The Genii Forum

Brad (Jeffers),
This one seems to be an expert on gender studies.

Coincidentally, I presume, today's daily quote from the Economist Espresso app:
"Time changes all things; there is no reason why language should escape this universal law."
- Ferdinand de Saussure

I suggest that "women's socks" should simply be called "socks." Plain black women's knee high socks are much softer and more comfortable to wear than "men's socks" while remaining relatively thin, and are for the most part undetectable.

JFC...

Use magician. It's gender neutral, and if you are writing about card tricks the card part is implied. If your reader doesn't realize that "she" is a female card worker then you're prose needs work, not a special new word to describe something that has nothing to do with the subject.

Is there a special name for men who knit, or women who do origami?

Is there a special name for men who knit

Knit-wit?

Bill Duncan wrote:Is there a special name for men who knit,

Rosey Grier

I just got round to this thread, and while I have no desire to drop into the linguistic debate that is raging, I'm smiling with the strange notion of Charlie Miller exclaiming 'I'm a dice person' in a room full of gamblers...

Bill Duncan wrote: Is there a special name for...women who do origami?

Fold-her.

What about a male card magician who performs in "drag"?

I like card-man, and will continue to use it.
I despise being "schooled" by internet pundits who believe they have some sort of inherent positioning from which to teach me a lesson about language use.

Only an idiot would ever call a women who handles a deck of cards with skill a "cardman" to her face, thus (for me at least) the entire argument falls flat.

If you can demonstrate to me with any sort of accuracy that a 10 year old girl, driven to become a magician, has been negatively affected by RK's use of the word "card-man" in his book (with or without the dash) ... I'll eat my close-up mat.

Ricky Jay was a card-man
Dai Vernon was a card-man
Erdnase was a card-man
Malini was a card-man

Julie Eng is expert with playing cards, but she's called herself a Magiciene, so I'll not presume to be the man who steps up and tells her what she should be called.

Fay Presto hasn't commented on what she'd like to be called, and I fail to see any standing I have that makes it "OK" for me to tell her.

Magic Babe Ning hasn't yet stated publicly what she'd like to be called, so it would be wrong for me (or you) to tell her.

Dorothy Dietrich is an illusionist and escape artist, she'd not a card-man, and probably not a cardiste (but she hasn't said out loud what she'd like to be called, so probably not a good idea for a bunch of men in the Genii Forum to tell her.

Princess Tenko isn't on record as saying she was uncomfortable with the term card-man, and doesn't seem to be the author of any documents, posts, stories, or blogs that say she'd like to see it removed from the lexicon.

So much hand wringing and presumed authority whereby men tell the world "how it's going to be" in terms of how to reference women.
If any of the women noted above (or any women magicians for that matter) weigh in to the subject, I'll take great care in listening to what they say, and may reformulate my opinion as a result.
A bunch of men in the Genii Forum telling me (and others) how to use the English language as it relates to women ... not a chance in he_l.

I have a 20 year old daughter, and I'll let her tell me what she wants to be called, and I'll stand nose to nose with any gentlemen who would presume to tell her (or me) what she'll be called, and further tell him why his opinion is worth absolutely squat.

I am a Card-Dude.

Roger M, no one is trying to "school" you on anything here. What I am suggesting, not demanding (I did say, "please"), is that when writing about about magic we be conscious of male-centric terminology that originated in a time when society was less enlightened about gender equality.

In magic, like in technology, gaming, and other current subjects that skew toward male participation, there are ways to help move those subjects toward better inclusion. Isn't that what we want? Language use is one of those ways. I see the same thing when I teach STEM to students. Language defaults to the male pronouns when talking and writing about robots for example. "Code him so he moves forward fifty centimeters." I shouldn't have to wait for a girl to speak up and tell me she's offended or uncomfortable by my always referring to the robot as a "he/him." So I try to use gender-neutral terminology or refer to the robot as "she/her" when I can. Is that something to get up in arms about? I believe these subtle and admittedly small changes can help over time.

You can protest that as a man, I need to keep my mouth shut and let women speak for themselves. That's one way to go. But from what I've been hearing as I listen to the current conversation on a broader level, is that women would like us men to speak up (occasionally) as well. So that's why I try to adjust my language in my technology classes, and that's why I made (what I thought was) a modest suggestion about moving away from "cardman" in contemporary usage. I apologize if I was more adamant than I should have been.

