The Genii Forum

It’s somewhat pathetic that looking forward to the death of those in disagreement is the ultimate conclusion here.

I find it puzzling that anyone could study magic for very long yet fail to understand how the subtleties of language change people's perception of reality. How would magic work, if which words we use didn't matter?

Just sayin'

Brian Hebert wrote:So is the term cardwoman not correct? Would a woman find that offensive? Perhaps we should ask a woman. Are there any women here on the forum reading this that would like to have their say? There must be some that read this and shake their heads.

The term "cardwoman" is not incorrect, it's just not used. The general movement has been to eliminate language that specifies gender in favor of all-inclusive terms such as "actor."

Thus we have "magician," "prestidigitator," "cardworker," and so on. Note that there has never been a gender specific term for a female magician who does stage illusions, such as "illusionness." Both males and females have always been "illusionists."

In another niche area, the term "dominatrix" is commmon. It refers only to women. Is there a corresponding term for males who do the same type of thing?

Yes. Dom and Domme are two ways that those who take the top role in BDSM would identify themselves if they wanted to convey gender. I would think Dominatrix would be a version/extension of Dom which is short from Dominant. so it seems to parallel the actor/actress construction.

The BDSM community has long embraced gender neutral terms such as ‘top’ and bottom’ as indicators of the power role. Specific dynamics would be conveyed with more specialized terms, like Master(Mistress)/slave or Dom(me)/sub etc.

. . . Or so I’m told.

I can't speak for everyone, but my goal in this conversation is not to change the minds of people who argue to keep sexist language, but to influence the many people who don't post and who haven't made up their minds on the subject. I don't know the ratio of lurkers to posters on this thread, but if it's at all typical, there are many, many more people watching than posting.

In so many of these kinds of things, many if not most people follow the crowd. In the past, in magic, that has meant using sexist (and racist, etc.) language, because that's what everyone else was using. The more people who stand up for change in this area, the more newcomers are likely to adopt the new attitudes. In my experience, this is how fundamental change is achieved in society.

I would still like to see one of those so reticent to change offer a single example of what we lose by abandoning this term and what is gained by keepIng it.

It is unfathomable to me why they feel the need to cling to such antiquated words.

So a joke and a response to the joke have been deleted from this thread.

This is a perfect example of why predominantly old white men post to this board.

Of course this comment will be deleted soon as well. Sigh.

I think I'll go post some honest book reviews and prepare to be banned.

Peter Ross wrote:

Richard Kaufman wrote:It is neither inaccurate or irrelevant if it is applied to a man or men.

When there is no female equivalent, then the terms are exclusionary and inappropriate, which are worse.

We'll have more to discuss when a woman, transgender, genderfluid... decides to say how they'd like to be called.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:We'll have more to discuss when a woman, transgender, genderfluid... decides to say how they'd like to be called.

We already have an example from Laura London. She has stated (in the "Magic is Dead" book), that she prefers to be called a sleight of hand artist.

And just because no women have contributed to this thread, it should not preclude the discussion about updating the lexicon of magic from continuing to happen.

skmayhew wrote:So a joke and a response to the joke have been deleted from this thread.

This is a perfect example of why predominantly old white men post to this board.

Of course this comment will be deleted soon as well. Sigh.

I think I'll go post some honest book reviews and prepare to be banned.

I found the joke and reply to be counterproductive to the conversation. Don't be offended.

Threads of these tend to morph into a bunch of opinions, some straying pretty far from the original poster's question. I have read through many of the responses and there are couple of things that have become clear to me.

These days, change is coming at us all at warp speed. That is one thing I think we can all agree on. Language, like everything else is changing, also a given. However, let's not let certain things get lost in the shuffle (pun intended). Here is one definition of sexist.

sex·ist
/ˈseksist/Submit
adjective
1.
characterized by or showing prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.
"old-fashioned sexist attitudes"
noun
1.
a person with sexist views.
"I want to make it clear that I'm certainly not a sexist"

Now let's look at a snippet of a conversation in a post above:

"I can't speak for everyone, but my goal in this conversation is not to change the minds of people who argue to keep sexist language, but to influence the many people who don't post and who haven't made up their minds on the subject."

