The issue of trying to change the language to comply with
feminist dogma is one I have been fighting since I was thrown out of an early
feminist meeting for insisting that trying to change "Men/man" from
generic to specific was a huge mistake. I tried to point out that a male pronoun should be
created to refer to male humans. Comparable
to "woman" like "heman."
Pronounced hee-man to encourage men to flex proudly and adopt it
willingly.
Feminists are still trying to change historical usage like “All men
are created equal” to “All people are
created equal” trashing not only the author but herm meaning as well. Pretending that Jefferson was not a heman of
his time ignores a crucial part of our heritage that has made equal rights for
women, minorities, and non-propertied men a major issue for Americans ever
since.
Not incidentally I proposed at the time to create a gender
inclusive/neutral pronoun to refer to "men" when gender is not
significant. I proposed hesh and herm
and have used them since in my own writing as specifically gender inclusive at
first for hemen and women but currently for all gender varieties. I have found the usage useful when
gender of the referent is known but irrelevant.
As in: herm article in a journal or popular publication. Conceptually thinking of an author as
"hesh" is particularly useful in avoiding unconscious gender bias in
reading an article. I generally notice
the name of the author only when after reading the article I find the name
useful for reference. This practice is
useful whether gender is an issue or not. I don't have to try to forget the author of a worthless article.
No comments:
Post a Comment