Magic Babe Ning hasn't yet stated publicly what she'd like to be called, so it would be wrong for me (or you) to tell her.

I just asked Ning, and she said lately she is the Mind Magic Mistress. Not much wriggle room with that one.

last night on my flight into columbus the flight attendant (formerly known as stewardess) addressed those of us in the exit row as ‘you guys’.

The woman sitting next to me shrugged and said ‘hello?!?’. She was not a guy. and while i’m sure the flight attendant (formerly known as stewardess) meant no harm in her casual use of language it did have the effect of seeming to exclude her from the conversation.

I’ve taught magic to young people for over 30 years now. Many times young women have told me that they never thought they could be magicians because all magicians were male.

So the question becomes - if we are interested in diverse minds and voices informing our artform, does the use of language which reinforces prevailing stereotypes about our field help or hinder?

And if all it takes to eliminate the possibility of hindrance is merely being more thoughtful, accurate, and inclusive in our language, why not?

what do we preserve by not changing?
what can we gain by change?

Take a rest now, and like I said ... when I want to know what women think about something, I'll ask (and listen to) women ... not some anonymous dude on a web forum PC rampage

Roger M. wrote: ... when I want to know what women think about something...

Ha!

peter is hardly anonymous. He is known to many of us. He and i hung out at the castle just last month. He was brought in for their halloween member perk.

Those trying to constantly show how woke they are have problems, from my perspective.

femag

Brad Henderson wrote:last night on my flight into columbus the flight attendant (formerly known as stewardess) addressed those of us in the exit row as ‘you guys’.

The woman sitting next to me shrugged and said ‘hello?!?’. She was not a guy. and while i’m sure the flight attendant (formerly known as stewardess) meant no harm in her casual use of language it did have the effect of seeming to exclude her from the conversation.

As a rule, I try and be polite to strangers and to people I know unless I have a considered reason not to, so if I had done something like the flight attendant here, I probably would have apologized and move on.

But really, who's at fault here? The attendant, who used a word that has two separate meanings, one of which is "a group of people, without regard to their sex", and is reported as such by major dictionaries (see 1.b., see 2., see B2) ? Or the woman who took offense, despite the fact that none was intended, and who seemed to intentionally misinterpret the word to make a point? She excluded herself from the conversation.

Many times young women have told me that they never thought they could be magicians because all magicians were male.

So the question becomes - if we are interested in diverse minds and voices informing our artform, does the use of language which reinforces prevailing stereotypes about our field help or hinder?

If it is our intent to draw women/girls into magic (and whether we should do so, or wait for them to come in on their own is a question for another day), then "cardmen" as referring to card magicians in general is far from the first problem we should address. Michael Finney has every right to do his act his way, and he's certainly been successful doing so, but the behavior it exemplifies, and the dynamic of "creepy magician"/"spectator/assistant who exists to be sexually objectified" drives away far more women than cavalier language.
(And it doesn't even have to be so overt as that. The Lone Woman Attending Magic Convention Who Gets Called as a Spectator for Every Trick is a trope for a reason. If this was her first convention, it may well also be her last, no matter how respectful otherwise the magicians were.)

Conju-Gal

Do serious card women actually even exist?

I don't mean a chick who performs card tricks. I mean a full on Marlophile style card nerd like you get over on The Second Deal forum?

Somebody who enjoys spending hours researching and debating the ins and outs on the Shank/Zarrow shuffle controversy, for example. Or arguing over who Erdnase was.

I used to be one of those nerds. But not any more. Still - when I was one of them it felt like a very "male" way of spending your time. I am just curious if this is a particularly "male" thing to enjoy. And not something we will ever see much with women?

Also - I never see women creating much magic. For instance - my favourite female inventor of magic was actually born a guy.

Terri Rogers.

Listening and being inclusive is different from gender bashing or political correctness. Gender studies was around in the 1970s and went mainstream media by the 1990s. The Simpsons had an episode around that topic a few weeks ago.

Fauxsplaining might still offer opportunities for comedy .

Do serious card women actually even exist?

Of people I've met, Laura London and Billy Kidd come to mind, as well as Ines and Alba. Of people I've not met, Lauren Cohen.

