|
I'll do better next time. (There won't be a next time)
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
My mom has been a feminist for as long as I can remember.
One of the good ones, mind you, not a feminazi.
She drove a truck and certainly did not expect or ask any men to help her unload, and they never did.
When she got married in the 80's, she kept her own last name, which was a huge deal back then.
Of course I agree because it's just ridiculous to give up your own name just because you think you want to spend the rest of your life with someone (even if you ultimately do).
I know very few men who'd give up their last name like that, but it's expected of women.
You wouldn't believe the stuff she's been through because of it.
Like the bank simply refusing to use her name because "the system" won't allow married women to have a different name as her husband.
Or going to the bank to open an account and then my father getting a letter that the account is now ready.
That last one was in 200X, mind you, not even that long ago.
Anyway, Dutch isn't very gender neutral.
For example, we say "There were about fifty man at the party." (Yes, "man", not "men".)
My mom would ask "So there were no women?"
I kind of copied that behavior from her and now I say "There were about fifty people at the party."
My language now better reflects reality because, yes, there were women also.
Whenever we don't know someone's gender we assume it's a he (unless gender roles dictate it's probably a woman).
For example: "My boss yelled at me today." "Was he very mad?"
And: "My cleaner is on vacation." "When will she be back?"
I wouldn't mind a gender neutral word there, it would save some confusion and correcting one another.
To be fair, I've never heard of male cleaners (I have professionaly, but not the ones that clean houses for cash money), but I know plenty of female bosses.
In English you can say "they", which isn't that weird and has been done for decades, but in Dutch that's really weird and would change the whole sentence.
Why is this important?
Because study shows that language influences the way we think (and probably the other way around too).
If language stopped assuming all bosses were men then maybe so would we and more women would be hired.
I despise the woke-movement that's currently going on, especially in the USA, but I wouldn't mind some gender neutral language for the cases where you simply don't know.
Too bad this guide is in English, which doesn't help me in Dutch  (I vote for language-neutral language!  )
|
|
|
|
|
I have a double-barrelled surname (hence the "T-P" username). My daughter's getting married next week, to a guy with a very common and short surname. They (with no prompting at all from me) have both opted to change their names, she replacing the second part of her name with his, and he prefixing his surname with the first part of hers. This not only seems very "fair" and "modern", but in particular helps perpetuate the "T" half of my name, which is very rare.
(Of course he may come to regret opting for a hyphenated name, it causes all sorts of problems!!  )
|
|
|
|
|
My friends did something like that.
He changed his name to HisName-HerName and she changed her name to HerName-HisName.
She changing her name to HisName-HerName or HerName-HisName is already pretty common in the Netherlands.
All in all changes are coming, slowly but surely
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Whenever we don't know someone's gender we assume it's a he (unless gender roles dictate it's probably a woman).
For example: "My boss yelled at me today." "Was he very mad?"
Can't speak to Dutch but in English "he" is the gender neutral term. Very definitely true in the 80s.
Sander Rossel wrote: but I know plenty of female bosses.
So percentage wise it is 50% male and female? If not then when assuming a gender when not known then it would correct to assume the one that fits the majority.
I would also say that if someone was "yelled" at during the business day to such an extent that they felt it necessary to comment on it later then, myself, I would expect that it would be a man. Doesn't mean women don't yell just that men seem to go off the edge more often. But perhaps that is just my personal experience.
Sander Rossel wrote: Because study shows that language influences the way we think (and probably the other way around too
That has been known to be true for a very long time.
But attempting to de-categorize literally everything cannot work because humans need that to provide order for the world.
|
|
|
|
|
jschell wrote: Can't speak to Dutch but in English "he" is the gender neutral term. Very definitely true in the 80s.
"Today, he is the only masculine pronoun in English. In the 18th century, it was suggested as a gender-neutral pronoun, and was thereafter often prescribed in manuals of style and school textbooks until around the 1960s."
Not so today it seems 
jschell wrote: So percentage wise it is 50% male and female? If not then when assuming a gender when not known then it would correct to assume the one that fits the majority.
Not 50/50, but enough to not make assumptions.
jschell wrote: I would also say that if someone was "yelled" at during the business day to such an extent that they felt it necessary to comment on it later then, myself, I would expect that it would be a man. Doesn't mean women don't yell just that men seem to go off the edge more often. But perhaps that is just my personal experience.
