There's no problem with acknowledging a correlation, where one exists, and it must be said that correlations are often great fun. If frequently useless.
However, not to sound like a living cliché, correlation != causation.
So sure it is OK to acknowledge a correlation. The problem if there is one arises sometime after one allows that correlation to inform one's choice of vocabulary ("so good a basketball player, you could almost believe he was black", "Jewish rich", "stingy as a Dutchman").
The reason why this is a problem is not to do with your personal choice to make an (undoubtedly wry and probably terrifically apposite) reference to an observation that you may have made... the reason is that language outlives the context in which it was coined. Which means that, much later on, people not armed with that particular piece of understanding are going to be left wondering wtf that was about. Whereas perhaps you yourself were being incredibly witty and insightful, the only artifact that will be around in a couple of years is the actual word/phrase.
I agree with your assessment of where the sexism comes in. I just think it's hopelessly optimistic to expect to be able to frame a set of observations concerning fan behaviour, using language that relies entirely on comparison with perceived gender differences, or tendancies if you will, without someone eventually taking the golden opportunity to overlay their perceptions of relative value on top of that. Of course, I probably think that because I'm completely oversensitive on the topic of gender, ahahahaha, and not at all because I may think that describing group (a) using metaphor relating to stereotype (b) is just an invitation to hours of red-herring conversation.
I'm not trying to pretend that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is worth taking literally; the use of language allowing sexism doesn't in my view necessarily mean that people are forced to think it - but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no influence between the language you use and the way that you view things, since there quite clearly is. So why waste one's time relating something to gender, when the concept in question could be described clearly and succinctly in one word without resorting to evocative and inaccurate gender-based tomfoolery?
Answer: Why, because it sounds better that way. Why? Because of all the baggage that metaphor is carrying with it. And there we are back at step one, regarding a loaded metaphor, which we will then promptly explain away as the result of innocent observation, as though there's such a thing as innocent observation.
Horse. Dead. Flogging A. Homo sapiens, you can keep it.
no subject
There's no problem with acknowledging a correlation, where one exists, and it must be said that correlations are often great fun. If frequently useless.
However, not to sound like a living cliché, correlation != causation.
So sure it is OK to acknowledge a correlation. The problem if there is one arises sometime after one allows that correlation to inform one's choice of vocabulary ("so good a basketball player, you could almost believe he was black", "Jewish rich", "stingy as a Dutchman").
The reason why this is a problem is not to do with your personal choice to make an (undoubtedly wry and probably terrifically apposite) reference to an observation that you may have made... the reason is that language outlives the context in which it was coined. Which means that, much later on, people not armed with that particular piece of understanding are going to be left wondering wtf that was about. Whereas perhaps you yourself were being incredibly witty and insightful, the only artifact that will be around in a couple of years is the actual word/phrase.
I agree with your assessment of where the sexism comes in. I just think it's hopelessly optimistic to expect to be able to frame a set of observations concerning fan behaviour, using language that relies entirely on comparison with perceived gender differences, or tendancies if you will, without someone eventually taking the golden opportunity to overlay their perceptions of relative value on top of that. Of course, I probably think that because I'm completely oversensitive on the topic of gender, ahahahaha, and not at all because I may think that describing group (a) using metaphor relating to stereotype (b) is just an invitation to hours of red-herring conversation.
I'm not trying to pretend that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is worth taking literally; the use of language allowing sexism doesn't in my view necessarily mean that people are forced to think it - but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no influence between the language you use and the way that you view things, since there quite clearly is. So why waste one's time relating something to gender, when the concept in question could be described clearly and succinctly in one word without resorting to evocative and inaccurate gender-based tomfoolery?
Answer: Why, because it sounds better that way. Why? Because of all the baggage that metaphor is carrying with it. And there we are back at step one, regarding a loaded metaphor, which we will then promptly explain away as the result of innocent observation, as though there's such a thing as innocent observation.
Horse. Dead. Flogging A. Homo sapiens, you can keep it.