Why do I use 'man'? To exclude women? No, to exclude leftists, both men and women. I believe in equality when it comes to the exclusion of the destructive.
In the '70s, when it first really got going, gender-inclusive language seemed to many a very good thing indeed. It showed a welcoming attitude to the distaff contingent, a salutary openness, a gracious concession to those females who felt excluded by (what in fact are) gender-neutral uses of 'man' and 'he,' not to mention a praiseworthy recognition of the excellence of many women in many hitherto male-dominated fields. Gentlemen are considerate of the feelings of others even when said feelings are unsupported by reason. And surely it is true that some women are superior to some men in almost every field. And surely people should be evaluated as individuals on their merits.
It all started out with good intentions, and many conservatives went along with it, oblivious to the unforeseen consequences. But now, a half-century later, we see where it has led.
And so if I use the sex-neutral 'man' and 'he' and cognates, it is not because I am a knuckle-dragger, one who hails from the valley of Neander, but because I am a man of intelligence, discernment, and high culture, a member of the Coalition of the Reasonable, who is doing his tiny bit to resist and if possible reverse the subversion of our glorious alma mater, our fostering mother, the English language. I am resisting politicization, tribalism, and the weaponization of language. Can I ramp up my charge to the allegation that the Left is committing matricide against our dear mother? I'll essay this later.
For I say unto you my brothers and sisters, the subversion of language is propadeutic to the subversion of thought. The latter, I fear, is what our enemies intend, the thoughtless being the easier to rule and control.
Recent Comments