"Groping for a light switch" would be a valid phrase in American English as well. But a "groper" on its own is going to have sexual connotations. E.g.: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/groper
I think that would be especially true for women, who, being the common targets of sexual groping, are going to be more aware of it. So even if it weren't my first association, I would still think it a reasonable association for women to make.
As she says, original intent doesn't matter a ton. If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. Because what I care about is getting my point across. When I see instead strident defense of language that's bothersome to a historically marginalized group, I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change. A change I'll note the dig maintainers made back in 2017, so it's not like they care.
> If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it.
If original intent doesn’t matter, your audience shouldn’t differentiate between writing which is intentionally offensive and accidentally so. That is, they may as well assume you are malicious. That’s not the world I want to live in.
It’s also not the world we do live in. English is the most widely spoken language on the planet, and its speakers come from all sorts of cultural and educational backgrounds. They don’t have the time or the privilege of knowing about every term which can potentially be offensive.
My point isn’t that we shouldn’t change “groper” to something more inclusive. My point is that in practical terms intent does matter.
Please note that you went from my "doesn't matter a ton" to "doesn't matter" period. That's a straw man. If you'd like to argue with something I said, I'd be glad to engage. But not with a cartoon of my point.
It's more that intent was irrelevant than any intent should be presumed.
Word meanings drift and we update as we go. That doesn't mean the previous author was evil; it means they were writing in a different context and the context is defunct. Especially for a living document like the documentation of a still-used tool, modifying word choice to avoid unintended negative connotation is wise.
>I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change
That's easy to wonder when you're the one asking for the change. It's awfully convenient that "intent doesn't matter", as that puts the burden of action on the speaker/writer. If intent did matter, then the listener/reader would need to consider what the other person is trying to say and adjust their interpretation of the words accordingly. But since it doesn't, all that matters is that someone took offense at a particular word, and so it is the writer who needs to correct themselves.
Very much agreed. The principle of charity is an important virtue when reading things online, and only the audience is capable of bringing that to the table.
I have on a number of occasions misread a statement as its opposite (skimming over a 'not' or forgetting important context, perhaps). That might offend me to the point of making an argument, and I think it would be crazy for me to expect an apology rather than a "I didn't say that, you argumentative prick".
That's the extreme case, where the error is unquestionably my own, but there's a vast gray area where I might default to a less than charitable interpretation of someone's words and they haven't done anything wrong. For example, if someone were to describe my word choice as gross[1], I might take that as a personal insult. Putting the responsibility on the writer to account for every possible interpretation from every possible audience member is a great way to abolish good writing altogether.
[1] Using this example not to go after the author here in particular, but to avoid using a more divisive example that's not already part of the conversation
As a frequent writer, I think most of the burden lies upon the writer because they are the one choosing to put things in front of an audience. Yes, I think readers also have an obligation to not be, say, willfully obtuse. But if they're approaching something I say in good faith and have a bad reaction that I didn't intend, I think that's mostly my problem. My good intent may explain how I got there, but I'm still going to try to change how I write so that I have the effect I am seeking.
So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women", I do have to wonder at their motivation. Do they also pen strident defenses of writers any time something is misunderstood? Or is there a more particular pattern to their vigorous reactions?
And perhaps I should add that if I focused on my supposed good intent to the exclusion of changing, then I'd have to question what my intent was. Or, putting it differently, the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent. If I instead make it about my hurt feelings, I'd think that a better indicator of my deeper intent.
>So yes, when somebody pops up to basically say, "how dare anybody consider the feelings of women"
If Vanessa makes a complaint and I say "okay, but why should we care that you don't like it?", am I saying that we shouldn't care women don't like it, or am I saying we shouldn't care that Vanessa is the only one who doesn't like it?
>the best way I can demonstrate my good intent is by correcting anything that is out of line with my intent.
I mean, it's your writing. You can do whatever you want. I'm saying a) it's unreasonable to demand that others change what you don't like just because you don't like it, and b) it's not unreasonable for others to ask you to defend your request for changes.
Is this really about "fixing sexism", when she herself notes that the man page was changed 6 years ago? It reads more like attention-seeking (or rather validation-seeking, seeing the response) behavior to me.
>A very common bit of misogyny is saying the second while meaning the first.
Maybe. That sounds more like a motte-and-bailey. It could be misogyny, or it could be something else. Obviously someone looking for misogyny will think the ulterior motive is misogyny, but it could be just about anything.
