Brad Henderson wrote:Speaking as you are as an expert on why women make choices they do?
Mr. Henderson, while others have, I have not claimed to be a spokesman for women.
Jackpot wrote:There are many reasons women are less attracted to card magic than men are. The term "cardman" when referring to a man who does card tricks is not one of them.
Brad Henderson wrote:I have taught magic to young people for over 30 years. I have had several young females tell me they loved magic but never thought they could be a magician because they were females. .
And was the major reason they felt this way was because a man who performs cards tricks is referred to as a cardman?
As I said, they didn’t think they could be a magician because they were a girl. They didn’t see girls as magicians and they never heard magicians referee to as girls. So yes - the fact that card magicians are called exclusively card MEN does suggest to them that it isn’t something they should/could do.
Brad Henderson wrote:Do you not think Our language choices impact theIr perception?
Yes, but the language choice being so stridently attacked is not a major cause to their perception. [\quote]
And you know this how? Either it helps or it hurts. Either the language is accurate or it isn’t. Calling a group of people ‘men’ is exclusionary. Gender has nothing to do with magic so injecting it into our jargon adds nothing.
Brad Henderson wrote:Andrew has half the equation - if our language will change the more women get into magic, then it must be equally true that our language reflects the condition which excludes them now.
I agree that there are conditions that exclude women. But that is not the issue which has been raised. We are being told that the term cardman (when used to describe a man who performs card tricks) is a huge obstacle which prevents women from participating in magic.
Who said huge? Seems to me you are trying to erect a straw man here.
Let try a different tact - give me a single reason why we should keep card man/men in our lexicon? It doesn’t accurately describe the population of people who do card tricks, and it injects an element of gender which is irrelevant to the issue. So what is gained by keeping it? What is lost by abandoning it?
Brad Henderson wrote:It seems some are ok with waiting for the women to come in and clean up our mess.
"Our mess" is simply the term cardman? There are much greater issues.
So your ‘argument’ is we should pick up our underwear because the floor needs vacuuming?
If we arent willing to clean up the little things, how will the room ever get clean?
Brad Henderson wrote:If we aren’t willing to make changes now - why would they want to enter the field in the first place. How inviting are many of the positions expressed here?
Now you're getting warmer.
Remove your hands from over your eyes and you might see I’m more than warm. If we aren’t willing to include them with our words, why would they believe we might be willing to include them in our actions?
Brad Henderson wrote:It’s funny how a bunch of men get so upset at the idea that their ideas may no longer be welcome in the field and are protesting as loudly as they - imagine how it must feel from the other side when you have never been welcomed equally.
And it's ironic how a bunch of men get so upset when it's pointed out that their ideas may not actually be the answer to the problem.
May not. But that suggests that it also may. So what’s the harm in trying.
The word doesn’t accurately reflect the body of people who do card tricks and injects an element of gender irrelevant to the discussion - so again I ask, what is gained by keeping it and what is lost by losing it?
Clearly things still need improvement. Why abandon a possible - if partial - solution just because it won’t fix everything?