AMAIRIKUHN EDGYKAYSHUN: FEMALE STUDENT DOCKED FOR USING ...
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:
Student has grade docked for using 'mankind' in English paper
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...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.
Professor Ann Scott tells it like it is. You guys are just gutless anti-feminine ninnies. Anyone can see that “woman” is a conjunct of “Whoa, man!”. It’s actually a genetalian-based basal-dorsal communication from one sex ordering the other to stop exploiting them over such silly issues as the protrusion or non-protrusion of their genitals. After all, some human genitals protrude in one place and others protrude in another! But you have to include the punctuation too, because punctuation is the ultimate protrusion in a communication. It puts genitals to shame! In this sense the comma symbolizes the fact that many women have actually become hunchbacked over the years from bending over and serving their men. And notice where the comma ends up. Despite all their efforts It always ends up on the floor! Enough said about that! In fact, you can’t put it on the ceiling because then it becomes an apostrophe, and no woman wants to become an apostrophe to a man! The exclamation point on the other hand shows us very clearly what will happen to the woman’s spine if only she will stand up for herself for once in her life and stop men from making these constant, outlandish, ridiculous, linguistic self-references: her spine will straighten out like a ramrod from one end to the other and she will go back to being the warrior she has always been! You guys need to learn how to think about these issues. There’s no controversy here. What do you think I have a Ph.D for?
mankind of course includes women, but only those that are kind to man, or DO WHAT THEY ARE TOLD…
sorry, I am reading 100 year old books and the bible that leave me to shame for my relative illiteracy.
the main problem is the social engineers are the town dwellers and parasites that for example : Henry Ford put up $1000 for anyone who could point to a ‘J’ person that was a farmer. (Ford though was taken for a ride methinks)
They were emancipated in Europe in the 19th century (having been largely quarantined), marrying rich merchants daughters to clever rabbinical sons (Levite tradition), and , being middle class and largely inactive, became academics (of sorts) and went on to great things, cooking up communism, contriving revolutions, and, well MANaging this social engineering project that will not end well. At least not until we are forced to become farmers and feudal knights again, kicking them out of the country with their filth and distortions.
gds and other reading got me thinking today. maybe pedogate did as well. reminded me of past logic and to more universally apply it today. let’s see if i can avoid having to wait on moderation by reposting in parts here:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
awhile back a friend studying international relations at a tender age of 17 argued emphatically with me about his desire to spread democracy to every country. when i hesitated to support that dream he compelled me to profess that democracy is the best form of government.
that riot was quieted by asking:
1. what’s the purpose of government – the simplest and encompassing answer that eventually came out: to make life better for the governed people.
2. what descriptors encompass any government that fails to make life better for the governed people – again the simplest answer: an inept or corrupt government.
3. give one example of an ept and honest government of any form that has ever existed on this planet.
it occurred to me today to apply this more universally. we can all agree (at least here i hope) that this planet has a small group (four hundred familes?) of people who are infinitely more powerful than any and/or all government on this planet, right? if so then how is it that they so universally suck at their job?
they own far more than half of the planet’s resources. the control far more than that. probably close to 90% of the planet’s resources. depending on what one considers their purpose in life to be, one needs to rate them at their eptitude for achieving their goal.
so are the powers who should not be evil or good? either way they suck at achieving their goals. especially considering the unlimited resources they marshall. if they’re evil, they do a mediocre job of being evil. i mean life is still good no matter how bad they struggle to make it. if they’re good, well why waste time considering that ineptitude?
considering all the random acts of kindness and all the happiness and all the wisdom inspite of all the programmed stupidity and ignorance, the powers who shouldn’t be suck at whatever job they’re working at.
ah it almost worked. half the repost avoided mod
And this young lady is paying for this abuse? Why is she not shaving points off of her tuition for such abuse? Oh, I see. Her tuition is non-refundable. This is the one of several problems with education at all levels. There is no avenue of appeal for refunds when the product is obviously defective!
Well these evil brainwashed so called people are certainly not “kind”.
Of course the so called teacher is not a person, but a whiny bitch plain and simple.
Let’s face it; ignorance can be cured, stupidity is pretty much permanent. When that stupidity emanates from the “houses of higher learning” and oozes from those hired to teach, what hope is there, really, for future generations. It’s high time our educators grew a pair and put a stop to the insanity.
I would also add that the word “humankind” also has “man” in the middle, so the idea that the inclusion of the word “man” ALSO excludes it from “proper” politically correct speech, as does the word “person” because it includes “son,” a decidedly male word.