The issue I have with this is the assumption that "Cardman" is somehow sexist. I would argue it isn't. Richard Kaufman used it in the magazine and was called out for it. Why? Because Mr. Ross believes it is a negative. He believes it recognizes men exclusively and therefore excluded all women. I disagree. In context, Mr. Kaufman was describing a card magician who happened to be a man, hence "Cardman". If he were describing a female, I'm sure he would have chosen another descriptive. So to me, it is not so much that some people support the use of sexist language so much as wanting to preserve the right of an author to use a term that aptly describes his or her subject.

Now the definition above did say stereotyping and discrimination. What about that? Well, if you read on, it says "typically against women, on the basis of sex. I would argue that Richard's writing did nothing of the sort. The word "against" is critical. Like I said in my earlier post, some folks ascribe motive where there is none.

So let me say something else about language. If you use a gender neutral descriptive in a sentence, unless there are other clues there is no way to tell whether the subject is male or female. But if you say "fireman" in a sentence, it is inferred that the person is male. I think there is value to that. Especially if it is a male! So what I'm saying is if the gender doesn't matter or is unknown, firefighter is fine, but when you know it is a dude, there is no reason not to use fireman. I doubt many of the courageous firewomen on the job will have an issue with it.

Some folks seem to enjoy separating people into groups for various purposes while other times lumping them together when the mood strikes.

When and if language becomes so sanitized as to make every person on the planet "comfortable", I think we'll regret it. Just as cursive is not being taught in many classrooms today. Who writes anyways, with all of the keyboards out there? Same thing was said about the calculator and math but I see students lined up to take algebra still.

Just because some folks like to hang on to the past doesn't mean that their views are less important than those who criticize them.

1) if attached to a name, ‘cardman’ offers no additional information not already conveyed by the name - in all but rare situations.

2) ‘cardman’ as a concept is more than just a male who handles cards. It speaks to a condition of recognized expertise. This expertise can be achieved, in theory, by any person of any gender. So to have a title - which is what cardman is mostly used for - that effectively eliminates over half the potential card’men’ out there seems foolish.

It would be helpful if those determined to hang on to the past had a valid reason - or hell, ANY reason for doing so.

As of yet, none have been offered.

Ray J wrote:So to me, it is not so much that some people support the use of sexist language so much as wanting to preserve the right of an author to use a term that aptly describes his or her subject.

How does "cardman" more aptly describe the subject than card magician or card expert? When RK writes, "This type of gimmick and handling is preferred by modern cardmen,” who are these cardmen? I'm seriously asking.

Ray J wrote:Just because some folks like to hang on to the past doesn't mean that their views are less important than those who criticize them.

It depends on what stuff from the past you're hanging onto.

@Brad; reasons include (but who's to decide upon validity?) inertia, habit, change provoked by outside interests taken as affront, unwillingness to participate in (what's the opposite of woke?) political correctness... Maybe other places, other peoples, other cultures have some useful terms we can learn.

the phrase tempest in a teapot comes to mind here.

Brad Henderson wrote:It would be helpful if those determined to hang on to the past had a valid reason - or hell, ANY reason for doing so.

As of yet, none have been offered.

Not true, you just don't agree. I pointed out "Cardman" refers to a man who uses cards, specializes in card magic, etc. There is value in calling him out as a man and it means no offense to women either by exclusion or derisiveness.

Intent matters.

RK is not sexist as far as I know. Some are suggesting his use of the word makes him so. I say not.

Peter Ross wrote:

Ray J wrote:So to me, it is not so much that some people support the use of sexist language so much as wanting to preserve the right of an author to use a term that aptly describes his or her subject.

