Author Topic: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie  (Read 22351 times)

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #100 on: November 18, 2021, 11:49:41 AM »
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?

The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.

If I could be assured that this is the primary driver, I would be a very happy camper.

You know, I've been on a lot of hiring committees in my day. A lot. And in pretty much all of those situations, taking demographic information about candidates has been a required part of the procedure. But not once, ever, in all of my professional life, has anyone on any committee suggested that we hire a woman or a person of color or some underrepresented status who is less qualified, over a white, heterosexual man who is more qualified. Never. It has never happened.

Have I been in situations where there were two *equally qualified candidates* -- one a white heterosexual man, and one not -- where the decision was made to hire the person from the underrepresented group? Yes.

Is that wrong? And if you would argue that it is, are you saying that in those situations, the right decision would have been to hire the white heterosexual man?

If so, why?

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17391
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #101 on: November 18, 2021, 11:58:46 AM »
Ah, so this argument has evolved from hate crimes to you taking issue with possible affirmative action that your program may or may not be engaging in, since you haven't actually confirmed that these boxes to check are for affirmative action.

Cool, that helps me understand what your position is.

What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose? Honest question.

I believe that you couldn't state my position if your life depended on it. It all gets thrown into that "other" box and dismissed.

Sure. Okay.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #102 on: November 18, 2021, 12:21:34 PM »
Have I been in situations where there were two *equally qualified candidates* -- one a white heterosexual man, and one not -- where the decision was made to hire the person from the underrepresented group? Yes.


I would not argue that's a wrong decision in the slightest. I would agree with your hiring position here and would likely make the same should I be in that position. Mind you, it would be because of the company optics if done the way I would prefer (flip a coin and with 50% chance of not hiring the socially preferable candidate).

I have much more to say about this, but don't feel that it could be approached well in this already derailed thread. My mood has already been soured. I want to think that I'm open to honest discussion but it seems that the lines have already been drawn and there isn't much open discussion on the table. Perhaps this is my fault. Either way, it's time to sign off for awhile.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #103 on: November 18, 2021, 02:07:50 PM »
What are the boxes there for on a job application if not for some filtering purpose?

The other reason would be required reporting on the composition of the applicant pool.

We (private, for-profit company) are required to ask on our applications, but we are prohibited from basing your hiring decision on any of the answers, and we (and most?) companies do not pass that particular information on to the hiring committee, as it might unfairly bias the hiring process.  As an applicant you are both protected and not required to fill that information out.

It was a similar situation for my previous employer (public university) and for the state government for which my spouse works.

Most states have very similar laws prohibiting discrimination based on a large group of protected classes (which almost always include race and gender, and increasingly gender identity).

FWIW there is also an ethnicity question on the US Census form, as well as a question about whether you are from hispanic descent. It is not verified and the form can be considered "complete" even if those pieces of information are left blank.  We trained to specifically NOT ask any follow up questions to those questions (e.g. "really? you don't look african-american..."  no way.)

For the background as to why this has become common place, its roots is in the 1964 civil rights act.  To paraphrase the legal argument, you cannot prove systemic discrimination if you cannot measure differences.  All of this is an attempt to do just that.

dreadmoose

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 278
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Canada
  • Compounding
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #104 on: November 19, 2021, 10:51:24 AM »
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist

I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.

Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2021, 10:54:53 AM by dreadmoose »

Kris

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7335
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #105 on: November 19, 2021, 11:16:49 AM »
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist

I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.

Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.

I remember reading that article when it came out. Yeah, he is definitely creepy, and his arguments on some of the more controversial positions he takes, to my mind, amount to a flurry of words designed to smokescreen some pretty simplistic and flawed ideas.

By the way, the link you gave is behind a paywall for me. So in case it is for others too, here it is on a non-paywalled site:

https://outline.com/Ef7wGR

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 166
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #106 on: November 19, 2021, 01:44:09 PM »
Don't understand the love for Jordan Peterson. He's a reactionary conservative who wants to keep culture the way it is.