>So if Vanessa had an objection to some of my writing that struck me as related to gender, I might politely ask her for details, but would see it as my burden to do any deeper work.
Everyone is accommodating, until the complaint is about something you care about. If you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. That's all I'll say.
My bad, I didn't realize we were talking about misogyny%, I thought we were talking about misogyny. In that case, let me clarify something.
Misogyny, being a form of sexism, is a thought, not an action or an effect. Therefore to know if for example something someone said is misogynistic you need to understand why they said it.
This misogyny% you're speaking of is clearly not a thought (otherwise intention would matter), so it's not sexism. If sexism didn't exist there could be still be misogyny%, because it's something that happens irrespective of anyone's intentions. A woman could mishear something someone said and decide not to speak, and that would be misogyny%, I guess. The speaker was misogynistic% when he read aloud the schedule for the cafeteria because he didn't speak clearly enough. It's not clear to me whether eliminating misogyny% is even theoretically possible.
That aside, what's the alternative? Are you saying women shouldn't have stuff they say critically analyzed, let alone opposed? That they should be met with either approval or silence, because otherwise some women might prefer not to speak? Isn't that itself a misogynistic (no percent) and condescending, not to mention dangerous, idea? Think of the political idea you find most reprehensible, put it in the mouth of a female politician who sees nothing but support and take that mental image to its logical conclusion.
People say stupid shit all the time. It's not just important, but critical to challenge wrong ideas. If that means some people will speak less, and some of those people will be women, well, that's life. I guess it's unfortunate those people never learned how to deal with criticism.
I'm not sure what you want me to conclude from this. Yes, "jizz" is indeed a vulgar slang in English. By a different etymology it is also the fictional name of a fictional musical genre that's similar to real jazz. By yet another etymology it is also the behavioral characteristics of a bird that enable a birdwatcher to identify it. It would be entirely correct to say "look at that jizz, that's definitely a golden-crested pygmy goose". Someone else listening in might be confused, but that's their problem.
Words have multiple meanings. To ignore this and require that everyone just uses those meanings that you personally are aware of is an unreasonable request.
Sure, and nothing is stopping you from saying that Max Rebo is a jizz master—go crazy! I'm just noting that despite (presumably) there being no vulgar intent behind the term, it doesn't change the fact that most people will read "Max Rebo is a jizz master" and immediately think "lol jizz."
Regardless of whether your intentions are pure, if a certain term instills certain associations in your audience, you can either change it to remove the association or live with the consequences of not doing so. But it's not the audience's fault that "jizz" has an existing meaning that's cemented in their minds, and your newfangled space jazz probably won't supplant that.
The Star Wars universe is fictional. Do you honestly believe that the author from our universe who came up with this name was not aware of the (Earth universe) meaning of the word 'jizz'?
That's not how etymology is determined. The etymology of a word describes the reason why it's spelled or spoken the way it is. "Jizz" was chosen because it sounds like "jazz", but different. We can infer that the person who chose the word meant to convey that jizz music is like jazz music but different.
We can suppose that if the slang for sperm didn't exist that the writer would definitely have chosen "jezz", "juzz", or "jozz" instead, but personally I don't have any evidence to make that claim.
It's hard to believe you're not simply trying to satirise the people jvns complained about, who repeatedly pretend to believe that an obvious choice of words to make a sexual joke was not chosen for that reason.
I guess I'm just less confident than you in my ability to read people's minds. But I do find it funny that we're arguing about intent when the initial point was that it didn't matter.
> “Jizz” was chosen because it sounds like “jazz”, but different. We can infer that the person who chose the word meant to convey that jizz music is like jazz music but different.
“Jizz” in English is etymologically closely related to “jazz” in English, which some sources also attest to having a (historical) slang use identical to that of “jizz”, so, while you are absolutely correct about the point of choosing the word, that point is quite compatible with the person doing so of being aware of the slang use of “jizz”.
The first (and the only non-slang one) definition of that is "a person or thing that gropes".
Context matters, as in "groping $person" versus "groping $object". You cannot sexually touch domain information, so that couldn't possibly be the meaning.
I think that would be especially true for women, who, being the common targets of sexual groping, are going to be more aware of it. So even if it weren't my first association, I would still think it a reasonable association for women to make.
As she says, original intent doesn't matter a ton. If I write something that's accidentally a problem for part of my audience, I'll change it. Because what I care about is getting my point across. When I see instead strident defense of language that's bothersome to a historically marginalized group, I have to wonder about the resistance to mild change. A change I'll note the dig maintainers made back in 2017, so it's not like they care.