How does "cardman" more aptly describe the subject than card magician or card expert? When RK writes, "This type of gimmick and handling is preferred by modern cardmen,” who are these cardmen? I'm seriously asking.

Ray J wrote:Just because some folks like to hang on to the past doesn't mean that their views are less important than those who criticize them.

It depends on what stuff from the past you're hanging onto.

Peter you can't pick the argument. I said cardMAN in reference to RK's reference to a specific man. CardMEN is different, yet I still have no issue with it. I believe woMen are included whenever mankind or workmanlike or yes cardmen are used. Should they be wopersons now, or wopeople?

The second point about depending upon what stuff is hung onto implies there is a judgement coming. It is implied you will be the judge. I'm fine judging by myself.

Ray J wrote:

Brad Henderson wrote:It would be helpful if those determined to hang on to the past had a valid reason - or hell, ANY reason for doing so.

As of yet, none have been offered.

Not true, you just don't agree. I pointed out "Cardman" refers to a man who uses cards, specializes in card magic, etc. There is value in calling him out as a man and it means no offense to women either by exclusion or derisiveness.

Intent matters.

RK is not sexist as far as I know. Some are suggesting his use of the word makes him so. I say not.

No. You’re wrong. “Cardmanl historically has not been used to designate merely a man who does card tricks. Quite the contrary. It speaks to a level of expertise and focus. Otherwise any magician who did a card trick and who had a censored would be a cardman. But we don’t bestow that title to anyone with a censored who does card tricks.

But thanks for playing.

Jonathan Townsend wrote:@Brad; reasons include (but who's to decide upon validity?) inertia, habit, change provoked by outside interests taken as affront, unwillingness to participate in (what's the opposite of woke?) political correctness... Maybe other places, other peoples, other cultures have some useful terms we can learn.

So nothing related to the actual use or meaning of the term. Just stubbornness.

I can see that.

But should the rest of us be held back because a few aren’t willing to move into the inevitable future?

How are "the rest of us" held back by the writing habits of a few? Many, perhaps most, in our generation have already moved on to use and prefer inclusive language.

What Jon said. It's way beyond magicians at this point. See latinx

Brad Henderson wrote:

Ray J wrote:

Brad Henderson wrote:It would be helpful if those determined to hang on to the past had a valid reason - or hell, ANY reason for doing so.

As of yet, none have been offered.

Not true, you just don't agree. I pointed out "Cardman" refers to a man who uses cards, specializes in card magic, etc. There is value in calling him out as a man and it means no offense to women either by exclusion or derisiveness.

Intent matters.

RK is not sexist as far as I know. Some are suggesting his use of the word makes him so. I say not.

No. You’re wrong. “Cardmanl historically has not been used to designate merely a man who does card tricks. Quite the contrary. It speaks to a level of expertise and focus. Otherwise any magician who did a card trick and who had a censored would be a cardman. But we don’t bestow that title to anyone with a censored who does card tricks.

But thanks for playing.

I think you are way off base Brad. I cannot fathom how exorcised you are about this. I obviously didn't mean Uncle Fred doing the 21 card trick makes him a cardman.

You knew that. End.

Brad Henderson wrote:1) if attached to a name, ‘cardman’ offers no additional information not already conveyed by the name - in all but rare situations.

This would depend on the name. If we do not limit our selves to traditional male names like Frank, the rare situations you refer to are not as rare as one would think. For example some unisex names are: Addison, Adrian, Alex, Arden, Aubrey, August, Bailey, Blair, Blaine, Brett, Britton, Cameron, Carey, Casey, Charlie, Dakota, Dallas, Dana, Devon, Devin, Drew, Elliott, Emery, Evelyn, Finley, Frankie, Gray, Grey, Hayden, Jamie, Jesse, Jessie, Jude, Kai, Kelly, Kennedy, Kit, Lane, London, Madison, Mackenzie, Marley, Marlow, Marlowe, Morgan, Payton, Peyton, Quinn, Reece, Reese, Robin, Rory, Rowan, River, Scout, Shiloh, Sidney, Sydney, Skye, Sloane, Tate, Taylor, Teagan, Tiernan, Tracy, Tyler, Windsor, Winter, Wyatt, ....