I know both can get like that.
jschell wrote: But attempting to de-categorize literally everything cannot work because humans need that to provide order for the world.
Not saying that, just a neutral term for when you really don't know.
Like "Was xe really mad?"
That sounds weird (now), but it better conveys my intent, I don't know your boss or their gender, but I want to know more about the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Today, he is the only masculine pronoun in English. I
"In Modern English, he is a singular, masculine, third-person pronoun."
The third part is the relevant part.
Sander Rossel wrote: Not 50/50, but enough to not make assumptions.
No that is not a response to what I said. You are merely repeating what you already said.
Sander Rossel wrote: I know both can get like that.
Again not a response to what I said especially since I already said that.
Sander Rossel wrote: Like "Was xe really mad?"
That sounds weird (now), but it better conveys my intent
Perhaps but that is made up language which some intend to add to the language in general. They are attempting to do that by force which is not how language works.
It is similar to the older form of 'womyn'. Which was rationalized based on ignorance of the etymology of the word 'woman'.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry buddy, gotta say that while the premise is correct that language influences people and vice versa... getting upset over the word mankind means you're just an unhappy person. Happy people don't go around and say people think of pregnant women with the word gestation therefore society is evil and unjust. The cold hard truth is, some people will always find something to be upset about. You give in to this, soon there will be something else.
For instance, assuming a boss is a he is being way too over-sensitive. A real female employer shouldn't be that sensitive anyway. There are real problems to solve in the world. In time, this will naturally change anyway.
Let me give you a for-instance of what some call unfair. I'm a redneck from the south. At first glance some people will assume that means I'm stupid (waiting for a joke here lol). The vast, vast majority of people will never learn enough about a subject that doesn't directly involve them. It's human nature. So, there will always be stereotypes (which do have an element of truth but I digress).
So, I could say... the world is evil and unfair or whatever because some people will assume I'm stupid because I'm a redneck. Or I could just man up (I'm so evil lol) and get over it. We have real problems to solve and this nitpicking only harms humanity because we lose focus.
As an aside, there are more women who don't mind taking the last name of their husband and believe in traditional roles. You cannot discredit the majority because the few wants to get upset. I'd never marry a woman who didn't take my last name and every last one of them know it. And there are a ton of women who respect a man for being an old-school man because they're tired of having to always lead the relationship and do everything. I've talked to so many women who are tired of feeling like the guy because the guy is too afraid to be a guy. The younger generation is so confused because rotting behind a computer inside doesn't help produce hormones naturally.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: getting upset over the word mankind means you're just an unhappy person. Happy people don't go around and say people think of pregnant women with the word gestation therefore society is evil and unjust. The cold hard truth is, some people will always find something to be upset about. You give in to this, soon there will be something else.
Yeah, no need to get all worked up about it.
Saying men can get pregnant or have their periods is just ridiculous.
Having (biological) men compete in women's sport is really unfair.
I love that you're a trans, all the power to you, but just like people in wheelchairs can't compete in professional sports, neither can you (unless they get their own league, like handicapped people got).
It's not personal, just trying to keep things fair and fun for the majority of people.
If someone calls me a she (and it happened before, used to have long hair) I can laugh about it.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: For instance, assuming a boss is a he is being way too over-sensitive. A real female employer shouldn't be that sensitive anyway. There are real problems to solve in the world. In time, this will naturally change anyway.
We can't really change because we're stuck to the words he and she.
A boss will probably always be a he, even when we get more female than male bosses.
I'd prefer to say something like "Was it really mad?", except you know he/she is never an it, so maybe "Was xe really mad?"
Not to be woke or indulge those people, but just to be clear: I don't know your boss or their gender.
Jeremy Falcon wrote: I'd never marry a woman who didn't take my last name
Why not?
Sounds like you're really insecure about something  (this is not a joke)
As a redneck, you could marry your cousin and she wouldn't even have to change her last name  (this is a joke)
I don't want to change my own name so I don't expect anyone else to want it either.
|
|
|
|
|
Just FYI, it was me that gave you the upvote. Even though we agree on some points and disagree on others. It's for having a rational conversation on the Internet. Anywho...
