and then I am going to translate that into what the writing would be for it. You'll see what I mean.
Sample "What is xe doing?"
IPA written /wʌt ɪs zi duiŋ/
IPA spoken /wʌɾɪziduiŋ/
Written form of IPA spoken "What is he doing?"
The reason for this (if you don't believe me, read the sample sentence at a normal speed, maybe put a sentence or two before it to get in the speaking mindset) is assimilation and the fact that english is not spoken how it is written. We ignore many of the spaces in our speech (as do nearly all languages I've heard) and so our words get smooshed together. Now, the first word (what) ends in a voiceless stop, and it is followed by a vowel. It turns from a /t/ into a tap (that little funny looking r thing: ɾ) in this case. The same thing happens in the word 'butter' - say it quickly and you'll notice your /t/ is not the same /t/ as it 'table.' Now here is the interesting part. The word preceding the pronoun is 'is' which ends with a voiceless fricative. The following word begins with a voiced fricative with the same place of articulation (/s/ and /z/ are the same sound, one voiced one not). In english, two adjacent consonants cannot disagree on voicing. In order to get out the /s/ and the /z/ separately, you have to work really hard, and you will usually glide over it all as a /z/. This is due to assimilation. Now I want you to read the sentence "what is he doing?" very quickly, and you will notice that your /s/ still turns into a /z/ sound. I actually have no explanation for why this happens, all I know is that it does.
My problem with these pronouns is that in the subject sense at least (and I'd be willing to say that subject case is the most important) it is indistinguishable in many cases from masculine pronouns. The rest of them will work - xem, xyr, xyrs, xemself - but if you can't put together the words 'is' and 'xe' without clarifying, you will have a lot of problems.
Number three: ze
Now, you may notice the subject form is 'ze' which is different from 'xe' is writing, but they are both pronounced the same way /zi/ (unless you are trying to tell me that 'xe' is pronounced /xi/ which is a velar fricative. Say "chutzbah' with that really cool sounding hebrew h sound and you'll see what /xi/ sounds like - and that would just be silly, because that sound doesn't appear in our language ever). If they are pronounced the same way (since we are talking about how language is spoken, not how it is written) the same argument that I put up before works again.
I should make note, however, that the rest of them (hir, etc.) are really good. I can find no reason not to use them. Because they end in rhotics rather than nasals (r as supposed to n/m) they are easily differentiable from the other pronouns. I also cannot think of any sentences with ambiguity in them as a result. Also, none of these pronouns are already words.
The word 'hear' you pronounce /hiɹ/
The word 'ear' you would pronounce /iːɹ/
And the word 'hir' you would pronounce /iɹ/
There doesn't seem to be much difference between 'ear' and 'hir' but also notice that one is a body part noun, and one is a pronoun. If you can think of any structures that would use these words in the same way interchangeably, then you win and there is a reason not to use these pronouns.
Number four: the Fonz
Sorry, I had to make a Fonzie joke when I saw the 'EY!'
I would need some clarification on pronunciation (does eir sound like 'air' or 'eyer'? By the way, I was very pleased to find out that there is in fact a word for "one who eyes") but this is also a tricky one. So I will take it step by step
Ey (/eʲ/): I love this one. The vowel is different from any other subject pronoun (/hi/, /ʃi/) and is not already a word in our language other than the expletive used by the Fonz, and I don't think we are in danger of getting those mixed up.
Em: This is terrible, it sounds just like a commonly spoken version of "them" (don't believe me, say "what did you do to them?" in normal speech - it will come out "what did you do to'em" most of the time) and so we'd be better off using the singular they (first set) which is a bad idea in itself.
Eir (air): In case you forgot what a possessive adjective is, since I did, I'll remind you with a sample: don't move that one, eir leg is broken. You might notice that this is the same as the use of the singular they again, but merely removing the 'th-' from the beginning (and for this reason, I suspect the creators of this set intended it to be pronounced 'air'). However, in this case, because nobody shortens "their" as they do with "them" this one is not under the same problem. But then again, if you are going to use 'eir', you might as well not invent a new word and just stick with 'their.'
Eir (eyer): First of all, it would be the only two syllable pronoun of its class, which is a disadvantage, because the point of a pronoun is to shorten things, and a two syllable pronoun seems silly.
Eirs: it's the same as eir, just go read that.
Emself: shortening of "themself" so just go read the object argument.
--------------------
So, if I were king of language, I have a clear set of pronouns. They are not put into clean, predictable sets like these are, but english has never been clean and predictable. If it were, it would be spanish. English is insane - we do all sorts of things that make absolutely no sense, but we get by with little to no communication error.
Sure, I might say "the kangaroo is ready to eat" and some people think about feeding a 'roo and some people think about dinnertime, but generally we can figure out what's going on.
I have no problem with irregularity, as long as I can say it easily and people will understand my meaning.
So here is my constructed list of gender neutral pronouns as stolen from this list.
Subject: Ey
Object: Hir
Poss Adj: Hir
Poss Prn: Hirs
Refx: Hirself
AS LONG AS THE H IS SILENT! This will never work if the 'h' is not silent. That gets really hard to say really quickly. Plus, just as with 'he' in the sentence 'what is he doing?' the h disappears very quickly in speech, so I'm not that worried.
Now, we just need a gender neutral colloquialism.
Here are some sentences to get you going
"Hey, what's goin on man?"
"Woah, dude! Look at that!"
"Alright guys..."