His arguments usually consist of babbling sprinkled with SAT words and either "Archetype" or "category":

Quote
You may say, 'Well, dragons don't exist'. It's, like, yes they do — the category predator and the category dragon are the same category. It absolutely exists. It's a superordinate category. It exists absolutely more than anything else. In fact, it really exists. What exists is not obvious. You say, 'Well, there's no such thing as witches.' Yeah, I know what you mean, but that isn't what you think when you go see a movie about them. You can't help but fall into these categories. There's no escape from them.

He often says mysoginist things:

  • "There is something that isn't quite right with women who don't make having babies by 30 their primary desire" Link
  • "Can men and women work together? Things started deteriorating very rapidly once they started working together" Link
  • "Women who wear makeup in the workplace but do not want to be sexually harassed are hypocritical" Link
  • "Feminists have a unconscious desire for brutal male domination" Link

He calls every threat to the status quo either "cultural marxism" or "postmodernism". But defines neither eloquently.

He is ardently pro free speech until someone says something mean about him, then he busts out the defamation lawsuits.

Despite being super against humanities because they are unscientific, he believes in pseudoscience like quantum mysticism and meat only diets.

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #107 on: November 19, 2021, 04:57:13 PM »

He is ardently pro free speech until someone says something mean about him, then he busts out the defamation lawsuits.


Do you mean the lawsuit against Wilfrid Laurier University?   I only found one...

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20745
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #108 on: November 20, 2021, 07:38:32 AM »

  • "There is something that isn't quite right with women who don't make having babies by 30 their primary desire" Link
  • "Can men and women work together? Things started deteriorating very rapidly once they started working together" Link
  • "Women who wear makeup in the workplace but do not want to be sexually harassed are hypocritical" Link
  • "Feminists have a unconscious desire for brutal male domination" Link

Well, when bicycles came out it was well known that they would damage women's health, especially their reproductive organs.

And men and women have never in all of human history worked together, of course not.  /s

Mascara is society's gift to women with invisible eyelashes.

He should take an ecology course.  R type species have lots of babies early and often, because they die young and most of the babies die really young.  K type species have babies late and rarely, and put a lot of investment into each baby. In western society now we are K type.

There is a species of grouse where the young inexperienced females mate with the most dominant males on the leks (sorry forget which species).  The males are rough.  The more experienced females mate with the middle of the road males and do that year after year.  It's called learning from experience.


I heard of this guy years ago, didn't impress me then, and he obviously hasn't changed.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #109 on: November 20, 2021, 11:53:48 AM »
Or, one could note that, when he is in a position of power, say as a professor with a student, he has the courage of his convictions and stands for his principles to insult and degrade the other person.

Provide one time he did this to an individual. I'll wait.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #110 on: November 20, 2021, 05:50:31 PM »

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.

All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #111 on: November 20, 2021, 06:41:46 PM »

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.

All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.

Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name.  A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’  Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative.  Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.

It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject.  We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #112 on: November 20, 2021, 07:03:14 PM »

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.

All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.

Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name.  A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’  Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative.  Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.

It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject.  We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?

All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name.  Also,  I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone.  I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially,  and I'm not great about either one of their new names.  Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.

None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However,  I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17391
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #113 on: November 20, 2021, 08:46:22 PM »

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.

All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.

Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name.  A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’  Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative.  Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.

It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject.  We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?

All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name.  Also,  I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone.  I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially,  and I'm not great about either one of their new names.  Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.

None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However,  I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."

I work in an industry where all of my colleagues and I go by our last names, and changing last names has never been an issue.

Funny story. The only time I've seen someone changing their last name be an issue is when DH took my last name, and some people had full on meltdowns about it. Despite the fact that the name they knew him by was fake, and he had been illegally going by it for decades, lol, and none of them even knew his real name. Long story, not nearly as interesting as it sounds.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #114 on: November 21, 2021, 05:15:19 AM »

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.

All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.

Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name.  A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’  Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative.  Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.

It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject.  We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?

All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name.  Also,  I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone.  I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially,  and I'm not great about either one of their new names.  Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.

None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However,  I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."

I work in an industry where all of my colleagues and I go by our last names, and changing last names has never been an issue.

Funny story. The only time I've seen someone changing their last name be an issue is when DH took my last name, and some people had full on meltdowns about it. Despite the fact that the name they knew him by was fake, and he had been illegally going by it for decades, lol, and none of them even knew his real name. Long story, not nearly as interesting as it sounds.

