wusup guyz m back
-
Ultraviolet
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:08 pm
- Location: PROJECT DETAILS CLASSIFIED.
:D::DD:D:
Contrary to popular belief and countless hormonal fem-bitches, "he", "his", and "him" still mean he OR she when used in an ambiguous manner. On the other hand, "she", "her", and uh... "her", do NOT. So when some jackass decides to be clever AND politically correct at the same time by randomly throwing a "her" in there for no good reason, it means that all men in the world are excluded from whatever statement that is. Example:
"When the player presses the fire button, her gun shoots."
In this context, the player CANNOT be male, according to the established laws of English. Sexist fucking pigs.
"When the player presses the fire button, her gun shoots."
In this context, the player CANNOT be male, according to the established laws of English. Sexist fucking pigs.
Heh, I heard these somewhere; about "politically correct UNIX", here are some highlights:
- UTILS
- "man" pages are now called "person" pages.
- Similarly, "hangman" is now the "person_executed_by_an_oppressive_regime."
- The bias of the "mail" command is obvious, and it has been replaced by
the more neutral "gendre" command.
- SHELL
- To avoid unpleasant, medieval connotations, the "kill" command has been renamed "euthanise."
- "history" has been completely rewritten, and is now called "herstory."
- The "abort()" function is now called "choice()."
However, it is worth pointing out that this is according to the established "laws of English" as laid down in far less enlightened times by far less enlightened men. In fact, I remember reading a history of the rules of English. The first time the rules of "modern" English were comprehensively encapsulated in a document was in the late 1700's (if memory serves). This document dealt with the issue of using he, him, man etc to mean all humans. The rationale was something like:HotWax wrote:Contrary to popular belief and countless hormonal fem-bitches, "he", "his", and "him" still mean he OR she when used in an ambiguous manner. On the other hand, "she", "her", and uh... "her", do NOT.
"It is right and proper that the male terms should be used because the male is more important and should naturally get preference to the subordinate female. Only when there are no males to be considered should the female words be used because it would be inappropriate to refer to the more important male in female terms."
Unfortunately, I can't remember the name of the particular author of these rules. However, regardless of whether I am a feminist or not, at least by that person's definition, the term is inherently sexist by design.
There were similar earlier references too, but from what I remember, the version I paraphrased above was the one that set things in stone. This, however, is from the 1500's and was also referring to the use of "he" to mean male and female:
"let us keep a natural order, and set the man before the woman for maners sake"
Just because something has always been wrong, doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. "We've always done it that way" is no defence. Especially when it actually means "we've always done it wrong".
The problem is, English does not have an acepted gramatically correct, genderless pronoun. Grammarians do not like the use of "they" as a genderless pronoun and pushed for "he" to be used instead. When the issue became sensitive it was attempted to make the obviously male words considered genderless and so it became possible to get sentences like:
"No person shall be forced to have an abortion against his will."
or
"Man, being a mammal, breast-feeds his young."
Using "they" as a genderless term is frowned upon in writing, despite the fact it is commonly used in speech. There is, however, evidence that it, and other related terms (their, them), did see use in earlier English and moreover, that there is little or no evidence of the gender inclusive "he" being used in those times. There has indeed been a long standing argument between grammarians and liguists over the use of "they". Grammarians have set down rules and tried to replace it with "he", even to the point of it being passed as an act of parliament. Yet "they" persists in the spoken word.
So, perhaps I was wrong to say "he" has always been wrong, because it wasn't always used. Even more, gramtically incorrect or not, "they" (etc) has been used by Jane Austin, Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde and even appears in the King James bible (and there are many more examples). So, in such illustrious company, I am proud to throw out my illogically and inherently sexist "genderless he", and emrace the use of a geuinely inclusive "they". Because I haven't never paid no attention to grammar anyways.
"No man should eat something they doesn't like."
You're right, that sounds alot better.
Redefining a language because some mentally unstable and insecure women get all hot and bothered when they read "he" in a sentence (as is still proper, regardless of what sexist pig came up with it) is ridiculous. It ranks up there with the taking down of US flags in a US library because foreign exchange students might be offended. There is a fine line between sensitivity and anal...iality... (Look, I can invent rules TOO!)
The irony is that in the push for equality, women now have the upper hand in pretty much everything that matters. In a divorce, the woman automatically gets custody of children unless there's some reason she can't care for them, and counsel is often provided free of charge. (Not so for the man) Women are accepted (by law, usually) into any profession, while a man who remains at home is frowned on by society. The entire attitude surrounding sexism is quite ironic, if you pay attention to it. The rule goes something like this:
"Sexism is wrong, unless you're a woman."
Similar rules apply to racism, nationalism, and... alot of other -isms, no doubt.
You're right, that sounds alot better.
Redefining a language because some mentally unstable and insecure women get all hot and bothered when they read "he" in a sentence (as is still proper, regardless of what sexist pig came up with it) is ridiculous. It ranks up there with the taking down of US flags in a US library because foreign exchange students might be offended. There is a fine line between sensitivity and anal...iality... (Look, I can invent rules TOO!)
The irony is that in the push for equality, women now have the upper hand in pretty much everything that matters. In a divorce, the woman automatically gets custody of children unless there's some reason she can't care for them, and counsel is often provided free of charge. (Not so for the man) Women are accepted (by law, usually) into any profession, while a man who remains at home is frowned on by society. The entire attitude surrounding sexism is quite ironic, if you pay attention to it. The rule goes something like this:
"Sexism is wrong, unless you're a woman."
Similar rules apply to racism, nationalism, and... alot of other -isms, no doubt.
Unfortunately, things do often seem to end up that way. "Positive" discrimination is a wondeful example of that IMO. Usually put in place when it as been decided that minority group X have to be employed at a specific level/ number within an organisation. Members of group X get "positively discriminated" for. Believe me, there is nothing positive about it if you are going into the interview room as someone who is not a member of group X.HotWax wrote:"Sexism is wrong, unless you're a woman."
Similar rules apply to racism, nationalism, and... alot of other -isms, no doubt.
"No man should eat something they doesn't like."
Heh, yes. I guess that's why the Grammarians don't like it. "No man should eat something they don't like" sounds OK, but replace "they" with "he" and you get something as awkward sounding as your example. Unless you come from London, where saying "he don't like" would be a fairly normal turn of phrase.
-
Ultraviolet
- Posts: 1152
- Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 9:08 pm
- Location: PROJECT DETAILS CLASSIFIED.
