A reason to keep hope

[pecado]

Most of us applied to many universities, and the overlaps between our options is very big, and more if the university is well known or desired. So, it is very probable that the guy that was admitted to the school A, will be admitted to the school B, C, D, E and F. Maybe not all of his options, but more than one perhaps. He was outstanding between the whole applicants, and as many applicants will be the same at other schools, he will probably be outstanding at that set too. But he can only attend one school, so he will have to reject admission to all the other ones.

Therefore it is very probable that the schools admit some students from the wait lists or the some of the not notified students.

And more important, your chances of getting into any school are not really 10/300 (≈3.3%) but higher. In example, in the most extreme circumstance where only the same 300 students apply to the same 6 schools, each school may admit only 10, but in sum, the 6 schools admit 60, and those 60 have to be unique students. So, in that case, your odds are actually 60/300 (≈20%).

20% is a far better odd than 3.3%, now it seems less than winning the lottery, and more like winning a little raffle between 5 friends. And your actual odd might be higher, because I considered the worst case where a school admits only 10 and get 300 solicitudes; many of your schools might actually get far less applicants, and the less the applicants the higher your chances. So keep hoping, this will not end until you receive your last rejection letter. And even then, you will live another year, you could try again, and with better preparation, now knowing how to take that damn GRE and how to cajole everyone you have to cajole.

[AgentScully]

I object to the use of the "universal" masculine here, but can appreciate the sentiment.

[pecado]

46 minutes ago, AgentScully said:

I object to the use of the "universal" masculine here, but can appreciate the sentiment.

Why did you?

Edited February 24, 2016 by pecado

[philosophe]

46 minutes ago, AgentScully said:

I object to the use of the "universal" masculine here, but can appreciate the sentiment.

my first thought

[gughok]

1 minute ago, pecado said:

Why did you?

The masculine third person for a generic subject is archaic and discouraged due to the misogyny it has often facilitated. Gender-neutral "they" or female "she" are preferred.

[philosophe]

1 minute ago, gughok said:

The masculine third person for a generic subject is archaic and discouraged due to the misogyny it has often facilitated. Gender-neutral "they" or female "she" are preferred.

agreed, but also it implies that the standard excellent candidate you are describing is default male... and therefore not female. 

[pecado]

13 minutes ago, gughok said:

The masculine third person for a generic subject is archaic and discouraged due to the misogyny it has often facilitated. Gender-neutral "they" or female "she" are preferred.

Could you please explain me why it is archaic, and specially, what misogyny has it facilitated? Also would it not be too twisted to use "they", as it is plural; and why would using "she" be preferable?

Edited February 24, 2016 by pecado

[gughok]

3 minutes ago, pecado said:

Could you please explain me why it is archaic, and specially, what misogyny has it facilitated? Also would it not be too twisted to use "they", as it is plural; and why would using "she" be preferable?

Nonetheless, the first two answers might be enough to understand you.

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.

And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.

Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

[pecado]

19 minutes ago, philosophe said:

agreed, but also it implies that the standard excellent candidate you are describing is default male... and therefore not female. 

No, it does not. As the other readers have already recognised, I was talking about a "generic" subject, so there was not ambiguity and much less such an implication. The discourse was specific and understandable, at least in its use of pronouns, and the proof is that they, the same people that objected, clearly understood, and I bet you did too.

[SamStone]

Re: "they" as plural, I found this interesting: singular they, word of the year

[gughok]

1 minute ago, SamStone said:

Re: "they" as plural, I found this interesting: singular they, word of the year

Out of upvotes, +1. My reaction to every "surprise" of this sort: suck it, prescriptivist grammarians. You should never have left the 18th century. As a linguist, your existence vexes me.

[juanmesh]

Grew up with masculine pronouns being used in the universal context but I've since begun to to use "s/he". Now I think of it, is "s/he" also problematic given it assumes it's all binary?

@gughok And is "she" fine because it's a form of "positive discrimination"?

[gughok]

1 minute ago, juanmesh said:

Grew up with masculine pronouns being used in the universal context but I've since begun to to use "s/he". Now I think of it, is "s/he" also problematic given it assumes it's all binary?

@gughok And is "she" fine because it's a form of "positive discrimination"?

I'm getting a bit out of my depth here, I am not well-read on feminist theory (one of you experts pls halp). If anything, I might look at it as affirmative action in speech. From another perspective (and this relates to my comment on the asymmetry above), men aren't going to feel nearly as excluded, if at all, by female pronouns, because it hasn't been a cultural norm for them to be repressed. The converse does not apply. So using male pronouns definitely hurts, female pronouns not so much.

But I agree that even the binary terms can be exclusive, especially when used in conjunction like that.

[AgentScully]

I tend to just default to "one" even though it sounds pretentious. In this case I might also just use "a candidate" or "that candidate" for making my language gender-neutral.

[dgswaim]

I usually alternate between he and she in my academic writing. It seems weird to me to use one or the other exclusively, and the singular "they" still weirds me out (I'll come around, one day...).