When my BIL got married they decided to hyphenate their last name. As in - both took the new surname.  When he went to the town clerk to make the name-change official the older woman had a minor fit about it, and there was a minor kurfluffle before she relented and admitted that he had the legal right to do so.

Five years in and they love their shared surname. I’m not aware of anyone complaining besides that one town clerk who couldn’t get past a man changing his last name.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #115 on: November 21, 2021, 06:46:00 AM »

combined with loose definitions of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it and a great assortment of made up new pronouns to pick from, i don't believe the apprehension regarding this law is far fetched

In addition to what Malcat said:  I do not understand how using a person's stated and preferred pronouns can be considered a legitimate burden on the speaker. If you misuse the correct pronoun accidentally there is no legal fault or ramifications. It's only if you maliciously and repeatedly misrepresent a person that you have erred. Either way, it's always good form to ask.

Exactly. If I'm introduced to you as Mary Smith, and I tell you, "I actually go by my middle name, which is Jane," how is it a legitimate burden on you to call me Jane instead of Mary? Would you say, "Hah, screw that, I'm tired of your loose definition of identity allowing change whenever you feel like it. I'm calling you Mary."

The only issue I've had with this is that it rarely has been I'll introduce myself as this name. That's no problem. Instead, it's usually, I've know the person for months/years, and then the name changes. That's challenging for me to remember. Also, I've struggled with pronouns multiple times - mostly either because the person physically looks like the other gender or because they want to use they and calling someone they is never going to be intuitive for me.

All that being said, I've also never gotten yelled at for using the wrong pronoun or name inadvertently, so it's never been an issue.

Sure, but people changing what they are called has been a cultural norm for centuries. People get married and take their spouse’s name.  A student becomes a doctor, or a rabbi, or a professor and gains a title. Kids drop their less formal nicknames to sound more grownup (e.g. “billy” decides to go by “william”). Parents split and remarry, leaving the kids with new surnames. A person takes a stage name, or a pen-name (nom de plume). After being released from prison a person wishes to make a ‘fresh start.’  Or a person changes their name to escape the stigma of an unreputible relative.  Many change their names when they move to a new country to better assimilate, or because their old name proves difficult to pronounce for the locals.

It seems we accept name changes for so many reasons but for whatever reason this one has become a sticky subject.  We don’t seem to mind when Lizzy Smith gets married and chooses to go by Elizabeth Hendricks; why is it so different when Lizzy decides to go by Lenny?

All good points. I will say that last name changes aren't quite the same as first name given most people establish identity in their mind based on first name.  Also,  I struggle with people that change their names in general, and I don't think I'm alone.  I know of a couple people unrelated to trans situations that changed what they wanted to be called substantially,  and I'm not great about either one of their new names.  Also, even though no one has yelled at me about it, there's a certain level of tension that comes with missing a name in this situation that doesn't in the others.

None of this should be construed as complaining. I in no way have it rough or anything. However,  I also believe it's not as simple as "just use the new name/ pronoun as it's often presented."

I work in an industry where all of my colleagues and I go by our last names, and changing last names has never been an issue.

Funny story. The only time I've seen someone changing their last name be an issue is when DH took my last name, and some people had full on meltdowns about it. Despite the fact that the name they knew him by was fake, and he had been illegally going by it for decades, lol, and none of them even knew his real name. Long story, not nearly as interesting as it sounds.

Fair enough. Perhaps the problem in my recent situation, which I'm thinking of, is that I've had 4 or so people in the span of a couple of months change names/pronouns, and I have missed them several times unintentionally not through lack of trying. All of this is to say that I've not been consistent but not because I'm not trying.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17391
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #116 on: November 21, 2021, 07:54:55 AM »
Fair enough. Perhaps the problem in my recent situation, which I'm thinking of, is that I've had 4 or so people in the span of a couple of months change names/pronouns, and I have missed them several times unintentionally not through lack of trying. All of this is to say that I've not been consistent but not because I'm not trying.

That's the thing, there's making mistakes and there's purposefully disrespecting people.

