Words

[David]

A lot of people assume that, because I'm a writer and editor, I'm a grammar/spelling nazi. Now, while it's true that I've occasionally engaged in snide mutterings about unnecessary apostrophes on cafe menus, I generally take a descriptivist as opposed to presciptivist approach � which is to say, rather than obsessing over people using the 'wrong' words or 'wrong' grammar, I'd rather see such things as a valid, organic evolution of the English language. In my view, there's nothing technically incorrect about saying 'youse', and even I'd begrudgingly admit that 'ass' is an acceptable spelling variant of 'arse' in Australian English. To put it perhaps too simply, if it exists, it's legitimate.

That's not to say that words can't have offensive connotations and that we shouldn't critique them. But I do think modern leftists (particularly those caught up in identity politics) tend to focus on language way too much. Their mission seems to be less erasing offensive words from everyday language (the focus of '90s political correctness) and more getting rid of every single word except for the 'correct' one.

For instance:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tracyclayton/stop-calling-women-females#.jqWLNrqpQ

I've read a few feminists make this puzzling claim of late. Admittedly, this is Buzzfeed, so we're not engaging with the most intellectually rigorous argument. But let's deal with these six points:

1. "Because the words �female� and �woman� mean different things."

Yes. Similar words are rarely fully synonymous. In this instance, 'woman' refers to a set within the broader umbrella noun 'female'.

2. "Because reducing a woman to her reproductive abilities is dehumanizing and exclusionary."

Hang on, what? 'Reducing' a woman to her gender is dehumanising? It's almost like calling someone a ... woman.

3. "Because nobody casually refers to men as �males.�"

Yeah, that totally never happens.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/sen-sherrod-brown-mostly-white-males-who-have-committed-terr#.ol0W8n62x

4. "Because it is most often used to imply inferiority or contempt."

It may be used that way in certain contexts. But it's also often used neutrally. I presume 'articles' like this aren't aimed at people who are already inclined to use the word 'female' disparagingly; it's actually criticising neutral usage.

5. "Because it�s grammatically weird."

Er, no. It's an adjective and a noun (like 'square' or 'double'). Hence its well-established nounal usage. As for the supposedly ambiguous examples, they're obviously not ambiguous in context.

6. "And most importantly, because the word you�re looking for already exists."

Because ... synonyms are bad?

Also, see this:

http://mic.com/articles/115090/guys-can-we-stop-calling-everyone-guys-already#.Rg14ox79e

There's a real fundamentalism to this kind of thing that ignores a lot of nuance. For instance, rather than just leaping to the conclusion that calling people 'guys' is analogous to the old universal 'he', isn't it rather more likely that 'guys' has simply and quite unproblematically been co-opted as a gender neutral form of address? What's happened here is not Da Patriarchy taking over again, but simply the organic process of language: a need has arisen for a common mode of address, so the word has essentially become a polyseme: a word with the same spelling and pronunciation that has separate meanings. Its meaning depends on context: if you say 'there were five guys in the group', people will understand that you're talking about five males (oops, sorry, 'men'); but if you say 'hey guys' you'll more often than not be referring to all the people you're talking to, regardless of gender. There is very little actual ambiguity here, and it's quite possible that the generic definition might one day replace the gendered one altogether.

Things really go nuclear when you get to the transgender rights movement, where people obsess not over just words, but spaces between words (like, seriously, some people will tell you to say 'trans woman' instead of 'transwoman'), asterisks, spellings and everything else imaginable. I can't help but wonder why so many people, particularly from disadvantaged or special interest groups, are so concerned about the intricacies of language. Is it because the dominant language oppresses them (the orthodox response) or is it, as I suspect, mainly about shibboleths - special words used to establish who is and isn't a member of the 'club' - and a means of asserting power both within the groups in question and on wider society?

Both are fairly understandable reactions to feelings of powerlessness (and it is about subjective perception of powerlessness; 'men's rights advocates' have as many shibboleths as anybody). But that's not quite the same thing as saying that these demands should be humoured. I'm happy to avoid using terms that are insulting or belittling, particularly if that's their primary intention; but should I really be avoiding the word 'female' (noun) because some feminists consider it 'problematic'? On the other hand, is a single, somewhat syntactically redundant and slightly old-fashioned word worth fighting for, or is continuing to use it, now some women have said they don't like it, a dick move? Whaddaya reckon, males and females of Nick's?

[think positive]

my favourite word is probably f&ck, it just means so much,
pain, excitement, fear, happy, its all you need

[stui magpie]

I reckon I'm bored so i read the whole op. What's scary is i agree with it.

[Wokko]

Good post, nothing to add at the moment but didn't want it to go without being responded to.

[5150]

My favourite F.R David song.

[watt price tully]

Words and spelling are very important. Indeed misspelling can land you into a good deal of trouble:

UK boy�s school assignment spells terror alert. Muslim student accidentally writes about his family�s �terrorist� house; he meant �terraced�

http://www.timesofisrael.com/uk-boy-reported-to-authorities-for-spelling-error/

[3.14159]

[David]

But that's the whole point - I'm not!

(Good article, by the way. )

[3.14159]

I don't buy the Frydae Age because David (do no Attempt) Astel has his wae with the Cryptic but he does have many interesting thinks to say about language. (Grammar school is now an Oxy-moron etc).

Fair call on the other point, I shouldn't single you out like that.
I'll go back and edit my post!

[think positive]

Are not enough to s at the way I feel about u

[3.14159]

Sticks and stones may break my bones,
but w----'s can only hurt me, if I let them!