You just can't make up crap like this:
Princeton HR department: Don’t use word ‘man’
Strange as it might seem, the change in language has made a difference to me.
As a girl, I felt I could not be a mounted policeman, only a man could.
As a young artist, the word "sculptress" was pejorative, connoting an amateur of poor standard, while the male sculptor was a recognised professional whose work was respected.
As a teacher, it never mattered whether I was female, although the ten percent of male teachers always had much more ambition and initiative, and tended to rise faster and higher through the career ladder. Statistically, 95% of them reach the top positions, but only 5% of the women. Nothing innate stops the women getting there in terms of brains or skills - it's just that the majority also have families and need the time to care for them. While the men with families leave that extra work to their wives.
So while the right language can definitely help a girl feel freer to pursue a wider range of careers - on its own it's not enough. If we want equal opportunity, we are forced to make choices that will cause us to live and behave more like men.
And that would not be right for the kids, unless men took a fully equal role in the nurturing side of childcare.
I don't find using gender neutral language difficult. Very occasionally it can be clumsy, but we are all the time inventing better ways to achieve it.
Changing the way we speak happens whether we like it or not. The history of language is one of evolution including every aspect: social context, semantics, syntax, spelling and punctuation, phonics -- all are in a continuous state of flux and change.
The older we get, the more we feel irritated by changes, especially some.
It irritates me when people talk of finding a park rather than a parking place. To me a park is full of grass, trees, maybe gardens and fountains -- I want the word to have only that meaning and not be sullied by stinky machines dripping oil on asphalt. But I will never get my way in this. Never. I must go with the flow of language and accept it as it is.
Language evolves for various reasons.
What would you call a female member of Congress? Or a female member of the fire department? How do you express the concept of a mixed gender group of members of Congress or the fire department?
But, of course, it's more fun to STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL-bash than think about language in a systematic rational way.
All of these are excellent points, and I wouldn't argue for an instant that double-standards and prejudices don't exist (especially in certain 'other' parts of the world), but I think people--hell, strike that--I know that I'M getting pissed off by the professional whiner class dictating the kind of language I use. In truth, about the only time I even think about being insensitive to the real plight of minority segments of our society, it's in situations like this where people presume to dictate how the rest of us speak.
In short, the general 'cause' of egalitarianism is HARMED by crap like this. Yes, languages change...on their own. I'm sick of the forced variety. It all smacks way too much of newspeak, and I for one will resist this form of tyranny at every turn.
I still like your post, though. :-)
Evolution is fine. The forced/coerced manipulation of language is not.
Like anyone else who gives a damn about the feelings of actual INDIVIDUALS, I'd call them whatever they wished to be called--e.g., fire person, congress person, fireman, firefighter, congressman, house member, senator, etc. That form of respect cannot and WILL not be dictated by some officious, pseudotheistic apparatchik on a power trip--not to me, anyway!
And I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that your constant references to "STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHL" is best translated as stupid evil liberals. That would beg the question: when have I ever accused liberals (again, I assume you're a liberal) of being stupid or evil? (Is this going to be like your LIE about my non-existent 'authoritarian' leanings?) Liberals may be politically codependent with a bent toward controlling/manipulating people, but I would have no idea about their particular moral or ethical allegiances. As for intelligence, "stupid is as stupid [types]." If the moniker fits... :-)
Female in congress: Congresswoman/congressperson
mixed group: Congress
Firewoman/fireperson
Mixed group: Firefighters
Not hard at all.
Actually it's not as crazy as it sounds. Here's the policy; https://www.princeton.edu/hr/progserv/communications/inclusivelanguage.pdf
Not unreasonable. And it only effects those employed by the Human Resources Dept. "...these are guidelines issued by HR...Students are not mandated to follow this policy."
Indeed, it's "not hard at all" for anyone who isn't used to surrendering their lives to some external authority. :-)
Bad examples. Yeah, that's it. Like the bad examples who insist on socialized medicine, education, forced dependency schemes, urban reservations, etc. :-)
I would agree, though, that such a thing USED TO BE antithetical to liberal values.
So to work for the university one has to surrender his/her free speech rights. That's fine in the private sector, but it sure as hell sets a bad example for an academic institution which is presumably a place of free thought/expression.
First of all, no one has complete freedom of speech in the workplace anywhere. Every work place has rules with regard to conduct and language is part of that.
Secondly, the policy is not targeting free thought. It is promoting a gender neutral work environment. Here are some examples taken directly from the policy;
Example; Each participant must present his I.D. badge at the door.
Revised: All participants must present their I.D. badges at the door.