My first name gets mistaken all the time. It's rare and similar enough to a common name that people will literally read it off of paper as the more common name. It's no big deal, I just respond to both.

But if someone *intentionally* started calling me by the wrong name after repeated requests not to, I would be fucking livid. And my name has nothing to do with a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.

When we look at it that way, that this is a life and death matter for children...seems kind of insane to get butt hurt about protecting them.

If I were in a workplace and someone were purposefully going out of their way to use the wrong name for me with malicious intent, I would have grounds to lodge a harassment complaint against them. But if an older, somewhat forgetful or dyslexic staff member could just never get my name right, I would have no case. In fact I had a boss who never, not once in 7 years got my name right, and we were really close friends.

When it comes to the law, intent matters

ExitViaTheCashRamp

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 280
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #117 on: November 21, 2021, 03:05:11 PM »
.... a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.

  Whilst you may feel you are defending trans folk, you are really doing them no favours here. For years trans folk and their supporters have been trying to stop trans status being considered a mental health condition. Even the slow, lumbering bureaucracy of the WHO changed their stance here a couple of years ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48448804

 Such a diagnosis is not deadly for young people, cancer, heart defects, parental abuse and many more are far, far bigger killers of young people in absolute terms. Don't frighten those coming out with fake news.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #118 on: November 21, 2021, 03:15:09 PM »
Fair enough. Perhaps the problem in my recent situation, which I'm thinking of, is that I've had 4 or so people in the span of a couple of months change names/pronouns, and I have missed them several times unintentionally not through lack of trying. All of this is to say that I've not been consistent but not because I'm not trying.

That's the thing, there's making mistakes and there's purposefully disrespecting people.

My first name gets mistaken all the time. It's rare and similar enough to a common name that people will literally read it off of paper as the more common name. It's no big deal, I just respond to both.

But if someone *intentionally* started calling me by the wrong name after repeated requests not to, I would be fucking livid. And my name has nothing to do with a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.

When we look at it that way, that this is a life and death matter for children...seems kind of insane to get butt hurt about protecting them.

If I were in a workplace and someone were purposefully going out of their way to use the wrong name for me with malicious intent, I would have grounds to lodge a harassment complaint against them. But if an older, somewhat forgetful or dyslexic staff member could just never get my name right, I would have no case. In fact I had a boss who never, not once in 7 years got my name right, and we were really close friends.

When it comes to the law, intent matters

I agree it's a serious issue, and I'm not butt hurt about it or anything (hope I'm not coming off as that). As long as the narrative remains on, "How does it hurt you to try to do it? Just do your best" I'm great with it. This has not always been the case with people who have accused me of being transphobic for using someone's old name by accident. Ironically, it has never been by trans people, who have been appreciative of my efforts. Again, not trying to be butt hurt or claim I'm in any way a victim here. I do know, though, that comments like what were made to me are not helpful to the overall cause.

Metalcat

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17391
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #119 on: November 21, 2021, 03:44:14 PM »
.... a serious mental health condition like gender dysmorphia, which comes with ENORMOUS risk of death. Gender dysmorphia is currently one of the deadliest diagnoses in existence, and disproportionately deadly for young people.

  Whilst you may feel you are defending trans folk, you are really doing them no favours here. For years trans folk and their supporters have been trying to stop trans status being considered a mental health condition. Even the slow, lumbering bureaucracy of the WHO changed their stance here a couple of years ago https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48448804

 Such a diagnosis is not deadly for young people, cancer, heart defects, parental abuse and many more are far, far bigger killers of young people in absolute terms. Don't frighten those coming out with fake news.

I didn't say being trans was a mental health issue, I said gender dysmorphia is, which by definition, is only a pathology when it significantly negatively affects someone's life, something can't be a pathology if the person is functioning well, which many trans people do. I'm going by what I've learned in clinical counselling. But you are entitled to disagree.

Never ever would I say that being trans is a pathology. Nor does the psychological community in my country.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #120 on: November 22, 2021, 11:12:55 AM »
Thought I’d drop this here:


maizefolk

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7400
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #121 on: November 22, 2021, 11:39:25 AM »
Thought I’d drop this here:



Every day someone is famous on twitter. And the absolutely best we can each hope for is to never EVER be that person.