Sander Rossel wrote: Saying men can get pregnant or have their periods is just ridiculous.
Preach brother. Where I stand with regards to any of this, it's one thing for someone to believe something. It's another for them to attempt by legal/social to force others to go along with it. Coercion is not progress. But that's a whooooooole different can of worms I'm not sure CP is ready for me to yap about in the lounge.
Sander Rossel wrote: If someone calls me a she (and it happened before, used to have long hair) I can laugh about it.
Agreed. I cried watching Titanic. If someone calls me girly for that it's whatever bro. Adults really should be ok with themselves. This doesn't actually make me a woman though. But, the oversensitive crowd can't be told something they don't want to hear these days. So, you're not supposed to say crap like that online.
Sander Rossel wrote: A boss will probably always be a he, even when we get more female than male bosses.
That right there is the biggest problem I have with the entire movement. To suggest more is to suggest dominance or a combative spirit. I'm inherently a Freudian in my beliefs with human nature. He postulated that women subconsciously have "p envy". This whole future is female, to the tune of men and masculinity is bad, is only proving him correct. If it were truly about equality, there would be no element of trying to feel domineering (which is a masculine trait btw).
Sander Rossel wrote: Not to be woke or indulge those people, but just to be clear: I don't know your boss or their gender.
I dunno man.... "it" sounds right to me.
Sander Rossel wrote: Sounds like you're really insecure about something
Negative. I mean... all humans have insecurities. But, not about this. Saying that's the only possible reason I don't subscribe to the same idea... I'm sure you know that's shortsighted. And, I also accept the fact that most people will do whatever they learned while young. We adults pretend to change but we don't. Maybe the little stuff but not core values. But that's human nature.
Anyway, I could give you the long explanation, but this post would be a book. The short version is essentially, both men and women can display masculine and feminine traits. I think we can agree on that. However, most men want to feel masculine, and most women want to feel feminine. This is not from an official survey I did, but I've been around the dating block more than any nerd I've ever met. And thus, I've spoken to a lot more women than most nerds.
To keep it super short-ish, men have become more feminized in the modern world. Most people in the modern world are also not in touch with their instincts. A lot of men don't know what it feels like to be manly. A lot of women don't know what it's like to feel feminine. All this logic and thinking goes out the window then they're finally introduced to it. A masculine man will always be more masculine than a masculine woman. Saying this makes me sound misogynistic to folks who lack critical thinking - which I certainly am not. The problem is these people subconsciously view feminine as inferior. I don't. It's a different type of power, but a power, nonetheless. So, to say when a woman can be genuinely more feminine than a guy ever could be. It's not an insult to women. We need to feminine energy to survive just as much as we need masculine energy to survive.
To the point though, when a man takes the masculine role and the woman the feminine. Which is to say the leadership or more domineering role. People who suck at relationships mistake this to be mean being a micromanaging control freak. Not at all. It's two different types of energies. If I had to sum it up though, domineering means when you speak people listen and things get done. It's not about being over controlling. However, in the simplest terms, masculine is inherently confrontational and feminine is inherently agreeable. Dudes throughout time want to conquer. The last name change is a part of that.
And I'm sure that's where the fundamental disagreement is. Some women may not want to be "conquered" but a lot do. They want to feel claimed and protected and know their man will raise hell to keep his woman safe and snuggly because that's his woman. Women love that. It's not the same as being over controlling.
And, I can promise you that most cranial coders that never leave a computer will never understand this (not you, I'm generalizing).
Sander Rossel wrote: As a redneck, you could marry your cousin and she wouldn't even have to change her last name
This why I like you man. We can make jokes.
Sander Rossel wrote: I don't want to change my own name so I don't expect anyone else to want it either.
Fair enough. But unga bunga. Me caveman.
Jeremy Falcon
modified 8-Jun-23 9:59am.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Some women may not want to be "conquered" but a lot do.
I guess this is where we disagree.
I mean, I agree with you that lots of women want that, and lots of men too (something I'll never understand), but I don't want to "conquer" and I want a woman who doesn't want to be "conquered" (and I have one, sort of).
My girlfriend still wants to feel claimed somehow, which is also something I don't do.
She's a free woman with a will of her own and if she decides she wants to leave me or be with another man that's her choice.