I'm sure there are more. The question is more whether you have met any.

skmayhew wrote:

Roger M. wrote: ... when I want to know what women think about something...

Ha!

Indeed, editing both ends of a sentence has the potential to change the meaning (i do it myself if it suits my purpose).

Quite seriously though, I'll reinforce the original thought once again.
When there are questions about issues affecting women, or questions as to what a women's opinion might be on a certain topic, I'll take the answers only from a women.
I'm not interested in a bunch of white men presuming to tell women how they're to live their lives, what they're to believe, or what they're to be (or not to be) referenced as.

As the father of an independent, confident 20 year old daughter ... those same white men who presume to tell women (and the world) "how it's going to be" honestly make me want to puke.

cardsmith

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the terminology or ideas of an individual, whether in spoken or written form, it's a marvelous thing that, in the USA and other democracies, freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right.

Some random notes ...

Belinda Sinclair refers to herself as a magicienne. One of her shows is titled "A Magicienne Among The Spirits."

Though she's skilled in another aspects of conjuring, Suzanne could make a living with just a deck of cards. (She refers to herself as a magician.)

Anyone else expecting Graham Chapman to appear and close this topic because it has gotten too silly?

It's amazing how hard some will work not to understand something fairly plain. I believe Peter's point, which he has stated repeatedly, can be succinctly put this way:

When writing about a specific person, it's appropriate to use whatever term best describes them. Charlie Miller therefore could appropriately be described as a dice man.

When writing about card magic in general, in describing effects and who performs them, using the term "cardman" excludes 50% of the population. This can be easily avoided by using gender neutral terms, and so if one of our goals is to be as inclusive as possible in our art, this moves the needle in the right direction.

Max Maven's effect, The Thinking Cardman, for example, loses nothing by being called The Thinking Card Expert, except the possibility of alienating female-identified magicians. Peter isn't advocating to retroactively change the wording of published works — neither do I — but is simply suggesting that, moving forward, we should consider using more inclusive language.

This seems so easy to agree with that I don't really understand the resistance on display here…

Luigi Anzivino wrote:It's amazing how hard some will work not to understand something fairly plain. I believe Peter's point, which he has stated repeatedly, can be succinctly put this way:

When writing about a specific person, it's appropriate to use whatever term best describes them. Charlie Miller therefore could appropriately be described as a dice man.

When writing about card magic in general, in describing effects and who performs them, using the term "cardman" excludes 50% of the population. This can be easily avoided by using gender neutral terms, and so if one of our goals is to be as inclusive as possible in our art, this moves the needle in the right direction.

Max Maven's effect, The Thinking Cardman, for example, loses nothing by being called The Thinking Card Expert, except the possibility of alienating female-identified magicians. Peter isn't advocating to retroactively change the wording of published works — neither do I — but is simply suggesting that, moving forward, we should consider using more inclusive language.

This seems so easy to agree with that I don't really understand the resistance on display here…

Well said.

Luigi Anzivino wrote:It's amazing how hard some will work not to understand something fairly plain. I believe Peter's point, which he has stated repeatedly, can be succinctly put this way:

When writing about a specific person, it's appropriate to use whatever term best describes them. Charlie Miller therefore could appropriately be described as a dice man.

When writing about card magic in general, in describing effects and who performs them, using the term "cardman" excludes 50% of the population. This can be easily avoided by using gender neutral terms, and so if one of our goals is to be as inclusive as possible in our art, this moves the needle in the right direction.

If Mr. Ross had limited his point to your understanding of it, I would have not problem with what you have written. If fact I would agree with you. But what he said was:

Peter Ross wrote:As I was reading the Theodore Deland article, there appeared another term that I believe should also be retired from the contemporary magic lexicon - “cardman”, or “cardmen.” In this case, there is no female equivalent, so it is extra odd to have it be used to encompass all card magicians (“This type of gimmick and handling is preferred by modern cardmen.” I also believe I remember Kaufman using “cardman” to describe Woody Allen in the Genii cover story on him, among other instances).

Based on what Mr. Ross wrote, "cardman" should not be used in the contemporary magic lexicon. When he names Woody Allen he is writing about a specific person. Evidence found on the March 2015 cover of Genii among other places.