Example: Please get a clerk to man the front dest.
Revised: Please get a clerk to staff the front dest.
There are examples of how to write a gender neutral job postings. It encourages the use of gender neutral job titles, Fire fighter rather than Fireman, etc...
No where is the thought or the intention of the statement changed UNLESS one wantst to be exclusionary.
I've never been politically correct, I'm not politically correct now, nor will I ever be politically correct. And it's asinine to try to force political correctness on anyone.
Precisely! Trump may well be the first "f*ck the statist quo" president in U.S. history.
Look, as a libertarian I don't have a dog in the Trump/Clinton fight, but that doesn't mean I won't be tickled pink by a Trump victory and the subsequent mass insanity of the controller class. I can't wait to read the list-o-liberals who plan to bail on America if he wins. :-)
Exactly right!
The way I see it outlawing words like man has me thinking PC is really all about insecurity. I love it when a PC person responds to me with "well why is it SO bad to want to be polite to others" but the word man when used in the context of how it should be used "mankind, man made, man and wife" isn't really all that offensive. Think about it... if the phrase triggers you such as "man and wife" when used in passive conversation and not aggressively towards someone... were you ever that comfortable with yourself to begin with???? This is 100% about insecurity and control.
I say this as a fellow female... I hope that one day all PC people eventually grow a pair.
I hope they leave but they probably won't. Here is a plan that may work. All you need is a sign pointing to Canada that says free stuffs :)
I used to be a humanist.. still partially am but I dislike the label ever since I found out humanism was another political party.
The problem lays in outlawing words that are not harmful but seen as harmful to begin with. That leads to a distorted perception and can lead to the assassinations of character for using those words. They want to change phrases in books and other written text that's fine by me but they shouldn't expect people to watch their language over things that are not insulting when used in an passive/innocent context to begin with. To start people don't OWN language I don't really care if you are the pope and I'd still tell you that. So if one doesn't OWN language they sure don't OWN the right to tell me (providing I am not hurting anyone else) to not use a word simply because in reality they want to associate "man" with political nonsense stemming from association with gender stereotyping.... which come on what reason is there to hate the word man unless you associated it with bad things? Propaganda anyone?
No one can argue logically that firefighter is bad to use but I see in my opinion firefighter as "firemen" both mean the same thing. Yes man is speaking gender wise but I don't see it as gender and I think when used in casual conversation many don't really see it that way. I know ALOT of female fire"fighters" but even now when I use it in context of "firemen" I don't literally think of all fireMEN as literally males I think of "mankind meaning the same as humankind." Meaning when I hear "mankind" my natural instinct is just to think "humankind" and not associated with gender but more of a general phrasing.
What does that say about people who do see those harmless phrases as harmful????
Bravo! This is a positively OUTSTANDING post. Most people don't get this. Language manipulation is a form of psyops--i.e., mind (and thus person) control. Individual A implicitly (but nonetheless quite clearly) THREATENS Individual(s) B, C and D with dire social, professional or even legal consequences for daring to say something which person A doesn't like. Over time Person A wins (or coerces/intimidates) friends and converts, and THAT'S when things take on ugly, Orwellian dimensions.
People know this intuitively even if they aren't able to articulate it, and that's why they're beginning to fight back. That's why people like Trump (hate him or love him) are so popular. They have immunized themselves against this form of psychological enslavement--and that is precisely what it is! An attempt by one person or group to OWN another.
And how did they immunize themselves? They quit caring about what anyone OTHER than the individuals to whom they're directly communicating feel, think or react. Granted, the more able you are to work for and support yourself and your family, the easier this process becomes. Language tyrants will go after you at your weakest points; your job, your family, your property, and ultimately your life/freedom.
Drop the word 'insecurity' and you'll have it pegged. Language tyrants aren't 'insecure.' They're control freaks. They enjoy the rush they get from making people cower in fear of them. The only thing which separates them from the Maos, Stallins and Hitlers of the world is political clout and, given enough time and capitulation, they'll have that. If we don't put them in their places now, there will come a time when we no longer can--or at least not without finding ourselves lined up against a blood soaked brick wall.
Oh, and when/if they ask you again you can tell your PC friends that being polite isn't the issue. I'm EXTREMELY respectful in normal, one-on-one conversation. I call people half my age sir and ma'am, and I don't just hold the door open for women, I hold it open for EVERYBODY. Under normal circumstances I'll go out of my way not to offend anyone...until they tell me that I mustn't, and especially if they bring group identity into the picture.
Funny you should mention that. Epithets like 'racist' are so overused that they've lost almost all their punch. Hell, most people BARELY know what the word means anymore.