SpeedReader

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 192
  • Age: 58
  • Location: Vancouver, WA
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #122 on: February 28, 2022, 05:41:44 PM »
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language.  My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they". 

RetiredAt63

  • CMTO 2023 Attendees
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *
  • Posts: 20745
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #123 on: February 28, 2022, 07:02:01 PM »
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language.  My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".

I understand the use of singular "they" but also agree it would be nice to have an easy gender-neutral singular pronoun.  I wish we had a singular equivalent for "you".  We lost "thee".  "Zir" or whatever else was suggested was too contrived.
Oh well, English is a flexible language, we will survive. 


We loose as well as gain when words change meanings, too.  I saw an old ad recently that used "gay" in its last usage (sort of cheerful and light-hearted) and the ad was really weird for modern usage.  I can just see parents explaining word changes to their kids when they watch "South Pacific".  Why is this gay nurse dating a man?  ;-)

Villanelle

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6655
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #124 on: February 28, 2022, 07:22:35 PM »
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language.  My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".

Yes, I admit to struggle with "they" followed but a singular conugation of a noun. Or is that not what we are supposed to do?  (I legitimately don't know.)  "They is coming to dinner."  Or is the preferred usage still, "They are coming" even if it is a single person?  Either way, I'm working to retrain my brain, because it doesn't feel natural, but I recognize that as *my* issue to resolve, and I want to be able to be effortlessly respectful to people's choices and identities.

SwordGuy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8955
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #125 on: February 28, 2022, 10:18:19 PM »
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language.  My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".

I wanted to use a singular non-genderized pronoun back when I wrote my book.   Turns out that "they" was perfectly appropriate according to the dictionary, so that's what I used.

Didn't get a single complaint about it from the book editor at the major book publisher either.

Oh, and I checked the dictionary in 1995 and I'm sure it was published well before then.

Missy B

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #126 on: March 01, 2022, 09:51:52 AM »
I am kind of surprised that people here would dislike everything a person says and be proud of it.  Seems very short sighted. 

I have watched a lot of JP because I have teenagers and young men in my life and some of them do resonate a bit with him.  I wanted to be able to have reasonable conversations about it with them.

I love that he always tells people to be the best they can be.  His "start with cleaning your room" speech was a very easy way for them to think about it.  Clean up your life makes sense.  Get yourself focused, etc.

We have been focusing so much on 'girl power' that we have made some boys feel cast aside.  Take a look at your local elementary school it is a pink ghetto.  We would never allow it to be full of all male teachers but we seem OK with the opposite. 

Anyhow, I do not agree 100% with what JP says but I usually go away thinking a bit more about a topic.   However, I also don't get up in arms about someone who has a different opinion then mine; rather I usually find those people the most interesting because I am forced to consider their thought.

Agree. A friend of mine is a male elementary teacher, and I feel so glad that he is because of the kind of person that he is. Boys particularly at that age benefit from having an integrous, strong, gentle, emotionally healthy man as one of their teachers. Some of them effectively have no Dads, or have Dads who are dysfunctional in their parenting, and for those kids especially having a good male teacher can be trajectory-changing.

Also, the role and influence of men in boy's lives can't  be replaced by women. The importance of men to boys is generally diminished in our society, and we still accept culturally the abdication of male responsibility towards children and parenting. Culturally, its something we expect women to own.
And I see this even in men who are parents and feel strongly that they hold as much responsibility as their wives for child care.
Because when push comes to shove, when daycare fails or kid gets sick, the woman stays home. Even if she makes more $. (There's a study that confirms this but I'm not going to try to find it now.) It doesn't need to be her, the kids aren't breast-feeding any longer. But almost always, its her.

There's all kind of reasons for that, but I want to point at the cultural one. No matter how on-board a Dad is with having kids as high-priority, it will be way less comfortable for him to call work and say he's staying home to watch his kids, than it is for his wife. Because child-care is still a low-status job, and its the cultural responsibility of women still, no matter how we like to pretend we're equal and share equally.

If child-care was really owned by men and Dads as a group, culturally and historically over the last several decades, the way it is owned by women, every big accounting or law firm would have built in day-care. It would be a no-brainer, and a pretty important piece for keeping firms competitive in the hiring market.


