Are you sure that’s your true rejection? I think writers use “we” to denote groups that don’t literally include all of the readers all the time, but from what I’ve seen on LW readers seem to be particularly bothered by that when that group is “males”.
I agree that sometimes writers use “we” in ways that don’t include the reader.
For example, someone might say “we” of their nation, and thus include those readers which are fellow citizens, but not those readers who aren’t. What sort of examples do you have in mind?
Yeah, “we” meaning ‘Americans’ is the first example I would have thought of. But I suspect there are lots of cases where “we” (interpreting the context literally) refers to a group excluding a non-trivial fraction of the readership which I wouldn’t even consciously notice unless I was looking for them.
We-incl need a clearer distinction between inclusive and exclusive “we” in English. Speaking for heterosexuals, to a mixed audience or a specific listener, doesn’t bother me at all. Out of context, a sentence like “We can’t really understand same-sex attraction” could be read as either “Heterosexuals, such as I, are empathically challenged. Mind the inferential gap.” or “We can all agree that queers are weird.”.
I try to interpret ambiguity charitably, so usually when it irritates me the issue isn’t ambiguity, but actual exclusiveness.
A sentence like “We seek out mates among attractive members of the opposite sex,” for example, isn’t ambiguous at all; it simply excludes some queers from its subject.
And, just to be clear: the speakers of such sentences are free to do so, and should be.
I bring it up only because army1987 seemed to be drawing potentially false inferences from silence: the reality is I am sometimes bothered by it.
Are you sure that’s your true rejection? I think writers use “we” to denote groups that don’t literally include all of the readers all the time, but from what I’ve seen on LW readers seem to be particularly bothered by that when that group is “males”.
I agree that sometimes writers use “we” in ways that don’t include the reader.
For example, someone might say “we” of their nation, and thus include those readers which are fellow citizens, but not those readers who aren’t. What sort of examples do you have in mind?
Yeah, “we” meaning ‘Americans’ is the first example I would have thought of. But I suspect there are lots of cases where “we” (interpreting the context literally) refers to a group excluding a non-trivial fraction of the readership which I wouldn’t even consciously notice unless I was looking for them.
I am sometimes irritated when speakers use “we” to refer to heterosexuals, which happens fairly often. I just don’t usually mention the fact.
We-incl need a clearer distinction between inclusive and exclusive “we” in English. Speaking for heterosexuals, to a mixed audience or a specific listener, doesn’t bother me at all. Out of context, a sentence like “We can’t really understand same-sex attraction” could be read as either “Heterosexuals, such as I, are empathically challenged. Mind the inferential gap.” or “We can all agree that queers are weird.”.
I try to interpret ambiguity charitably, so usually when it irritates me the issue isn’t ambiguity, but actual exclusiveness.
A sentence like “We seek out mates among attractive members of the opposite sex,” for example, isn’t ambiguous at all; it simply excludes some queers from its subject.
And, just to be clear: the speakers of such sentences are free to do so, and should be.
I bring it up only because army1987 seemed to be drawing potentially false inferences from silence: the reality is I am sometimes bothered by it.