As far as I'm concerned we're complete equals in the relationship and no one owns anyone.
In the Netherlands (and probably everywhere) we have "help moms" at school.
Simply moms who voluntarily help around at (elementary) school.
Back in the 90's my dad lost his job and became a stay-at-home dad.
No problem, since my mom also had a good job.
Since my dad had some time on his hands he became a "help mom" at school.
No kidding, even letters from school started with "Dear help moms," 
A "help dad" was simply unthinkable.
Needless to say, my dad got some hate for it, like he wouldn't be a "real man".
So for two or three years my dad was a house-husband and "help mom" and my mom was the provider.
Both worked very hard for their entire career though, my dad started his own business after that and both could retire very early.
Those are my role models so you can see how I got things backwards (although from my point of view it's the rest of the world that's backwards) 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: This why I like you man. We can make jokes.
Yeah, don't take life too seriously.
That's what's wrong with society today, can't take a joke or turn the other cheek 
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Fair enough. But unga bunga. Me caveman.
Self burn, those are rare
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: As far as I'm concerned we're complete equals in the relationship and no one owns anyone.
That's just it though, it's not a superiority thing I promise. To claim your prize, is just that: a prize. It no way implies the woman is inferior but rather to be valued. I mean, I'm sure some folks twist the notion. But that's what humans do.
Sander Rossel wrote: Both worked very hard for their entire career though, my dad started his own business after that and both could retire very early.
The good news is, we totally agree here. If the woman is like a doctor and the dude garbage man so what. A woman can still have a career and take the feminine role in the relationship.
I guess makes me a modern caveman.
Sander Rossel wrote: Those are my role models so you can see how I got things backwards (although from my point of view it's the rest of the world that's backwards)
One thing is for certain, people will always disagree. So ya know... good times.
Sander Rossel wrote: That's what's wrong with society today, can't take a joke or turn the other cheek
Amen, brother.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: not a feminazi.
Props on word usage btw 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
I'm interested in this.
Recently wondered if my class should be named "BaseMessage" or "MessageBase" and found a slight preference for the latter.
Same with enums, is it MessageTypes(Enum), MessageType(Enum), Messages(Enum) or Message(Enum)?
I believe Messages.TheType was Microsoft's preference and consistent with .NET.
However, I can't seem to find such recommendations in your link, only gender neutral speech 
|
|
|
|
|
(You think the way I do ... or I think the way you do).
MessageBase. (TextBox derives from TextBoxBase).
TypeOfMessage or MessageCode (ew). (a message can only be of one type at a time. I leave "Type" to classes. "Message" is a container).
message - Microsoft Style Guide | Microsoft Learn
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
|
|
|
|
|
I always like types to be singular.
Variables can be plural for lists and the like.
An enum is usually a list of things, but the Type should still be singular.
msg.setMessageType(MessageType msgType)
I have recently come to hate booleans and think they should all be replaced with more descriptive enums.
|
|
|
|
|
englebart wrote: I have recently come to hate booleans and think they should all be replaced with more descriptive enums.
When are the names not descriptive? Especially in comparison to other variables?
|
|
|
|
|
When I read code that looks like:
DoIt(false, true, false, false, false);
Then I have to look at the signature and line up the parameters. The parameter names could become an enum type with better names then true/false
|
|
|
|
|
That sounds like a problem with the method not the parameters. You would of course have the same problem with the following.
DoIt(1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
And at least some code UIs provide ways to document what the parameter names are.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I believe Messages
I don't care for that.
A database table is set. It makes no sense unless it is a set. So using the plural does not add anything to the meaning.
However a database table can contain sets (so a set of sets.) For example a table would have one or more phones for each customer. Thus a plural is appropriate so for example 'CustomerPhones'.
And if one is insisting that every table must be a plural then there is no way to name the example above.
I believe the same applies to an enum.
Little more dicey when attempting to name a collection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Not about to watch that.)
Do they have the dirt on it? Or does it involve butterflies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, butterflies are mentioned. Strangely enough not as the 'butterfly effect', even though it comes up in connection with chaos systems.
The video is worth watching.
|
|
|
|
|
The Analog Thing is cool, wish I knew a lot more about analog circuitry.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
