It’s not that often, these days, that we hear the word feminism or feminist. We do, though, hear a lot of talk about political correctness; and I think that many feminist ideas are included nowadays in what we call political correctness.
At one time I had the misfortune to work for a woman who was a pretty strong feminist. She criticized me, one time, for referring to one of my community-college students as a "girl." "If she's over 16," this woman asserted, "she's a woman, and you shouldn't call her a girl."
Yet adult males are sometimes referred to as "boys": "the boys in the band"; "a night out with the boys."
Not only are the feminists wrong in this particular case, I think they are so bent on cultivating the idea that women are persecuted in our society that they try to make out that even the language is against them.
I can graciously accept saying "letter carrier" instead of mailman; or "fire fighter" instead of fireman. Yet I feel that an insight into our English language and its history shows that the assumption that underlies this linguistic policing is incorrect.
The feminist/PC assertion is that, every time you see –man as part of a word, there is the implicit assumption that the word denotes a male, or implies that the person to whom the word is attached is assumed to be male.
Let's look at the word woman. It descends from the Old English (or Anglo-Saxon) wifman. That is, wif (meaning 'woman' and giving us the modern word wife) + man, meaning 'person'. Thus woman means 'woman-person', or, if you will, 'female person'. And man, when not qualified, just means 'person'—that is, a human of either, or of unspecified, gender. So –man, as it exists in all our compound words, does not, as the feminists insist, mean that we are sexistly asserting that the person is or is assumed to be male.
Copyright © 2012 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If everyone would just not bully and treat others the way they wish to be treated. Lots of room remains for both ettiquette and nettiquette.
ReplyDeleteWoah woah woah Rich, let's get a little more PC with this article! First off, the use of "girl" vs "woman" is not a feminist argument. Feminism, to me, is more an ideology of women's equality to men. Seems to me, this is more an ageist argument, made by feminist, about her linguistic preference. And to say that this single feminist, speaks for all feminists, and feminist views as a whole, is quite a leap.
ReplyDeleteAnd second, to say that all feminists/PC-ists have a problem with the suffix -man, is the same broad assumption. I'm gay, like you, so let me make it clear to anyone reading this that homosexuality is, in fact, a sin, and I'm using homosexuality as a means to be a menace to society. So, I, being a gay person, speak for the entire gay community and their views -- just as the one feminist you met (or few), speaks for the entire feminist community. The point I'm trying to make is, I'm sure you have met many feminists who are great people, and they are all for gender equality; they just don't go around preaching their ideal way to speak.
So clean up this article, you faggot. Oh no no no, don't get me wrong, faggot descends from Old French, meaning: a bundle of something. What I'm saying is you're a bundle, specifically a bundle of wondrous ideas and experiences! I suppose the meaning applied to a symbol, or the idea attached to a word, can differ from person to person. Some people will find faggot offensive and oppressive, other won't; some will find fire-"man" offensive/oppressive, others won't care.
Much love to you Rich ;)
Hi Richard, don't approve this comment. But in the last comment I submitted for approval, I made a spelling error I am very pissed about:
ReplyDelete"...faggot offensive and oppressive, other won't"
It should be "others" won't! Is there a way you can edit that? It's peeving me, and it would be much appreciated. Thanks friend.
I don't have the ability to edit comments--only post them or not. So I posted both of your comments. I don't think your little typo is very serious.
Delete