The equalist legislators in Washington state have decided that rewriting Washington state code and documents to erase the distinction between men and women has “important significance,” and is worth effort and money. Other public servants, notably a University of washington communications professor named Crispin Thurlow, agree. Whether their enthusiasm for the project has anything to do with the potential jobs for “experts” and bureaucrats is not addressed in a Seattle Times article on the drive to neuter English.
Over the past six years, state officials have engaged in the onerous task of changing the language used in the state’s copious laws, including thousands of words and phrases, many written more than a century ago when the idea of women working on police forces or on fishing boats wasn’t a consideration.
That process is to draw to a close this year. So while the state already has welcomed “firefighters,” “clergy” and “police officers” into its lexicon, “ombuds” (in place of ombudsman) and “security guards” (previously “watchmen,”) appear to be next, along with “dairy farmers,” “first-year students” and “handwriting.”
Usually, language has a way of taking care of itself. But according to Prof. Thurlow, that isn’t good enough:
Crispin Thurlow, a sociolinguist and associate professor of language and communication at the University of Washington, Bothell, said the project was admirable.
He said as language evolves, such efforts are more than symbolic.
“Changing words can change what we think about the world around us,” he said. “These tiny moments accrue and become big movements.”
Although he’s a relative peon, Thurlow is a representative of what I referred to the other day as the “managerial elite.” This man believes it is his mandate to shape society so as to produce a result consistent with Equalism. As a public employee, he also intends to be paid by the rest of us to do so
Perhaps at a future time, he can assume a high position in a Washington state bureaucracy called the “Ministry of Truth” or something along those lines.
Words such as “manhole” and “manlock,” have also come under scrutiny, but suitable replacements have proved difficult to find. However, this gives me an idea:
Instead of trying to neuter every word, why don’t we simply shoot for equal representation? We could just switch the gender of every other male-gendered word.
For example, instead of freshman, we could have “freshwoman,” and instead of manhole, “womanhole.” Other logical changes could include “womenstruation” from menstruation, and perhaps “womanatee” for the slow, portly sea creature. This could provide just as much work for Thurlow and his associates, and might turn out less confusing in the long run.
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
Why doesn’t this self-loathing mangina Crispin Thurlow do us all a favor and get himself castrated or, better yet, get a sex change?
Last paragraph is hilarious.
Long before I had ever heard of the Manosphere or probably Feminism, I well recall the first time I was confronted with the female desire to re-write the English Language. It will perhaps come as no surprise for you to learn therefore that I was in the other Washington, or rather just outside it, in Maryland. The fact that I remember it, when so much else will have vanished from the memory-banks, rather like the pep-talk I received when still a child from my Head Mistress (to which I referred two or three threads back) suggests to me that there was something ‘wrong’ about it, although as with the pep-talk it was presented to me – and by a woman – as the most self-evident and reasonable thing in the world. What was not to like!
The lady, who just happened to be an ordained minister, aged about forty, and still reasonably hot, wearing a checkered shirt – funny that should stick too – was explaining how some Mangina in her congregation had approached her one day with a ‘gender neutral’ re-writing of some popular hymn. Perish the thought that some woman hymn-writer might have demonstrated female superiority and written a new hymn – I digress, in my capacity as accompanist I was required to accompany on the pianoforte certain hymns or songs written by a woman, who the good lord had suitably inspired, or so she alleged, for so bad was one of them in that its ending was musically incoherent, that I had no alternative to re-write the ending; the benefit of education at an English Conservatoire! – or might have regarded the bowdelerisation of the said hymn as a form of cultural vandalism, rather as Bowdler provided happy endings to Shakespearean tragedies; for which he ultimately earned lasting ignominy.
In the process of neutering the hymn, the writer had – whatever the merits of his versification – in a literary sense, castrated himself for the purpose of pedestalising females. Can we expect a similar neutering of female language, for example; nautical expressions such as ‘thar she blows’? You can be quite sure no woman has ever considered it. Personally, I delight in adding the suffixs rix or ess to words: words like Attorney-ess, Jew-ess or Dominat-rix. It tends to take the wind out of their sails to be reminded of their true distinction.