Jackpot, my issue with using "cardman" is as a continued generalized present-day label, or category. That's why I said, "contemporary."

The quote from RK about Woody Allen was:
"Woody Allen was, and is, (if still doing the Classic Pass and various slight-of-hand card tricks qualify, and I think that they do) a cardman."

To me this implied that a "cardman" is a disticnt category of magician that one can still be. I got the same implication from the Deland quote: "This type of gimmick and handling is preferred by modern cardmen.”
As applied to master card magciains of the past, or even to ones who presently identify themselves as performing in the stlye of those magicians, the use of "cardman" is completely appropiate. It's when, as Luigi succintly put it, "writing about card magic in general, in describing effects and who performs them, using the term "cardman" excludes 50% of the population."

I'd also like to address Dustin's two examples; one being an example of a female magician who identifies as a "magicienne," and one who identifes as a "magician." I think that this is a false comparison. The general public understands “magician” to mean either male or female, just like "musician," "singer," "painter," or "filmmaker." So identifying as a magicienne (beyond as part of a stage name), would imply using the word purposfully for artistic and/or marketing means, or perhaps as a way to make a point about the rarity and history of women in magic (Belinda Sinclair?). Magicienne is a separate term from magician. The former is a distinct purposefull label and the latter is an accepted generalized term. I would submit that "cardman" work the same way, not as a category of magician, but as a personalized label.

Steve Mills wrote:Those trying to constantly show how woke they are have problems, from my perspective.

I agree.

The problem I have is that when I try to decide who's woke, and who's simply trying to show me how woke they are, I find myself becoming a judgmental asshat, and while I'm comfortable being that sort of fellow, it does take the some of the fun out of being meta-woke myself.

And now, I've been woke so much I need a nap.

@Peter Ross, people who want to address modern sensibility also learned to bristle at the sound of "should".

In case folks have not had the experience - try reading a text where the reader or student is referred to as "she". It gets more interesting in fiction where the writer has characters describing each other with pronouns including "se" and "hir". The "PC" stuff was done on South Park.

Asshat, CardQueen, PunKing... boring .

As another contestant in the "Re-name Game," I nominate
"Human Race"

"Human" (Adjective) - "mid-15c., humain, humaigne, 'human,' from Old French humain, umain (adj.) 'of or belonging to man' (12c.), from Latin humanus 'of man, human.' " (Online Etymology Dictionary).

"Race" - "Each of the major divisions of humankind, having distinct physical characteristics.
[Example] ‘people of all races, colours, and creeds’ )." (Oxford Dictionary)
"one of the main groups that humans can be divided into according to their physical differences, for example the color of their skin
[Example] 'the Caucasian/Mongolian, etc. race.' " (Oxford Learner's Dictionary).

Thus, while "human race" is a term universally used to refer to or describe or include all the people of planet earth, the populice of earth, as a whole, is neither "human," nor is it a "race."

"Huperson Species"?

Jonathan Townsend wrote: ... The "PC" stuff was done on South Park.

Did it involve the character named "Cartman?"

I know that no one gives a hoot about what I think, but frankly I find this whole discussion silly. When I was much younger, it was common to see employment want ads requesting applicants by gender. This was wrong, for a number of reasons. Hopefully we have evolved beyond that practice.

I have yet to see an ad such as, "The firm of E.S. and Drews is seeking an experienced card man for permanent employment."

I do not believe that referring to a man who is adept at card handling as a card man should be offensive to anyone. Neither do I believe that using gender neutral terms is wrong in general discussion.

I see here much ado about nothing.

pasteboarder (as in snowboarder).

Richard - as the editor of the world’s finest magic publication I feel you should ensure all that references to gender should be eliminated in future.

As a first step, you should immediately change your surname to Kaufperson or preferably Kauf-nongenderspecificindividual.

Andrew

P.S.
As the name Andrew means ‘manly’ I am also intending to change my given name to something else as soon as I come up with something suitable.

AJM wrote: "As the name Andrew means ‘manly’ I am also intending to change my given name to something else as soon as I come up with something suitable."

How about "S.W. Erdnase-person"?

i know that I am one of the perpetrators of what has repeatedly been characterized as the silliness occurring on this thread, but I guess I just can't help wanting to have some fun - or will that be the next politically incorrect thing? Gulp!