the collective 'he'

[Kait]

Well men are better than women so they deserve all they get. Women are never as skilled as men at anything outside of the home.

Are you serious...?

[EK]

Well men are better than women so they deserve all they get. Women are never as skilled as men at anything outside of the home.

Exactly. In fact, why are you guys online? BACK TO THE KITCHEN!

[ric]

It's not collective, but refers to one person whose gender is unknown. That's why 'they' would be incorrect. I thought 'he or she' was the PC version, not 'she,' because, as any simpleton can see, 'she' simply turns it into the opposite issue.

Although there may be more sexist males than females, it seems quite clear that there is no chauvinistic intent behind use of the form 'he'; I'm fine with 'he or she' though.

Actually, I prefer the term one (the 'he' for a gender unknown seems to be used in hypothetical situations where 'one' works just as well, e.g., "If one were to lock oneself in the kitchen, whether man or woman, sandwiches would inexorably ensue").

[bookworm]

I would argue that collective "she" is common enough to be proper grammar.

I would not agree, because this is the first time I have ever seen it used, to my recollection. I may have seen it once or twice before in passing, but never used this consistently and obviously intentionally.

I'd say that author is a bit off his rack.

Well to be fair, I don’t know that he’s actually doing it completely intentionally, maybe it’s just a habit. It’s just that, since he uses it every single time and he is a male, it comes off at first glance as some kind of weird overcompensation for potentially being chauvinistic if he used ‘he’ instead. I wouldn’t mind if he used ‘she’ some of the time and ‘he’ some of the time, though it would still throw me a bit because I’m not used to it, but it’s the fact that he’s using ‘she’ every time that’s getting to me more than anything.

So it's NOT sexist for them to use "he" as gender neutral, but it IS sexist for them to use "she" as the gender neutral.

That’s not what I meant. As I said in the previous paragraph, it’s not that he’s using it that bothers me, it’s that he’s using it exclusively. Also, ‘he’ is and always has been linguistically agreed to be inclusive, so no that is not sexist. ‘She’ is not agreed upon that way, at least not in a widespread way, so depending on the reason for insisting on using it, yes that could be.

I find it pretty interesting that you guys are bothered by this, while it's apparently not okay for any women to take offence at 'he'.

Again, not what I said. Of course it’s okay for a woman to take offense at ‘he’ if they want to, all I said is there’s really no basis to do that because it’s not used to be exclusive, it’s agreed to be inclusive. I am not bothered that he’s using ‘she’ because of the word, simply because it’s improper grammar, and thus in my opinion improper form for a college textbook.

What is the subject of your textbook?

Computer security.

It's not collective, but refers to one person whose gender is unknown.

I meant collective gender, you’re correct that it’s just an individual person.

[ique]

... e.g., "If one were to lock oneself in the kitchen, whether man or woman, sandwiches would inexorably ensue").

^__^

Bookworm, can you give us an excerpt from your textbook? I'm actually having kind of a difficult time imagining what this reads like.

[bookworm]

Sure, here are two examples:

When the thief observes the guards, however, she finds that the guards do not change shifts at the same time each night.

If the attacker chooses, she may also work to maliciously damage the infected computer or network.

Skimming ahead, it’s not actually every time through the whole book, he starts changing it up eventually. But the use of ‘she’ seems to remain disproportionate at a brief glance.

[Jehoshaphat]

That just sounds strange, why would anyone do that? I wish this world was normal.

[jelly]

I love the way IC just totally descended on this thread.

..fwiw, I always thought it was weird to use either he or she when referring to someone of none-specific gender. The appropriate way to do it is either "he/she" or simply "they".

[snubs]

MANwich

I would argue that collective "she" is common enough to be proper grammar.

I would not agree, because this is the first time I have ever seen it used, to my recollection. I may have seen it once or twice before in passing, but never used this consistently and obviously intentionally.

I've read/seen several books with the collective "she." It doesn't really bother me, however when someone uses it ALL THE TIME it just looks like they are trying to say something by it. 'He' doesn't bother me at all because that is proper grammar. And I will agree with Jelly, that I prefer the usage of "they" when referring to none-specific gender.

But again, "he" doesn't bother me at all, and "she" just gets annoying when constantly used. *shrugs*

[EK]

JELLY! FIRST RULE.


But yeah, this is why Spanish/French, or ANY Latin-based (romance) language really, is always better than English for everything, at the US has no national language so maybe someday in the future Spanish (presumably) will become the dominant language here and we won't have petty arguments like this...


instead we can argue over the gender of every single noun ever. >_>

[jelly]

^ this.

Silly language restrictions have this uncanny way of causing us to think too much about stupid things. Sometimes I wonder how differently I would view the world if my native language was French or something. Seriously though, the french language is way sexier than English. English is cumbersome.

[Aeva]

J'adore le français. I'm studying both French and Spanish, and, while I think both are beautiful, I like French better even though it is more challenging.

The only thing that I think is better about English is the lack of gender-specific nouns. As a grammar function, objects don't really need gender, imho. (If your car is your baby, then I don't begrudge you the right to refer to it as "she" lol. I'm speaking generally here.) It's much easier to just say "the ___" instead of worrying about whether the object is masculine or feminine.

[ric]

But yeah, this is why Spanish/French, or ANY Latin-based (romance) language really, is always better than English for everything, at the US has no national language so maybe someday in the future Spanish (presumably) will become the dominant language here and we won't have petty arguments like this...

But in Spanish when you have a group of people with even one man, you refer to them as 'ellos,' the masculine form.

Doesn't seem too much better.

[Termite]

I must say: 'they' when referring to a single person is incorrect... unless they're possessed or have a split personality, I guess.

[jelly]

"Yesterday someone on the internet corrected my grammar. I felt offended, but I'm sure they didn't mean it personally."

edit:

maybe I'll just pass it off as Canadian grammar.

[bookworm]

"Yesterday someone on the internet corrected my grammar. I felt offended, but I'm sure they didn't mean it personally."

That has become commonly accepted, but is actually grammatically incorrect.

[Termite]

Yeah...

"Look at that baby way over there! They is so cute. "

It just doesn't work. Someone ≠ they. Singular, plural. The tenses have to be the same.

[bookworm]

"Look at that baby way over there! They is so cute. "

Well, in that case you could say ‘it’ because it’s a singular subject. Or you could just use ‘he’ or ‘she’ since you would know which is appropriate.
The collective ‘he’ is when there is a subject of unknown or unimportant gender, such as a hypothetical person.

[Termite]

But 'it' refers to an object, not a person. And sometimes you can't tell a baby... Did you see Stormageddon from Doctor Who? Alfie? She was actually a sweet little girl. Heh.

Well, it's still technically 'he', imo. *shrug* I think that trying to find sexism or other slurs in everything is dumb... let bygones be bygones. It's proper, and it doesn't mean that I think girls are lesser than guys because I don't use 'she'.

[bookworm]

But 'it' refers to an object, not a person.

‘Baby’ is an object, is it not? When just meaning ‘a baby’ in general, not ‘the baby’ being a specific one?