Up and coming Hispanic Feminists will have a load on their hands when spanish becomes the official language in California. Gender distinction informs every subject, verb and noun.
Imagine just how much ink and paper has been wasted having to state “… and or her”, “…and or she”, when just “his” or “he” was perfectly acceptable as inferring both sexes for centuries. I suppose all this male dominant language had been effecting women’s self-esteem.
Hee, hee, I see them already infiltrating malls in the US ;-P
Here’s a video I saw last week (it might have been here, if it’s a re-posting, forgive me) on how men disappear on the news when there is a tragedy. A different kind of ‘language neutering’. I noticed this quite a while ago and I was quite pleased that someone made a video about it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6ZAuqkqxk9A
“Womantee’ also known as “sea cow.”
We call the heifers up north “snow cows.”
“Other logical changes could include “womenstruation” from menstruation, and perhaps “womanatee” for the slow, portly sea creature. “
LOL!. And with a bit of imagination, a dugong could be renamed a snugatch.
This whole enterprise is based upon linguistic confusion. The English noun “man” has more than one meaning. Its primary meaning is “person”, as in “fireman”, “fisherman”, and “woman” (=”womb-man”). Its secondary meaning is “male person”. An agenda of the feminists is to deny the existence of the primary meaning of this noun, claiming (falsely) that the noun “man” only possesses its secondary meaning. Your idea of “rotationisme”, to use the French word, this needless he/she/he/she, is a capitulation to the feminists.
“Man” occurs in a lot of words meaning “hand”. “Handwriting” had me puzzling a bit until I remembered that.
“Changing words can change what we think about the world around us,” he said. “These tiny moments accrue and become big movements.”
Changing the words changes the outcome – but I repeat myself . . . Words/definitions have meaning and changing that is a despicable deceit.
It is why I despise attorney’s/barristers, they always twist the language. And I’ve dinged Price (in a friendly way – I hope) a few times over the years he’s been doing this for imprecise use of language for this very reason (hunting vs. target bow comes to mind), but for the reason of encouraging thought regarding the words that are being used.
The best example of twisting word in the forefront of contemporary debate is the use of the derogatory phrase ‘assault weapon’ – most people using the words don’t have a clue what they mean – but they sure sound good don’t they. Like feminism, the ‘Brady Bunch’ has been twisting the language for more than 40 years hoping eventually it will stick – feminism has a better track record, but is equally bankrupt in it’s position.
Personally, I think it is in the MRM’s best interests to demand a precision in the use of language. It is intolerable to use words that can be twisted by a sub-human lawyer/barrister/politician to suit their interests.
When language can be perverted, the outcome can be directed. To allow that is to reduce oneself to so much livestock for the tax-feeder’s to prey upon.
WOmanatee works for me! I strongly suspect that the manatees might petition Congress to have the USSC strike it down though; probably something to do with Kardashians getting clothes made out of their skin; since it fits so well.
I hear those girls will “feel right at home.”
We’re going to keep “herpes”, right, and not switch it to himpes, in light of the differential rates of infection.
Now they’re saying abused, misused, bastardised, battered and bruised young men, so long taken advantage of alongside their exiled fathers, by female genderist-socialism, are “Lacking in Optimism!”.
The attitude of mind demanded by the State of our now zombie-boys and enstooged-men is, the kind of “Coerced Optimism” illustrated and imposed by brute State force in Aldous Huxley’s “brave new world” and George Orwell’s “1984″.
This is no little nor petty lie gents :
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20947604
‘Angry young men’ lack Optimism!
By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education correspondent
Young men, caught in a changing jobs market, show few signs of optimism. [So in short, its their fault and are wholly to blame for their miserable plight.]
A study of youth attitudes has raised concerns about young men in the “squeezed middle” who are deeply pessimistic about their future chances.
Among these young men – from families of skilled or semi-skilled workers – more than two-thirds never expect to own their own home, says a survey.
This disgruntled group were more negative than youngsters from the poorest backgrounds.
“These people feel trapped,” says Durham University’s Tony Chapman.
