It's been a while since I had one of my customary rants about the fraudulent state of Amairikuhn edgykayshan and the insane circus agenda of the cultural Marxists infesting it. Just in time, Ms. S.H. noticed the following article and sent it along:
Now you'll note the latest victim of the "politically correct diction" crazy is, in this instance, a young lady who thinks the whole language agenda is a bit ridiculous:
Cailin Jeffers, an English major at NAU, told Campus Reform that she received an email from one of her professors, Dr. Anne Scott, informing her that she had been docked one point out of a possible 50 on a recent paper for “problems with diction (word choice)” related to her use of the word “mankind” as a synonym for “humanity.”
“After our first essay we were given a list of ‘do’s and don’ts’ based off of errors my professor found in our essays. Most of them make sense, just things like ‘make sure you’re numbering your pages’ and ‘cite in proper MLA format,’ but she said we had to be sure to use ‘gender-neutral language,’” Jeffers told Campus Reform. “Included with this rule were several examples of what was and wasn’t okay to use. In one of these examples she stated that we could not use the word ‘mankind.’ Instead, we should use ‘humankind.’ I thought this was absurd, and I wasn’t sure if she was serious.”
Jeffers decided to test the policy on her next paper by including two instances of the word “mankind,” and when the paper came back with the requisite points taken off, she requested a meeting with Scott.
Well, beyond the fact that Northern Arizona is using the very inadequate MLA (Modern Language Association) directives for proper citation - which in my curmudgeonly opinion is absolutely inadequate as a scholarly method of source citation, if only for the reason that it is a completely artificial set of rules, and did not develop from the tradition of academic orthography that emerged over the centuries of use - you'll note that there is a tactic going on here, one designed to short-circuit the whole idea of "free speech". Ms. Jeffers' professor stated:
“I would be negligent, as a professor who is running a class about the human condition and the assumptions we make about being ‘human,’ if I did not also raise this issue of gendered language and ask my students to respect the need for gender-neutral language,” Scott explained. “The words we use matter very much, or else teachers would not be making an issue of this at all, and the MLA would not be making recommendations for gender-neutral language at the national level.”
The professor of Gender Neutrality and Political Correctness was challenged by her student;
“I stated that I agree with everything she said about my paper except my use of ‘mankind.’ She proceeded to tell me that the NAU English department, as well as the Modern Language Association, are pushing for gender-neutral language, and all students must abide by this,” Jeffers recalled. “She told me that ‘mankind’ does not refer to all people, only males. I refuted, stating that it DOES refer to all people, [but] she proceeded to tell me that I was wrong, ‘mankind’ is sexist, and I should make an effort to look beyond my preset positions and ideologies, as is the focus of the class.”
So note first that the professor put on the airs of "objectivity" and waxed fairly frothy about respecting Ms. Jeffers' choices of words. But then she went on to state Ms. Jeffers would still be punished for writing the way she wanted to, cited the MLA commissars as the "authority" for her ukase, and when Ms. Jeffers protested that the word mankind did exclude the female sex - funny thing, this curmudgeon doesn't remember his elementary school or middle school English teachers - women to a... uhm...er... man (this gets so confusing!) - the Professor of Commissarial Conformity lost all objectivity and simply redefined the word according to MLA dictates, and insisted that it did.
OK, we get it, but I hope the tactic here is perceived. In order to "get around" that pesky little thing called "free speech", the professor couched everything as an academic exercise, nothing more, as an "experiment".
But one wonders then if the professor, or the institution of lower learning in which she roosts (Editor's note, that's my attempt to be politically correct: "tenure" and words like that are so old fashioned and tainted with masculine imagery) would tolerate a class - just for the sake of experiment - in requiring students not to use "gender neutral" language, but rather, the old traditional language most of use still use, you know, words like "he, him, she, her, it" and "mankind" and so on.
Which brings me to the next article, shared by Mr. V.T. But before this, I have to relate a personal encounter I had with such looniness, one that occurred in the Oxford Union Society during a debate in which I participated. I was at the box, holding forth on something-or-other, and the speaker intervened to correct my use of the word "men" to refer to humanity. She insisted I use gender inclusive language in my remarks. "Men" had to be banned from my vocabulary and replaced with the word "persons". Well, being a theology student, I objected that this word had more specific technical meanings and that such usage actually confused the issue, and then informed her that the end result of this madness would have to be to change the occurrence of the word "man" or "men" to persons: the word "immanent" would have to be changed to "impersonent" which rhymed with "impertinent" which was "what I find your whole scheme to be." This was met by a rousing chorus of "hear hears!" and I continued my curmudgeonly peroration in traditional diction.
At the time, I meant my remarks as a rather humorous comment, and never dreamed that they would become somewhat prophetic, as the article shared by Mr. V.T. illustrates(copy and paste into your browser):http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/29/womyn-womxn-womban-taxpayer-funded-university-ponders-alternate-spellings-for-woman/ Yes, that's right, even the words "woman" or "women" are no longer inclusive enough because - you guessed it - they include the words "man" and "men":
Garcia-Pusateri then introduced several different ways feminists have invented to misspell the word “woman.”
The possible misspellings include “womyn,” “womxn,” “womban,” “wimmin.” There’s also the term “femme” — which means a conspicuously feminine lesbian, according to Urban Dictionary.
The first time the wrong spelling “womyn” appeared in print was at the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival in 1976, a handout provided by Garcia-Pusateri asserted.
Obviously, the intention of the misspelling “womyn” is to avoid spelling “women” with the word “men.”
The solution to all this? I suspect Ms. Jeffers has pointed the way: simply refuse to go along with it, even at personal cost. That cost is relatively minor in her case. For some, that refusal will mean not attending college - simply defund the activity of the crazies - because it's either refusal now, or refusal later, for these people will not stop until they are either confronted, or acquire the power to confront, and at that stage, the demands will be total: abandon all tradition, or pay a costly price. If that seems extreme, then ask yourself if it is worth the financial cost to send yourself, or your children, to these fraudulent indoctrination centers.
Or, to put it more bluntly: violence to language and free speech today will be violence to people tomorrow.
See you on the flip side...