Don't look for me much on the big news sites, I skim through them, but rarely find much that is worth commenting on. As a young son once said "We don't watch TV news, dad won't let us watch violence programs." I still don't.
Interests are religion, marketing theory (that is not an oxymoron,) Advertizing, digital photography, APOD, and historically, rocket science.
The literary version is found at Thinking On the Blue Roads
The raw data for which can be found on The Blue Roads of Thinking.
Back in the mid 20th Century the feminist movement tried with some
success to ban the generic use of "men" and "man" as in "All men are
created equal." In current vernacular they have succeeded quite well.
In some Churches led by UUs they even succeeded in removing male
references to God in large part by eliminating the pronoun altogether,
resulting in some rather weird hymnody with repetitive use of God and
some strangled syntax to eliminate references directly to God. I was frequently involved in God discussions at that time and found the
effort of avoiding the Pronouns for God too much effort and found the
shock of using Hesh and Herm in reference to God a useful result in my
discussions. Typically it generated the assertion that God was male and
that the proper pronouns were He and His. This generally derailed the
discussion into a useful discussion of God's testosterone levels. When I came to social media I continued the practice and for a long time
linked on the words to a discussion on the Gender and Sexuality
boards. When I began to see "hesh" and "hir" or "herm" in the popular
literature without explanation, (I admit to noticing each time) I quit
linking particularly on atheist and the UU boards as everyone could figure
out what I meant without the link from context although fundamentalist
Christians and language conservatives continue to protest its use in
reference to God. I also eliminated the gender specific pronouns from my vocabulary as a general pronoun and use "hesh" and "herm" as my pronouns of choice whether the gender of the referent is known or not. This is particularly useful in calling attention to gender specific terms like "Actor," Waitress," or "Chairman." Traditionalists be damned. They need their consciousness raised. If it jars their
reading or hearing of the term, they still need the consciousness raising.
More recently I have been using the terms when the referent is of known
gender but the gender is not relevant in context. Reference to the
author of a scientific paper was beat into my head by my then wife whose
papers in a male chauvinist academic profession were referred to as
"HER" papers as if they were therefore less important than "his" papers.
They in fact were less important than "his" papers, even though in
general they were significantly better. It is no accident that women
in science generally publish with initials only. If men are offended by having to think about gender specific nouns, too bad. They need to. Particularly the sexist males. They can be sure I intended to insult them with the gender inclusive pronoun. As for the ESL issue, some languages particularly Asian languages are
non-sexist in that the pronouns are non-specific. I live with Asians
and have become used to hearing "she" and "her" being used as a pronoun
for anybody. I don't bother to correct them as they are on my side. I
suspect Asians would have more trouble with "he" and "she" in writing
and speech than they would be with "hesh" and "herm." Other languages are inherently sexist. I was at the installation of a
new department head who couldn't even introduce his staff because his native
language didn't have a word for a female colleague. He did all right
with the men, but the female who outranked the men caused an
embarrassing for all search for an appropriate honorific.