Like all languages, English has evolved over generations of speakers. It is hardly recognizable from its centuries old England born great-great-grandfather, from whence its complicated rules of grammar were developed and refined. Dialects aside, a general comparison of English spoken in the United States versus that spoken in England, Scotland, or Ireland can sometimes leave the listener wondering how on earth the two are related.
Also, as with most languages spoken globally (I would say all, but I don't know if that is entirely accurate), English was modified, codified, and morphed by men. For eons, men worked outside the home, interacted with other men on their respective job--IE. farming, trades, etc.--and developed new words as a result.
Prior to, but mostly after the women's suffrage movement did a push begin by ultra-feminists to make English less masculine and more gender neutral. Their argument has been that many words in the English language denote feelings, anxieties, and a plethora of other emotions and actions that are largely masculine in nature. One gross mischaracterization is the use of the word men when speaking neutrally about mankind, or all men being created equally. The obvious intent is gender neutrality, at least as perceived in the twenty-first century.
Leftists feminists have pushed the envelope for a gender neutral language since their inclusion in modern academia. On the surface, the movement seems less abhorrent than it truly is. After all, what is wrong with equality in language?
To answer this question, one must consider the extreme leftist movement of the 1960's in conjunction with similar socialist movements throughout Europe. De-gendering the language means controlling it. When language is controlled, media is subsequently folded neatly into a box that, once pushed inside, cannot be undone.
Once print and electronic media is managed on a large scale, thought and actions are much easier controlled. You may be asking, "What is the point in all this?"
The obvious answer is manipulation. The less obvious response is political activism. Imagine if you can, everyone suddenly becoming offended by something spoken or written. Despite the unlikeliness of this ever happening, consider if you would George Orwell's 1984, a novel depicting a futuristic world where only one crime could be committed--thinking outside the established status quo.
Now, you may already be thinking, "But so many are offended by the silliest of things these days!" You would be correct in your assumption, and see beyond the blatant attempt at sarcasm I posed in the previous paragraph.
Should we allow our politicians and the academics of the nation control our language, both spoken and written, we are doomed as a society. I'm not merely speaking about our First Amendment rights, but more along the lines of thought control. Yes, it is plausible, and yes, it is happening.
To control your words is to control your thoughts, your actions, and your ability to resist their brand of politics. I say to you: resist the urge to conform!
No comments:
Post a Comment