YK-Phil

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1173
  • Location: Nayarit (Mexico)
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #127 on: March 01, 2022, 03:43:58 PM »
I spent almost 40 years of my life doing crazy shit in the Canadian Arctic, so sipping margaritas on a tropical beach sounds like a solid plan to me. That's pretty much my retired life right now in Mexico, minus the margarita since I don't drink alcohol.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #128 on: March 01, 2022, 09:20:42 PM »
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist

I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.

Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.

I remember reading that article when it came out. Yeah, he is definitely creepy, and his arguments on some of the more controversial positions he takes, to my mind, amount to a flurry of words designed to smokescreen some pretty simplistic and flawed ideas.

By the way, the link you gave is behind a paywall for me. So in case it is for others too, here it is on a non-paywalled site:

https://outline.com/Ef7wGR

He sounds like he's bipolar with a messiah complex.

jnw

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #129 on: March 01, 2022, 10:02:41 PM »
Personally I don't drink any alcohol ever.  Don't care for it. I always feel worse afterwards than before.  And I don't need to drink it to feel good.  My liver and wallet thank  me.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #130 on: March 02, 2022, 08:30:37 AM »
For anyone wondering if he is a morally reprehensible person you can read this to understand why someone that knows him infinitely better than the public thinks he shouldn't have a platform:

https://www.thestar.com/amp/opinion/2018/05/25/i-was-jordan-petersons-strongest-supporter-now-i-think-hes-dangerous.html?utm_source=pocket_mylist

I do tend to question using his own hand-waiving points that intellectual conversation is about giving both sides the same amount of time to speak and the same weight no matter their opinion a little farcical. This leads to having scientists debate flat-earthers, it lends credence to wildly incorrect sides.

Jordan Peterson appears to want to build a cult, if you find yourself following what he says a bit too closely maybe try reading some counter-points so you don't end up in it.

I remember reading that article when it came out. Yeah, he is definitely creepy, and his arguments on some of the more controversial positions he takes, to my mind, amount to a flurry of words designed to smokescreen some pretty simplistic and flawed ideas.

By the way, the link you gave is behind a paywall for me. So in case it is for others too, here it is on a non-paywalled site:

https://outline.com/Ef7wGR

He sounds like he's bipolar with a messiah complex.

I'm glad this was posted. My views on Peterson are quite quickly changing, aided by his recent absurd comments about climate change.

jnw

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2019
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #131 on: March 03, 2022, 02:33:03 PM »
I tried to listen to him talk. But I couldn't take him seriously because all I heard was "Kermit the Frog" voice.  Never heard him before.  I feel bad saying it, and I know it's rude of me, but I didn't agree with what he was saying and kept hearing that frog. 

scottish

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2716
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #132 on: March 03, 2022, 05:29:34 PM »
I see most criticisms of JP as a kind of "truth hurts" moment.

Sounds like you have joined the cult. That is the kind of non argument that stuffs the ears against criticism.

I thought that some of his ideas made sense - back before he went for rehab in eastern Europe.   Since he returned he's almost completely whacky.

A summary of current Jordan Peterson:
Damn the Canadian government.   They aren't making COVID decisions based on science.

And minutes later:
The government shouldn't allow the medical community to make all the COVID decisions.   They should consult with the medical community, but make the decisions themselves

The man no longer makes sense.   I don't know what happened to him in eastern Europe, but it can't have been good.


bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7056
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #133 on: March 03, 2022, 07:02:00 PM »
The man no longer makes sense.   I don't know what happened to him in eastern Europe, but it can't have been good.

His recent climate change statements, mentioned above, were...humorous. He's ultimately an anti-postmodernist but his "climate is everything" comment is a very postmodern thing to say.

Telecaster

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3551
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #134 on: March 04, 2022, 01:13:47 AM »
Here's the thing about Jordan Peterson:  His brand is staking out controversial opinions.  Nothing wrong with that. But if he comes across information that is in conflict with his opinion, he won't change his mind because it conflicts with his brand.  His opinions could be correct, but I don't trust him to be a fair actor.  Because I don't trust him, I dismiss his opinions and look for more trustworthy sources.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #135 on: March 04, 2022, 04:10:04 AM »
Here's the thing about Jordan Peterson:  His brand is staking out controversial opinions.  Nothing wrong with that. But if he comes across information that is in conflict with his opinion, he won't change his mind because it conflicts with his brand.  His opinions could be correct, but I don't trust him to be a fair actor.  Because I don't trust him, I dismiss his opinions and look for more trustworthy sources.