Since these names can be used for both men and women, it would be reasonable and informative to refer to a male performer of card tricks who answers to one of these names as a "cardman".

In researching sexist language there is a great deal of sound advice. For example: "Do not take gender-inclusivity to extremes; each specific individual has a gender, and can be referred to in that way."

Jackpot wrote:
Since these names can be used for both men and women, it would be reasonable and informative to refer to a male performer of card tricks who answers to one of these names as a "cardman".

If that is so, how do we refer to the woman performer of card tricks on your unisex names list?

Jackpot wrote:In researching sexist language there is a great deal of sound advice. For example: "Do not take gender-inclusivity to extremes; each specific individual has a gender, and can be referred to in that way."

Again, if that is so, what is the female equivalent of cardman? How does "This type of gimmick and handling is preferred by modern cardmen,” refer to both genders? The answer is it doesn't. Hidden within the contemporary use of that outdated term is the assumption that card magic experts are men - cardmen.

Ray J wrote:

Brad Henderson wrote:

Ray J wrote:
Not true, you just don't agree. I pointed out "Cardman" refers to a man who uses cards, specializes in card magic, etc. There is value in calling him out as a man and it means no offense to women either by exclusion or derisiveness.

Intent matters.

RK is not sexist as far as I know. Some are suggesting his use of the word makes him so. I say not.

No. You’re wrong. “Cardmanl historically has not been used to designate merely a man who does card tricks. Quite the contrary. It speaks to a level of expertise and focus. Otherwise any magician who did a card trick and who had a censored would be a cardman. But we don’t bestow that title to anyone with a censored who does card tricks.

But thanks for playing.

I think you are way off base Brad. I cannot fathom how exorcised you are about this. I obviously didn't mean Uncle Fred doing the 21 card trick makes him a cardman.

You knew that. End.

So you have made my point. Thank you.

But tell me again how we shouldn’t care that cardman is an inaccurate and largely meaningless word while at the same time being very defensive about the meaning and interpretation of words.

That was a hoot.

And just fyi, you can’t ‘end’ what you never managed to really even begin.

Brad, I have read many of your posts on this and other threads. You seem to love stirring things up. I have seen you given a time out and admonished to cool it. I think now is one of those times.

I think I made many valid points. Many of which neither you nor Peter chose to address. You both picked low hanging fruit.

This forum is mainly frequented by white males and most happen to be of a certain age. That minorities and women don't participate is hardly surprising. And it has nothing to do with the use of the term cardmen.

RK described GH as one of the best cardmen in the world. Some have defended this use of "cardmen" on the basis of accuracy; that it is a simple, factually true statement.

But I don’t think it was accurate; in particular, I don’t think it represents what RK really thinks about GH.

I believe that GH is one of the best card magicians in the world of any gender, and I am quite sure RK agrees with me. To say that he is one of the best “male card magicians” in the world may be a factually true statement, but it does not express this view. It would be like RK saying that GH is one of the best magicians named “Guy” in the world. It’s accurate, but it does not communicate RK’s opinion, or mine.

If you assume that only men matter when discussing magic, this distinction probably seems pretty pointless. Another thing that may happen if you assume that only men matter when discussing magic is that women may not be so interested in discussing magic with you.

Pete, I wrote exactly what I meant. Don't pretend to read my mind.

Ray J wrote:Brad, I have read many of your posts on this and other threads. You seem to love stirring things up. I have seen you given a time out and admonished to cool it. I think now is one of those times.

I think I made many valid points. Many of which neither you nor Peter chose to address. You both picked low hanging fruit.

This forum is mainly frequented by white males and most happen to be of a certain age. That minorities and women don't participate is hardly surprising. And it has nothing to do with the use of the term cardmen.

