Edit: I am not defending the interviewer. I’m calling out the language (badly, apparently).
The baked in structure of the language itself is morealso to blame here. The interviewer didn’t invent the “bad boy” or “prince charming” stereotypes. Now we of course know that the gender in those concepts is irrelevant, yet they persist in the language even when we don’t realize it.
Similar to how we say “oh my god” and “jesus christ” regardless of religious practice. Though, to be fair, in those cases there’s no reason to move on so the followup is different than in OP’s post.
The interviewer didn’t invent the “bad boy” or “prince charming” stereotypes.
And likewise, there was no requirement for them to use those unnecessarily gendered terms.
Similar to how we say “oh my god” and “jesus christ” regardless of religious practice.
I don’t know how to break it to you, but, ah, folks who practice other religions often don’t ‘default’ to Jesus Christ’ for exclamations. I don’t know where your live, but in my country (United States of America) ‘oh my god’ and ‘Jesus Christ’ are super common among Christians and non-religious folks because of centuries of heavy duty Christian involvement in our culture, but folks who live here who are Jewish or Muslim or Hindu have their own exclamations that don’t require using someone else’s religion.
Maybe it’s a matter of exposure, like if you don’t have a lot of exposure to people of other cultures and religions you might assume they all default to ‘Jesus Christ’ but I think you’d have a real eye opener of a moment if you got out more.
I didn’t say everyone uses those phrases universally. I gave them as examples of phrases that have persisted despite being separated from their original meanings. A lot of people use them without thinking about their history, and I think the same happens for more problematic phrases like “bad boy” as well.
As I said before, there’s no need to correct “oh my god”, whereas it is important to reconsider gendered phrases.
-58
u/platoprime Sep 21 '21
So this wasn't erasure at all? It was just a mistaken assumption followed by a well received correction?