I think there *is* something wrong with making your brand about staking out controversial opinions, for all the reasons you then list. It’s fine to have a coherent philosophy which leads you to some controversial opinions, but quite another to seek out contrarian ideas to form your opinion.The cart shouldn’t lead the horse.
Unfortunately too many people have decided its the controversy which matters, not the substance.

jinga nation

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2696
  • Age: 247
  • Location: 'Murica's Dong
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #136 on: March 04, 2022, 06:45:03 AM »
Here's the thing about Jordan Peterson:  His brand is staking out controversial opinions.  Nothing wrong with that. But if he comes across information that is in conflict with his opinion, he won't change his mind because it conflicts with his brand.  His opinions could be correct, but I don't trust him to be a fair actor.  Because I don't trust him, I dismiss his opinions and look for more trustworthy sources.

I think there *is* something wrong with making your brand about staking out controversial opinions, for all the reasons you then list. It’s fine to have a coherent philosophy which leads you to some controversial opinions, but quite another to seek out contrarian ideas to form your opinion. The cart shouldn’t lead the horse.
Unfortunately too many people have decided its the controversy which matters, not the substance.

he's a Flip-Flopper. His work consists of click-bait headlines, no substance.
All hat, no cattle.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #137 on: March 04, 2022, 06:50:00 AM »

All hat, no cattle.

yup, you distilled my point into four words.

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #138 on: April 21, 2022, 03:32:13 PM »
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language.  My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".

Yes, I admit to struggle with "they" followed but a singular conugation of a noun. Or is that not what we are supposed to do?  (I legitimately don't know.)  "They is coming to dinner."  Or is the preferred usage still, "They are coming" even if it is a single person?  Either way, I'm working to retrain my brain, because it doesn't feel natural, but I recognize that as *my* issue to resolve, and I want to be able to be effortlessly respectful to people's choices and identities.

Just adopt "Y'all". Solved. It has worked for a century or more in my part of the country. ;)

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #139 on: April 21, 2022, 04:53:16 PM »
Call me old-fashioned or whatever, but I think a new gender-neutral pronoun for one person, singular, should be introduced into the English language.  My internal grammar police goes into overdrive when an individual wants to be referred to as "they".

Yes, I admit to struggle with "they" followed but a singular conugation of a noun. Or is that not what we are supposed to do?  (I legitimately don't know.)  "They is coming to dinner."  Or is the preferred usage still, "They are coming" even if it is a single person?  Either way, I'm working to retrain my brain, because it doesn't feel natural, but I recognize that as *my* issue to resolve, and I want to be able to be effortlessly respectful to people's choices and identities.

Just adopt "Y'all". Solved. It has worked for a century or more in my part of the country. ;)

It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)

Just Joe

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6721
  • Location: In the middle....
  • Teach me something.
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #140 on: April 23, 2022, 08:37:10 PM »
Now combine "dude", "whoa", "y'all" and the f-bomb. All very versatile words...

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17498
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #141 on: April 24, 2022, 03:48:06 AM »
Now combine "dude", "whoa", "y'all" and the f-bomb. All very versatile words...

[scene: guy is blindsided when his boss calls him into his office to fire him]
Whoa! F- y’all, dude!”

(…No extra words needed)

Askel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 773
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #142 on: April 24, 2022, 05:50:01 AM »

It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)

In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".   