[juanmesh]

Just now, gughok said:

I'm getting a bit out of my depth here, I am not well-read on feminist theory (one of you experts pls halp). If anything, I might look at it as affirmative action in speech. From another perspective (and this relates to my comment on the asymmetry above), men aren't going to feel nearly as excluded, if at all, by female pronouns, because it hasn't been a cultural norm for them to be repressed. The converse does not apply. So using male pronouns definitely hurts, female pronouns not so much.

But I agree that even the binary terms can be exclusive, especially when used in conjunction like that.

I think affirmative action and positive discrimination are the same thing. "discrimination" though makes affirmative action sound a lot more biased than I think it is.

[feelthebern16]

Thanks OP for offering some perspective and lending a vision of hope, or at least trying  

[MVSCZAR]

26 minutes ago, feelthebern16 said:

Thanks OP for offering some perspective and lending a vision of hope, or at least trying  

ahem.

[pecado]

7 minutes ago, gughok said:

@philosophe's observation is sort of a case in point for the term's obsolescence: by using exclusively male pronouns, you've alienated female readers and implicitly (or, some would argue, pretty explicitly) denied them membership among "outstanding applicants". This can be demeaning, insulting, and even offensive. You may reply that the female pronoun is no better, but the fact is that there is an asymmetry in that women have historically experienced discrimination, derogation, and disadvantage by the will of men, while the opposite is not (generally) the case. As a result, women are conditioned be cognizant to the prejudice they face, while men are usually oblivious to it unless they're educated to see it. In a different context, many women I've spoken to have expressed that reading or listening to recitations of the bible is a very ostracizing experience, since the devout are often referred to in translations with the male pronoun. It can be disheartening to hear the ideal worshipper described exclusively as male, even if this isn't an explicit statement. Similarly, one might write of the post of President and describe presidential duties using the only he/him/his, and this would be discouraging, either subconsciously or quite overtly, to women who read the description. And so on, in every situation imaginable. Thus it's best to refrain from using the male pronoun indiscriminately.

And it would not come off as contrived to use "they". The claim that it is an unnatural term to use is propagated by prescriptivist grammarians who don't adhere to the principles of descriptive linguistics. Historically that pronoun has long been employed precisely as a generic referent, and it would be fighting an uphill battle to remove it from use. So either they/them/their or she/her/hers, but not he/him/his. I prefer the female pronouns in extended prose because I think it reads better, but that's just me.

Note: I am not a woman. If you are a woman and I've misrepresented things, please do correct me. Likewise if you're a man/other who knows better than I.

It is amazing how much damage I did when all I wanted to express was a sentiment of hope and good desires to my fellows. Nonetheless, I can not acquiesce with your criticism.

Something that is obsolete or archaic is something that is not commonly done or that has no utility in a contemporary context. I have read and listened contemporary speakers, in many contexts, and I can say that talking as I did is definitively not archaic nor obsolete. The common people, and most of the not so common people, use the "masculine" generic subject, as I did.

You say that you have talked with women complaining about them. I have not. You may think that that is because I live in another place than yours, with another language, and another context. But there are women here too, and the historic discrimination against them was terrible too. Guess what my language is? It is Spanish, a language where that "masculine" generic element is not only in the subject, but in half of the sentences, including many that talk about objects, and the plural third persons.

Yet I have not ever listened nor read a single complain, from the common people, and most of the not so common people, about the genre of the generic subjects. In fact, the only people that I have read complaining about it are SOME feminist persons.

You say that the women are conditioned to feel like that, while men are not, but all the women I have met does not seem to feel like that -and all of them speak like that-.

Yes, of course, it might be different, and you may say that I am not living in USA's society, but I have been there, and I have read and listened a lot of things produced there, and yet I do not find that complain nor that discrimination feeling when they talk like that. Yes, I have read this complain before, but only, again, from SOME feminist persons.

So, all this makes me believe that you are right, perhaps, in that people feel offended by something if they are educated to feel offended by it. And in fact, in my own experience in life, the only people that feel offended by this way of talking are SOME feminist persons. And I insist in saying SOME, because not every feminist I have met acts like that. I think, therefore, that the origin of the feeling of offence is their feminist education, and if something needs to be changed is their predisposition to feel offended for it.

In fact, the offensiveness of language exists only because the speakers believe in it, and a "profanity" is only a profanity because the people give it the quality of being offensive. In this case, I see that a very specific set of people -the feminists of the difference- are feeling offended by that kind of language, as they are the only ones that attribute it implications of "superiority of men" and "detriment of women", even if the people talking does not think those things. And I see that they try to convince other people to join them in their modification of language. But, in my sincere opinion, I feel it is very unfair to force everyone else to talk like they like only because they feel offended for something.

I may have something against the word "between", perhaps my dog died trapped "between" a car and a road, so I feel very sad and offended when someone uses the word "between", because it makes me cry as I remember my poor dog smashed between those things. However, you would call me silly if I started a campaign to remove that word from the dictionary and ban it from the books, forcing everybody to say "betwixt" instead, as that would be the only alternative that would not hurt my feelings.

