Historically raids where mostly a male thing and women where part of the expected plunder. Such things where rather common, this is why In many countries symbolical kidnapping of the bride is part of wedding celebrations.
I think that what Nancy thought problematic was not the assumption that men would raid and women would be plundered, but the assumption that “we” would raid rather than be plundered—i.e. that “we” are only men.
I used to see that sort of “real people are men” statement as a sort of humorous gusto in slightly poor taste, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s how it’s intended. I’ve since realized that it also has an effect on availability bias.
The bride stays in a ‘fortified’ location with all her female friends The groom is supposed to round up his male friends and get past the defenders to steal away the bride. Bribes of money (in ceremonial little red envelopes) are the most common way to get past the defenders, but sneaking is also okay, and some of the male friends are supposed to ‘distract’ some of the female friends.
I’m not objecting to gender differences in who does the raiding, I’m objecting to assuming that the reader is male and then encouraging the reader to only identify with the raiders.
I actually think politics is what makes it possible to organize raids on other villages, and also what makes it possible to sometimes prevent raids from happening, but let’s try some other phrasings for h-H’s original quote.
“If we didn’t have politics, we’d have no way of stopping raids on other villages, and we’d be enduring theft, kidnapping, and rape.” (I’ve heard that there are cultures where women do the deciding and men do the fighting.)
“If men didn’t have politics, we’d be subject to raids.” (I’m having a surprisingly hard time phrasing a woman-centered version of the quote. I don’t think this is because there’s something unrealistic about it, I think it’s because a mode that’s as woman-centered as the original is male-centered is very rare.)
“Politics are the only way the human race found to avoid small-scale conflict.”
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.
This pretty much implies that women aren’t included in “we”—hardly the only thing wrong with the statement, but an additional irritant.
Historically raids where mostly a male thing and women where part of the expected plunder. Such things where rather common, this is why In many countries symbolical kidnapping of the bride is part of wedding celebrations.
I think that what Nancy thought problematic was not the assumption that men would raid and women would be plundered, but the assumption that “we” would raid rather than be plundered—i.e. that “we” are only men.
Exactly.
I used to see that sort of “real people are men” statement as a sort of humorous gusto in slightly poor taste, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that’s how it’s intended. I’ve since realized that it also has an effect on availability bias.
The choice of the word “steal” instead of “kidnap” was the tipoff on the status of women.
A particular Chinese custom springs to mind:
The bride stays in a ‘fortified’ location with all her female friends The groom is supposed to round up his male friends and get past the defenders to steal away the bride. Bribes of money (in ceremonial little red envelopes) are the most common way to get past the defenders, but sneaking is also okay, and some of the male friends are supposed to ‘distract’ some of the female friends.
I’m not objecting to gender differences in who does the raiding, I’m objecting to assuming that the reader is male and then encouraging the reader to only identify with the raiders.
I actually think politics is what makes it possible to organize raids on other villages, and also what makes it possible to sometimes prevent raids from happening, but let’s try some other phrasings for h-H’s original quote.
“If we didn’t have politics, we’d have no way of stopping raids on other villages, and we’d be enduring theft, kidnapping, and rape.” (I’ve heard that there are cultures where women do the deciding and men do the fighting.)
“If men didn’t have politics, we’d be subject to raids.” (I’m having a surprisingly hard time phrasing a woman-centered version of the quote. I don’t think this is because there’s something unrealistic about it, I think it’s because a mode that’s as woman-centered as the original is male-centered is very rare.)
“Politics are the only way the human race found to avoid small-scale conflict.”
I was encouraging the reader not to identify with either raiders or victims.
Then I’m missing something. How were you doing that?
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.
Interesting. I saw that it was doing the “treating women as plunder” thing, but it didn’t occur to me that no women would be doing the stealing.