You get the picture. In each one of these situations, the person speaking could have been a man or a woman speaking to a man or a woman (though the second one I wrote with a male speaking in mine... kind of a surfer). But still, my point remains. In my speech, I use dude, man, and guys as gender neutral words. I refer to a large group as guys, and dude and man are just words to signify that I am talking to the person I am with.
Also, the words 'woman,' 'lady,' and 'girl' do not work in this case. If you say woman when you are talking to that same woman (not when you say "hey, look at that woman), you are risking getting a slap. You can never start a sentence with "hey, woman" and get away with it. A similar problem stands for lady. I dunno about you guys, but it seems incredibly patronizing to me (also, a higher class term, hardly one I want to turn into a colloquialism). Girl presents yet another similar problem, because it is a juvenile term for woman, and no woman would ever get away with saying "hey, what's going on boy" to a man. That wouldn't fly, so I wouldn't expect or wish "hey, what's goin on girl" to fly either. Now that I write that, I realize we as a culture say that all the time, but we also say "quit being a pussy" - just cuz we say it doesn't make it ok.
There are no acceptable female or neutral equivalents for this part of speech. Hey people - any ideas?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
New Year's Resolution
So, this past weekend I gave myself a haircut. This is it.
This was not a rash decision, not one I made lightly - I loved my hair very much. This is the shortest my hair has been in my memory. I did this for a reason, and it is a good reason, and I'd like to share it with you all.
Last year I made a very large new year's resolution. I made it about two weeks late, but it was on my mind, and with the help of an amazing human being, I found the courage to do what I needed to do: I changed my name. It was hard. It took time. It took struggle and alienated a few people, some temporarily, and some it has certainly altered my relationship to them forever. But at the end of the year, sitting with my friends on new years eve, spinning fire, drinking champagne - legally, for the first time in my life, I might add - playing music and doing acrobatics and hand-balancing (welcome to our parties) someone introduced me to a stranger. She was a fellow fire spinner working for my friend's fire troupe, azer, which is somewhat of a sister group from my acro group aeros. Anyway, introductions, and I was introduced as Fenix. This has become quite common, everyone calls me Fenix now over here with the rare slip up which is quickly corrected, and this was not different in any way. But I remembered that at the beginning of the year, I said that I would change my name, and that by the end of the year, there would be people in my life who didn't know that I was born under a different name. I succeeded in my goal, and this year I wanted to try to improve my life again, so I decided to cut my hair.
I also intend to give away a bunch of clothes wear, but really don't need, to get rid of a lot of the other crap in my life, and some crappy stuff in my mind and in my life. I am cutting my hair because it gets in the way with circus. I am getting to the end of my college career, and circus auditions are looming, and I want to be ready. I want to be compact. I want to be sleek and efficient and effective, and I resolve to make the appropriate changes in my life to make this so.
Etymology Of My Name
So I was doing my thing this morning, and I posted something online, and someone asked the question "is Phoenix really your name" and for the first time in my life, they were not talking about my last name, which is kinda cool. So I told them that yes, it is my name, but no, I do not spell it that way. I then decided, just for the fun of it, to see what happens if I do some research on the name Fenix as I spell it. Using the website that is my best friend, etymonline.com, I was able to search for the word Phoenix and I got results (which makes sense, as it is a common english word). The results, however were very cool. And I'll tell you them in a minute, after I give a small family history/language catch up for anyone who doesn't know.
My family name (Cobbledick) is derived from an old british surname Cuppledich of which the oldest record that I've been able to find was in the 12th century AD. Now, right around the 12th century is where Old English was becoming Middle English, so it is tough to say what language the first recorded Cobbledick spoke, but it is going to be one of these two, and they are not that far apart.
Old English is a Germanic language in the Indo-European family, and Greek (where the word Phoenix came from) is a Hellenic in the Indo-European family. They are related, if distantly.
Now check this out. The word there is a word in old english for "phoenix," and it is a really good cognate, enough to say that the word was created before the germanic/hellenic split, which isn't that hard to believe, because the concept of the phoenix has been around for a very long time - the ancient egyptians wrote about them. The word, of course, is fenix.
Did I know this when I changed my name? no. I hadn't the foggiest idea that I was picking a name that was a word in the language that my ancestor likely spoke. It was a complete and total accident. However, it is also really cool, and now I have a great story behind the name.
This also means that nobody is allowed to give me shit about the spelling of my name ever again, just so everyone knows.
My family name (Cobbledick) is derived from an old british surname Cuppledich of which the oldest record that I've been able to find was in the 12th century AD. Now, right around the 12th century is where Old English was becoming Middle English, so it is tough to say what language the first recorded Cobbledick spoke, but it is going to be one of these two, and they are not that far apart.
Old English is a Germanic language in the Indo-European family, and Greek (where the word Phoenix came from) is a Hellenic in the Indo-European family. They are related, if distantly.
Now check this out. The word there is a word in old english for "phoenix," and it is a really good cognate, enough to say that the word was created before the germanic/hellenic split, which isn't that hard to believe, because the concept of the phoenix has been around for a very long time - the ancient egyptians wrote about them. The word, of course, is fenix.
Did I know this when I changed my name? no. I hadn't the foggiest idea that I was picking a name that was a word in the language that my ancestor likely spoke. It was a complete and total accident. However, it is also really cool, and now I have a great story behind the name.
This also means that nobody is allowed to give me shit about the spelling of my name ever again, just so everyone knows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)