This is the same problem. Some persons are feeling offended for some kind of language, and they try to change it, but the truth is that the common speakers do not feel offended by it, including most women, and that is the case until those feminist educate other persons to feel offended by that. I call this absurd, and I even dare to remark that perhaps those feminists are doing more harm to the women that the common speakers that use the generic masculine subject, because those women would have never felt offended if it weren't for those feminists. They taught them to feel bad about it.

Yes, you can play with the words and form a sentence whose meaning be clearly offensive for women due to its use of the generic masculine subject. But that is only made on purpose, and it is evident when someone does it that way; no one else use it thinking it is going to be offensive.

And this takes me to another important detail that you have not thought about: Is it not unfair to attribute meanings or implications to the words of the people when they are clearly not trying to give those meanings or implications? Is it not against the philosophy and the logic to act like that? Because that seems, to my best logical interpretation, an fallacy; you are changing the meanings of the words of the person you are criticising.

Yes, it MIGHT be discouraging and disheartening to read a description that uses only "he"/"him"/"his", and so one in every situation imaginable, for some people -specially those feminist persons-, but that those not make it better to refrain from using the male pronoun INDISCRIMINATELY (what a irony this adjective is!). I should not modify all my speech and my thoughts -because I talk in my thoughts too- only because some people feel offended by it, there should be more to think about before proceeding to make this modification.

Most people would feel offended if you told them that they are wrong, I have seen that before, but would you agree then to modify your language in such a manner that no one ever, in even the most indirect and unintended way, in any possible situation, feel that they might be wrong in what they believe after listening anything you say? I would not.

I am more worried about the "orwellian" nuances that the feminist speech is taking, and how facile is to make some people -specially some "philosophers" (ironically)- acquiesce with whatever they say or order.

[Establishment]

1 hour ago, gughok said:

Out of upvotes, +1. My reaction to every "surprise" of this sort: suck it, prescriptivist grammarians. You should never have left the 18th century. As a linguist, your existence vexes me.

Prescriptivist here. I don't think there's anything incompatible with being a prescriptivist and advocating for the singular use of "they." There's a positive use behind such a change. What prescriptivists are opposed to are unnecessary or degenerative changes to language. For example, losing the subjunctive in subjunctive cases: I wish I were at the party --> I was I was at the party.  Or, losing subtle distinctions between words that provide the richness in our language which are lost if we muddle and conflate words together: From Funk & Wagnalls "Difficult is not used of that which merely taxes physical force; a dead lift is called hard rather than difficult; breaking stone on the road would be called hard rather than difficult work; that is difficult which involves skills, sagacity, or address, with or without a considerable expenditure of physical force; a geometrical problem may be difficult to solve, a tangled skein to unravel; a mountain difficult to ascend."

bt l0l l@ngge b wt 1t b3, l3ts n0 grmmr.

[Establishment]

IMO, the solution to the use of "he" in writing is probably best just solved by males naturally using "he" and females naturally using "she". Switching to "she" as the sole standard universal is a real forced locution. "They" can work, though it is a violation. "One" doesn't read well. We obviously recognize that "he" and "she" in context is standing in as a universal.

Edited February 24, 2016 by Establishment

[Establishment]

In fact, this whole discussion implies a prescriptivist outlook on language. Otherwise all you can say is: "Hey. Some people use "he". Some people think that's sexist and use 'they'. But I make no judgments either way."

[sidebysondheim]

4 hours ago, MickeyRay said:

It's kind of annoying me that op is being so defensive. You're not being attacked as a person, but we are instead trying to adjust the way that we use language in order to draw attention to and deconstruct the assumption as male as neutral. 

 

 

Even if you specifically don't buy it, or don't think you should have to because a lot of people don't, let me just point out that if you send an academic philosophy paper to a journal with male/neutral pronouns then most if not all will make you change them. 

I think it is blatantly more than "kind of". I think it is downright worrying that one would more strongly desire to continue using a particular pronoun in their writing than attempt to build inclusivity among a marginalized population. Face it, this isn't about prescriptivist vs. descriptivist linguistics, clarity of speech, or any intellectual debate about what's in the extension of "archaic". It's simply about the fact that we live in a patriarchal society where women are given a lower normative-value than men, and any and all possible remnants of that should be altered to try and make society more inclusive. Since it doesn't seriously affect the readability (as opposed to say the example, "bt l0l l@ngge b wt 1t b3, l3ts n0 grmmr') or meaning of one's work, why be so adamant to stick to it? It may very well be the case that only "some feminists" care about it, and the complement set of feminists are apathetic. But that seems like a weird reason to be passionately against the change, instead of being for it.

Edited February 24, 2016 by sidebysondheim
readability

[bechkafish]

@pecado, I'm sorry that your thread is being hijacked like this. I just wanted to stop in and say thank you for posting - it's been a rough application season for me, emotionally, and waking up this morning to your post helped me feel a bit less underwater.

[Cogitodoncrien]

9 hours ago, Establishment said:

In fact, this whole discussion implies a prescriptivist outlook on language. Otherwise all you can say is: "Hey. Some people use "he". Some people think that's sexist and use 'they'. But I make no judgments either way."

Yep.