This identification of a distinctive group of aggrieved young men emerged from the Youth Matters survey, carried out for the O2 telecommunications company, and analysed by Prof Chapman, who has researched young people and social mobility.
‘Fatalistic’
These are young men, aged between 16 and 24, who appear to be particularly frustrated and unhopeful about their chances of good jobs or any upward mobility.
“These are neither the most deprived, who get quite a lot of attention, nor are they affluent enough to be on a conveyor belt to university,” says Prof Chapman, who has examined the views of 1,500 young people.
“These are a group of young people who are caught between these positions,” he says.
These youngsters are aware of the advantages of their better-off middle class counterparts, he suggests, but have diminishing expectations of gaining them for themselves.
And it is particularly the young men rather than young women who have the bleakest expectations.
“They have skills and ambitions – but they have a fatalistic sense that there are barriers that make it pointless to try in the first place,” says Prof Chapman.
Only 30% of these young men ever expect to own their own home in their lifetime – compared with 39% among their counterparts in poorer families.
Even at this early stage in their working lives, almost a quarter of these young men expect never to have a fulfilling job – a much more negative outlook than their female counterparts.
Almost a third of these young men say they “feel unhappy” when they think about their future – much more than women.
Prof Chapman describes these youngsters as coming from “respectable” families with “strong aspirations” – but now facing increasingly insecure job prospects.
‘Vulnerable’
These youngsters face the loss of jobs for skilled and semi-skilled industrial workers and an increase in temporary, service-sector jobs.
If these youngsters also have poor qualifications, it makes it even more difficult for them – facing the downward pressure from expanding numbers of graduates, who will occupy more sought-after jobs.
Prof Chapman says that these disaffected youngsters are from the type of families of skilled workers who might have had more optimistic expectations in the 1970s and 1980s.
But he says that many such families, outside the fringes of the middle classes, now face a more fragile economic future.
“They’re not on the bread line, but they’re vulnerable to misfortune. If the car goes or interest rates go up, they have little to protect them.”
The Youth Matters survey tracks young people’s opinions and attitudes.
While it revealed this group of disgruntled young men, the bigger picture showed a more optimistic view of social mobility.
More than half expected to earn more than their parents.
Among those who were optimistic, a significant factor was the perceived opportunity created by digital start-ups. Almost three-quarters identified the internet as helping to create more chances for their careers.
She, he and/or it abbreviated to sh/e/it.
Heck, in school as a kid some teacher bugged me to write more “gender neutral” (i.e., not to presume “he” of “him” or “his” etc. and purposesly use male and female equally) but I got ornery on ‘em. I went to the logical extreme and started using “it” (the “neutral article,” they said “gender NEUTRAL” you know) which reads like “It rubs the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again” after a short while. Didn’t bug me or say anything about using male pronouns again after that
3D Shooter is quite correct, and right to draw our attention to the evasiveness of language. When lawyers can spin ‘Speeding’, as merely, ‘Overcautious Deceleration’ it takes an eagle-eyed Judge to spot the attempt at deception. There is nothing new in this however; for Socrates was complaining 2,500 years ago to Gorgias (The Sophist) about his use of Spin.
What is one to do with the now largely obsolete Cuny (Rabbit) – as in Conney Island. No woman these days can be called Fanny (my mother’s third Christian name), and then there was one internet commentator who assumed that I was a member of that shady Catholic organisation Opus Dei. Slang comes and goes and then reappears with a new meaning – words such as Punk for instance were familiar in Seventeenth Century London. I tend to suspect that without language there is no thought, merely impressions and emotions, but words are not the things they describe.
In short, these epistemological inexactitudes(i.e.e lies) place a greater burden on the english language than it may frequently be reasonably expected to bear.
Last paragraph was hilarious and “womanatee” would only be too perfect for many of these overfed, sea cows floating around.
3Dshooter nailed it. Unnatural evolution of language is a recipe for disaster. It will send the pendulum flailing about.
I agree with Opus in adding the suffix where appropriate. My favorite is to make the distinction between adults and adultresses.