ChpBstrd

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6659
  • Location: A poor and backward Southern state known as minimum wage country
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #143 on: April 25, 2022, 06:26:21 PM »

It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)

In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
Here in Southern Calif it's just "Dudes" - which is gender-neutral. As in "Dudes! That dude on the MMM forum is, like, one of the gnarliest dudes who hangs there amongst all the other rad gnarly dudes who, like, ya know, like ...um... something something... um... pot...
I have to say "y'all" is in the lead. The whole concept of referring to women with male pronouns is going the way of all those early 20th century books talking about "mankind" where if any hypothetical person wants to do something "he" by default does it. And then there is "man" the naked ape, who does "his" best as a hypothetical stand-in for the entire human species.

dot

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 163
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #144 on: April 27, 2022, 10:14:38 AM »

It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)

In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
Here in Southern Calif it's just "Dudes" - which is gender-neutral. As in "Dudes! That dude on the MMM forum is, like, one of the gnarliest dudes who hangs there amongst all the other rad gnarly dudes who, like, ya know, like ...um... something something... um... pot...
I have to say "y'all" is in the lead. The whole concept of referring to women with male pronouns is going the way of all those early 20th century books talking about "mankind" where if any hypothetical person wants to do something "he" by default does it. And then there is "man" the naked ape, who does "his" best as a hypothetical stand-in for the entire human species.
Yeah, if you believe "dude" is truly gender neutral, ask a straight male dude how many dudes he's slept with. Then you'll find out just how not neutral "dude" actually is.

ixtap

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4561
  • Age: 51
  • Location: SoCal
    • Our Sea Story
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #145 on: April 27, 2022, 10:21:12 AM »
Dude is not gender neutral, it is just another example of the masculine being used for a group. While the exclamation "Dude" might be used to anyone, if you refer to "that dude," even in SoCal folks are going to look around for some who presents as male.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #146 on: April 27, 2022, 02:05:46 PM »
MMM talked about this in a talk - about how some people fantasize about being in a big bed all day in a mansion. But having communal connection and something fulfilling is what we really need.
yeah mmm has put alot more work and thought on this subject than JP has. Why do some people feel.jp is the expert on all topics? I don't get it.

partgypsy

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5207
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #147 on: April 28, 2022, 06:20:41 AM »

It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)

In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
. I'm a relocated Midwesterner and still say "hey you guys" even when mixed, or heck all female groups. However what's popular here is saying "folks" or "people" as well as they as both singular and plural gender neutral. I would be ok with bringing back "thee", or even ze. Just tell me what to do.

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1866
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #148 on: April 29, 2022, 03:49:41 PM »

It's often fun to tell people that "Y'all" is singular while "y'alls" is plural
...and then there's "all y'alls" for addressing a whole mess of people.
:-)

In the upper midwest we use "yoose" (singular) and "yoose guys" (plural, and is gender neutral despite the use of 'guys'). Midwesterners are generally distrustful of large groups as a whole so do not have a word that directly translates to "all y'alls".
Here in Southern Calif it's just "Dudes" - which is gender-neutral. As in "Dudes! That dude on the MMM forum is, like, one of the gnarliest dudes who hangs there amongst all the other rad gnarly dudes who, like, ya know, like ...um... something something... um... pot...
I have to say "y'all" is in the lead. The whole concept of referring to women with male pronouns is going the way of all those early 20th century books talking about "mankind" where if any hypothetical person wants to do something "he" by default does it. And then there is "man" the naked ape, who does "his" best as a hypothetical stand-in for the entire human species.

Out of curiosity, what is the takeaway from this, though? I use "you guys" all the time to refer to a group of people. I feel like language has evolved somewhat for some of these things. Bruh, for example, is clearly used by the younger generation to refer to pretty much everyone - well in fairness it's used as a catch all for about everything. It links back to bro, I'd imagine, but the meaning as used has changed considerably. I have been told in a class or two that I've taken that using "you guys" is sexist, but I just see it as an evolution of the language and not a big deal.

StashingAway

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 895
Re: Don't Be Fooled by The Retirement Lie
« Reply #149 on: April 30, 2022, 03:29:16 PM »
Yeah, if you believe "dude" is truly gender neutral, ask a straight male dude how many dudes he's slept with. Then you'll find out just how not neutral "dude" actually is.
LOL true. In reality I generally use they/their/s unless I know the preferred gendered pronoun the person uses. Never had an issue with it myself but can see how it can be confusing.

"How many y'all's slept with?"
"How many you's have you slept with?"
"How many they's have you slept wiht?"

I think any pronoun in this sentence sounds weird, so putting dude in it doesn't really prove much.