Anybody bothered by the practice of calling ships SHEE?

[ohiomstr2]

Pretty sure Russia refers to their naval vessels “he”. Not sure about other non Western cultures.

[I_can_t_think_of_a_name]

@Chronos

I think the fundamental issue here is that there are some categories of inanimate objects, including weapons, vehicles, and computers, that are more prone to be anthropomorphized. And English lacks a pronoun for a person of unspecified gender, so every such anthropomorphized object will end up being either “he” or “she”. Which of those two it is can be entirely arbitrary, or it can depend on the owner’s assessment of whatever intangibles go into gender.

“they” has been used to some extent as a singular ungendered pronoun in English for centuries. It works well enough for the job. Strictly speaking it’s plural but language is largely defined by usage so if it’s used often enough as singular as well as plural then that’s what it is. I think that’s the best way to restore an ungendered pronoun for a person to English.

[Stonebow]

It’s never occurred to me to be bothered by it, since we anthropomorphize inanimate objects all the time. That said, I’ve always enjoyed Robert Jordan’s take on it; in his fictional world, ships are referred to as ‘he’ by expert mariners, explained like this:
A ship is alive, and he is like a man, with a true man’s heart. Treat him well and care for him properly, and he will fight for you against the worst sea. He will fight to keep you alive even after the sea has long since given him his own deathstroke. Neglect him, though, ignore the small warnings he gives of danger, and he will drown you in a flat sea beneath a cloudless sky. (Wheel of Time, The Shadow Rising)
Of course, it’s as much a gendered stereotype as anything else, but it’s got a nice ring to it.

[Chronos]

“They” works well enough for a person you don’t know, but it sounds awkward referring to a person you do know. And anyone anthropomorphizing a ship probably knows it (or her, or him) very well.

[drewder]

@Skald_the_Rhymer

At no point have I called you or any other woman your rational.

Time to kill another hobbit.

[drewder]

@Beckdawrek

Being an old reference doesn’t make it right.

Doesn’t make it wrong either.

[Taber]

@MarvinKitFox

and I’m offended by people so short-sighted as to think applying a gender pronoun to a ship is sexism.

Are you the sort that would refuse a ploughman’s lunch, demanding it be renamed as a ploughperson’s lunch?
Are you the sort that would turn away a midwife, because the job name sounds vaguely like a sexist term?

Sorry , but you are the one being silly.

Yeah, those dum-dums are stupid for thinking that applying gender pronouns to an object is sexism. I can’t conceive of a single example of how gendering various objects could possibly reinforce gender roles and stereotypes.

@MarvinKitFox

That is exactly correct.
“He” tends to be used for objects that are more massive, strong, or dangerous. Active roles. Because, face it, males are somewhat like that.
Examples are cars, locomotives (but not steam!).

“She” tends to be used for objects that are graceful, temperamental, or dependable/durable.
Because, again, females are somewhat like that.
Examples are ships (not boats!), Steam locomotive, favored and trusted hand tool, well-build bridge.

What is required is that the object, usually a vehicle, be perceived as having a ‘personality’, and then matching the pronoun to the perceived personality.

[Malleus_Incus_Stapes]

Complete apathy towards the practice.

(I’m female, if it makes any difference).

[Ignatz]

When I was on my USN ships, the theory was

Plunging decklines or necklines between the swells.