I addressed your “points’ specifically. But please, call for a time out when you can’t defend your position.

I’ll repeat it for you.

Saying Guy Hollingworth is a card man adds no content or information of relevance. He’s Guy Hollingworth. We know he is a male. So telling us he is a card MAN adds nothing. Further even if we didn’t know he was a man, what relevance is a person’s gender to their expertise in card magic?

Second, cardman speaks to expertise and focus. You deny this - but back it up with nothing but your own pronouncement. But that ignores that fact that it is used as such. So - in desperation - you claim it only describes someone who works with cards, except for Those times when it is clearly NOT used merely To describe someone who works with cards

Third, you claim someone called RK sexist. Nice straw man. No one did. The language is sexist in this case. Not the person. .

So you offer nothing to substantiate your claim and you can’t keep your line of reasoning straight.

Anyone smell Keye’s fermented bucket of rain water sitting nearby?

Jackpot wrote:The Academy Awards, Tony Awards and others have not only had a hard time abandoning "actress", but have not abandoned this precise noun which best describes the person being honored.

It might be useful in this to remember that Linda Hunt won Best Supporting Actress for playing a male character in The Year of Living Dangerously. Actors, no matter their own gender, play character's who have gender, even if it is reassigned (or portrayed).

But an important distinction is that there is no award for Best Sound Editing by a Person with Ovaries. Technical awards are genderless.

Is this about the role or the sex of the actor playing the role? Do we want awards broken down to "best actor playing the role of a fantasy transgendered character"?

Pete McCabe wrote:RK described GH as one of the best cardmen in the world. Some have defended this use of "cardmen" on the basis of accuracy; that it is a simple, factually true statement.

But I don’t think it was accurate; ...

That’s a great point.

The phrase “GH is one of the best cardMEN in the world” is logically equivalent to the phrase “Excluding women, GH is one of the best card magicians in the world.”

I can’t imagine anyone being discomposed about that.

Bill Duncan wrote:But an important distinction is that there is no award for Best Sound Editing by a Person with Ovaries. Technical awards are genderless.

I'm only guessing, but I suspect that has to do with who's seen on the big screen. While you see the actors (both male and female), you don't see the technical people. Awards for Best Actor and Best Actress were given at the inaugural event in 1929 while an award for Best Sound Engineering wasn't presented until 1963.

As there were only 7 or 8 awards given at the early Oscars, perhaps splitting the acting category into genders allowed for a greater number of people who could be recognized. This is a reasonable conclusion since Chaplin was up for three awards for the same movie and they removed him from the running (giving him a special award) intentionally to allow more people to be honored.

It seems the history of the Oscars has been to expand to recognize a greater number of people. Having two actors recognized makes more since than just one.

And in other news, apparently this sitcom is in pre-production: https://deadline.com/2019/02/like-magic ... 202560174/

I hope she does card tricks...

Richard Kaufman wrote:Pete, I wrote exactly what I meant. Don't pretend to read my mind.

Richard, if I have misunderstood, or mischaracterized your opinion, I am sorry.

Please help me to understand. Are you saying that you specifically meant to exclude women from the point you were making? In other words, are you saying that your use of the term cardmen was deliberately chosen, so that the claim about GH's ability would be only relative to other men?

If that is the case, can I ask why you meant to limit your meaning in this way? Do you think there are enough female card magicians of sufficient skill that GH would not be considered one of the best card magicians in the world without that restriction? Or was there some other reason you wanted to limit your assessment to male card magicians only?

Jackpot wrote:

Bill Duncan wrote:But an important distinction is that there is no award for Best Sound Editing by a Person with Ovaries. Technical awards are genderless.

I'm only guessing, but I suspect that has to do with who's seen on the big screen. While you see the actors (both male and female), you don't see the technical people. Awards for Best Actor and Best Actress were given at the inaugural event in 1929 while an award for Best Sound Engineering wasn't presented until 1963.

Sorry, but I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.