Why not just say “he”?

A friend posted a note to a professional bulletin board I frequent asking for artist / design recommendations. My friend said, “In this case, s/he needs to be able ….”

My friend is a very nice guy and was just trying to be polite, but when I saw this I thought, wait a minute. The enlightened tell us there are lots of other alternatives to he or she, such as y/ey, per, sie, they, ve and zie. So what the heck should my friend have written to try to be inclusive?

He could have said “the artist needs to be able,” thus avoiding the pronoun problem altogether. Or … he could have just said “he,” and all sensible people would realize “he” doesn’t mean it has to be a man.

When it pays not to be deferential

As we sort through all the details of my parents’ estate, I’m very pleased and fortunate that my siblings are all easy going and deferential. There are no fights over things. Who gets what, how we handle this or that — it’s all been quite easy because none of want to argue over things.

I’ve often wondered recently why we’re that way. The answer is (as always) some combination of nature and nurture, but it gets me thinking.

Imagine two cultures with different approaches to being deferential or assertive. Imagine them however you like — men vs. women, Yale vs. Harvard, lawyers vs. businessmen, Englishmen vs. Germans, people who play sports vs. people who don’t …. It doesn’t matter. Whatever stew of nature and nurture created this, people in one group are generally more assertive than people in the other group.

In a very short time, the more assertive culture would probably come to dominate certain aspects of society. They might be disproportionately represented in management, or small business ownership, or net worth. They might also have higher blood pressure and a shorter life expectancy.

Is that a problem to be solved?

I say that any attempt to solve such a “problem” would cause more harm than good. The cure would be worse than the disease.

Desperately searching for something to fix

I just saw this headline: “Kamala Harris: Voting Rights Is The Fight Of Our Lifetime.”

What kind of a person is motivated by a statement like that?

This is “the fight of our lifetime” — as if it’s everybody’s duty to go around looking for the right fight.

A lot of assumptions are packed into that attitude.

They’re the sort of people who, in the 1970s, were upset they weren’t around to protest in the 1960s. Life is one long struggle session to “improve” things, and they — the right-thinking — are just the people to do it.

The urgent need for contentment in a product-rich environment

We are surrounded by enormous wealth, which is a great blessing. We can get amazing stuff for almost nothing, delivered to our house quickly.

But this blessing comes with its own challenges. For me, one of the challenges is buyer’s remorse. E.g., I get a new pair of water shoes (for kayaking and such), and then over the next 12 months I see 25 different brands that I might like better.

Someone might be tempted to think that if you do your research before you buy, this won’t be a problem. But that’s not true. First, you can’t possibly do enough research, and second, new products are coming on the market all the time.

The solution, I think, is contentment. We have to learn that good enough is good enough. Or, as the old guys in Second Hand Lions said, learn to do without.