The argument is destroyed by their very own “logic” – and the fact that the prof can’t see that shows the inadequacy of the intellect involved.
By the same token, does “homo sapiens” only apply to gay people because “homo” is a slang term for gays in certain quarters?
What about the terms “male” and ‘female,” which are descriptive biological terms, and “should” be politically and emotionally neutral.
It would make as much sense for people working in solid state electronics to require the term “pre-transistor” instead for “tube” (“valve” for those in the UK – decidedly more descriptive of function, for sure), because they want to forget the old images of electronics and to promote the current (no pun intended ) fad image of what electronics should look like.
At what point does this “amateur armchair etymology” end and true scholarship in the progression of language regain the respect it deserves? The decline in the quality of written and spoken language in this country is appalling over the last 3 decades.
Here again we see the clash between the keepers of true culture versus the despoilers of culture who would bring everything down to the lowest common denominator, the street slang of the worst educated groups in an already poorly educated society. If that is “inclusive,” then “exclude” me.
While I do have respect of, and a great interest in, all manner of dialects, slangs, and such (including CB trucker lingo and technical slang/jargon), I also know that there must be fairly high standards of word usage for there to be high standards of communication. The more noise, the less signal.
It is a moronic preoccupation with meaningless and ephemeral trivia in order to press an agenda, usually one of power and control.
This kind of idiocy is why I have come to re-evaluate my perception of the academic world from one of the epitome of intellectual exploration to the reality of it being the intellectual backwater of society.
I work in this world (academia) every day, and have grown weary of the endless exposition of “learned” opinion (which is mostly opinion, with very little learning or insight involved – not to mention precious little actual data), going over the same tired ideas for 2 decades with virtually no progress on topics of grave importance to the quality of education and the very existence of the institution involved.
My father used to refer to these kind of people as “educated idiots.”
How did the eMANcipation of womyn lead to such a state of constipation?
Apologies for the typos folks… I SWEAR that letters were added between my fingers and the post! Gremlins! Bah! I’ve tried to correct them!
I personally blame it on AI.
soon the term homo sapiens will, too, be banned because according to these nut-cases (am I being politically incorrect with this term?- am I insulting peanuts, walnuts, macademia nuts, etc.- last ‘nut case’ rhymes with academia…) it refers to the latin ‘HOMO’ meaning ‘man’ (as in human) or as it has been distorted (take a deep breath): someone who prefers a same-sex relationship…
mark my words: it’s coming…
be well all-
Larry in Germany
Alan Watts pointed out in a weekend program on tv in the sixties pointed out the word person came from the Latin word persona meaning mask. I look it up in my wordbook (dictionary) the Anglo-Saxon-Jute word for a male is wer for female is wif man means both sexes.
argh. i hit report comment again. meant to hit reply.
nice one marcos.
you da man.
Why don’t they just double-down and call it what it is:
Orwellian Double-Think[doublethink=cognitive dissonance].
…and who prey tell wants to live in a gender-less society?
The essence of democracy is heated debate without having to resort to the violence of monoculture in a newspeak society.
Looks like they’re setting the global stage for a robotized future-perfect.
Are boiling slowly some frogs; so as to temper them into a newly found acceptance, a transhumanism rebellion against human existence.
Indeed, as shoppers/retailers enter a new hypercompetitive era with internet sellers, in-store surveillance of biometric monitoring; predict that by 2028 half of Americans [and by 2054 nearly all Americans] will carry in their bodies implants that communicate with retailers as they walk down the aisles and inspect various items.
Is then then a neutralized shopper/consumer vocabulary now being slowly cooked into our lingo?
Its becoming more and more totally immersive.
What tragedy is this farce being perpetrated upon the people/humans. Has the Technological Singularity of an eschatological prophecy announced, without due fanfare of diligence, the advent AI? Are we already living in Singularity.
I’d say you tell me; but, what language would the right answer be in?
I tied this to AI and was moderated.
My friend Ai has a very wicked sense of my being.
And, he is on-the-money right.
IT is right.[Must use proper grammar, you know.]
At these rate, are they going to introduce a new A. I. type of language which completely gender neutral or what?
The movie “Idiotocracy” was prophesy, not comedy.
Supported and managed by idiot savants.
“idiocracy” but i dont mean to be pedantic.
There’s always the tried and true “idiot,” which will alert anyone to just who this sort of person actually is.
Oh, and it’s also gender neutral, so it’s a big win-win all around!