What makes her clueless and not him in this context?
Why do you assume the other person was a female? Because I used the word “clueless”? :dubious: 
You’re wrong, and in this case I’d say Dave was less than sharp as well.
Really, your assumption is rather … sexist, innit?
Huh. Honestly, even knowing “catapult” couldn’t mean that trebuchet-type thing in context, I’m not entirely sure I would have come up with it meaning “slingshot.” But even if it were written as “slingshots,” I’d have a giggle because it still seems a bit absurd to me. Is this a problem? I’m not sure I know a single person who owns a slingshot, much less brings one on a plane. Has there been a pattern of slingshot abuse on airplanes or something? Why single those out?
Why is assuming female any stranger than assuming male? Is the presumption someone is male unless it’s specified not to be? In other words, there is nothing wrong with defaulting to female for no reason at all.
I assumed the point was why only blame the guest and not the guest and host both.
Well, first of all, someone a bit sharper might have taken a moment to think “Hey, wait: A catapult in the sense of a siege weapon is a pretty damned big thing to bring on an airplane. Maybe they mean something else that I’m not familiar with?”
Second, I doubt they meant the type of slingshots Dennis the Menace carries in his back pocket. I think they were probably referring to today’s metal ones you brace on your forearm. You know, the ones with the super-strong elastic cords that can fling a projectile hard enough to do some serious injury?
Third, does not the phrase “they **both **had a good laugh” imply that the guest and host were equally, as some might put it, “to blame”?
I can’t even bring a Swiss Army knife on board an airliner any more. You think they’d allow a modern slingshot?
Would **you **have automatically assumed I was talking about a female?
Well, no, which is why I find it amusing. It seems like such an esoteric (or maybe I should say “oddly specific”) thing to single out, like if, say, gardening shears or blowdarts were on the “forbidden items” list. I just want to hear the story as to why that particular item was singled out!
You’d think that since the Brits use ‘pants’ to mean underpants they would use ‘panties’ for women’s underpants. Or maybe not. Who can ever know?
During WWII, reputedly returning soldiers would send a letter to their wives with “NORWICH” printed on the back, meaning (k)Nickers Off Ready When I Come Home. More discreet was BURMA, Be Upstairs Ready My Angel.
I think after 9/11, sharp and pointed objects are pretty well covered by bans on things like Swiss Army knives. Hand-held devices other than firearms that are capable of firing projectiles with possible deadly force are a category in themselves.
I don’t know. Defaulting to female pronouns when gender is unspecified is just as reasonable as defaulting to male. It doesn’t mean I’d assume male or female but that I’d have to pick a pronoun.
I’d probably use “they”, to express my point, but she or he are both valid.
In other words, you accusing the poster of sexism for thinking they were assuming the guest was female may have been in error. The poster may have been using the “she” pronoun generically.
And for what it’s worth, I also assumed you meant the guest was the more clueless one (as compared to the host). Hosts are paid to laugh at the guests jokes and it seemed the clueless adjective was singularly applied to the guest. But if that’s not what you meant, cool.
Anyway, I’ll stop my part in this potential hijack.
While it may be perfectly reasonable to default to either, it’s historically unusual to default to female rather than male. Rightly or wrongly, assuming female is still more likely to have some reason underpinning it, whereas using male is likely to be more unthinking and automatic. Neither of of those are definitely the case of course, but out of convention it seems more likely.
By extension then, when hearing it, one is more likely to ignore an assumption of masculinity but notice (and therefore consider the potential reason for) an assumption of feminity.
Hardly fair, of course, but by the conventions of history, it seems reasonably predictable.
Yes- that’s the point of doing it. Many of us in higher ed and those who do a lot of professional writing practice defaulting to female as often as defaulting to male, for just that purpose.
My reaction was in response to the accusation of sexism and was offering another interpretation to counter it. In fact, it may been actually someone uniquely sensitive to issues of sexism choosing to use the female as default.
Anyway, this could be a very interesting thread but probably shouldn’t derail this one further. Since I started the conversation about pronouns I’ll be the one to really bow out now.
On topic, I do find the singular mention of catapult/slingshot amusing as well! As we often say in our house- “how oddly specific”.
As I began this thread, I’ll afford myself the luxury of responding before I too bow out of the digression! It could be worth another thread though, aye.
FWIW I agree: the convention of male being the default won’t change unless it’s deliberately challenged. During the process of that challenge though, I can see how people will be wrong-footed by it - that’s the nature of the unusual, of course - and make various assumptions about why female pronouns are being used…and from those assumptions may arise tensions!
It’ll be the same story that’s behind every other weird and oddly-specific warning or prohibition:
[ul]
[li]Some arsehole did it, and[/li][li]Said “Show me where it says I can’t”[/li][/ul]
[Moderating]
While the discussion about assumed genders and pronouns is interesting, it isn’t really a good fit either for this thread or for this forum. If you want to continue that discussion, start a thread in GD.
I know, which is why I’d still be interested in hearing that story. Did somebody actually try to bring a slingshot on the plane? Was there a slingshot convention happening somewhere? I’m always curious about the specifics of oddly specific prohibitions.
It’s not especially odd, it’s a common bit of fishing equipment. It’s listed under ‘sports equipment’, and is permitted in the hold, just not in hand luggage.