4 ms·

I'm inclined to agree that "running things like a business" is part of the reason why no one wants to make a stand. But I have to disagree with this: >Or to r

I'm inclined to agree that "running things like a business" is part of the reason why no one wants to make a stand. But I have to disagree with this: >Or to repurpose your phrase, "When business and profits are your religion, anyone with moral conviction is your enemy and must be silenced." It's not the businessmen who are trying to shut down free speech and debate on college campuses. >See, that's the sort of sexist language that encourages knee-jerk reactions, and gets people like me labeled "PC". My wife deployed twice to Iraq. Don't you dare leave out all those women who have died for the US, including nearly 200 in Iraq and Afghanistan. You're totally right, so while we're at it, I've gone back and fixed an old quote: "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? Seriously though, I didn't mean to refer to only men. (edit: Perhaps "good people", as suggested below, would have worked too.) I used the term in the broad sense, referring to human beings in general. The modern trend is toward politically correct phrasing that makes a butchery of the English language. I don't see how the phrasing is any more sexist than "mailman", "fireman", or "salesman", which are commonly used in the gender-generic sense. Interestingly, there are many female chairman who insist on being called "chairman", not "chairwoman" or "chair".

loup-vaillant 11y ago
Idioms are a bitch. I'm no native speaker, but I see no good alternative to "good men". "Good People", maybe? But I bet native ears would cringe a bit.
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  "Good people" would have worked fine, though at some cost to dramatic impact. The really barbarous constructions are things like "he or she" as the third-person singular pronoun. There's five camps I can think of on this: 1) Keep using "he" as the gender-generic third-person singular pronoun. This was the only accepted option for a long time. I think this is the best sounding, but some crowds might give you grief for it. 2) Use "he or she" every time. This is the worst. 3) Use a mix of both "he" and "she", but obviously be consistent when referring to the same abstract person. I like this in theory, but in practice, the "she"s pops out of the page and direct attention away from what you're trying to say. 4) Use "they". This seems to be winning, though many find it to be a grammatical abomination, since "they" is supposed to be plural. 5) Always use "she". This is how you let everyone know that you have a political agenda.
  - rhyzomatic 11y ago
    For points 1) and 4), just so you are aware, "they" as a singular pronoun has been in popular use since the 14th century. The idea that the "correct" gender neutral singular pronoun is "he" came about in the 19th century. I find it much harder to support the idea that "'they' is supposed to be plural" with this in mind.
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Today I learned. Thanks for correcting me.
hartpuff 11y ago
> "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? I think "the SJW language police" probably know that Neil Armstrong is not a "womyn".
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  You caught me. I was indulging in a little hyperbole.
  - trav4225 11y ago
    I'm not sure Armstrong has spoken publicly about its gender identity. Can we be so sure? ;-)
    - krapp 11y ago
      Well, the actual quote during the moon landing, Armstrong insists[0], was "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." So I think we can be reasonably sure. ;) [0]http://www.space.com/17307-neil-armstrong-one-small-step-quote.html http://www.space.com/17307-neil-armstrong-one-small-step-quo...
- thescribe 11y ago
  Who's to say what Neil Armstrong identifies as? Also this is excluding people who identify as non-man, non-womyn genders. It is also ableist against those who have limited mobility by comparing achievements to walking and jumping. There's no pleasing people who are a prior offended.
  - dalke 11y ago
    Neil Armstrong. That's who gets to say what Neil Armstrong identifies as. Neil Armstrong publicly identified as a man. "That's one small step for a man" is an expression of that identity, as is "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace for all mankind." Everything we know about him, from his own statements about being a "schoolboy" in Ohio on up, is consistent with an expression of that identity. He also publicly identified as an engineer: “I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer, born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace and propelled by compressible flow.” - http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/obituary http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/obituary
dalke 11y ago
The phrases "good people", "good souls", "good citizens", "good soldiers" and "good Americans" all would have been better than "good men", depending on your focus. I think "good souls" would have been the most poetic of these phrases for your intent. If you mean to include the members of the Merchant Marine or the CIA who have died to support US military policies, then "soldiers" doesn't work. If you mean to include the members of the Peace Corp who have died to support US non-military policies, then "soldiers" also doesn't work. If you mean to include the American solders who are not US citizens, then neither "citizen" nor "American" would work. If you mean to include the many female soldiers who have died in American conflicts, then "good men" doesn't work. While "man" can include all people (reflecting its Germanic roots), a phrase like "The show is especially popular with middle-aged men" is almost universally understood to be different than "The show is especially popular with middle-aged people", nor does the door marked "Men" indicate the gender neutral bathroom. We are also not long from the time when women were excluded from organizations on the justification the bylaws specify men, or from the time when "research men" and "typist girls" worked together as "he" and "she" respectively. As to your Armstrong quote, your term "fix" confuses me. The past simply is. We can change our understanding of the past, and understand it's context in different ways. We can change how we do things in the future. But we cannot "fix" the past. Still, I will consider an alternative history where the first moon landing were to occur this summer, with a male pilot named Armstrong2. You already saw that I am not against using the gendered term "wife" (derived, by the way, from 'wif', meaning a female man. When "man" was a gender neutral term, she would have been a wifman and I a werman, meaning a male man). I see no reason for Armstrong2 say 'small step for a man or a womyn' when "man" is a better fit and non-exclusionary. (If Armstrong2 were a woman, would you not think 'that's one small step for a woman, one giant leap for mankind' to be somewhat odd?) You brought up 'womyn'. I believe you did it as a debate technique to polarize to topic and make a false association by assuming that a small group of feminists is representative of the whole of "SJW". Still, I will consider that possibility. If Armstrong2 were to say "one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind" then that would be an expression of Armstrong2's views of gender identity. Is that what you think Armstrong2 believes? If so, then what's wrong with that statement? I can answer that. The Armstrong in our timeline wanted an inclusive term. 1969 was the time of upheaval in race relations, gender relations, and international relations. He wanted a term that could encompass everyone, and do so in a poetic, memorable statement. If Armstrong2 were to say 'man- and womyn-kind' in the alternative timeline similar to our modern one, it would be a divisive phrase. If "man-kind" really meant everyone then there's no need to say "womyn-kind". If "man-kind" is limited to just males, then those woman who do not accept the aspirational goals behind "womyn" would feel excluded. This would be most of the women on the planet. Therefore, "man- and womyn-kind" would not be an encompassing phrase. Hence why I think your objection has no merit, and your proposed phrase fails to capture the intent behind Armstrong's quote. I can of course think of many alternatives, but don't see the point. Nothing I write can shine against the excitement and glory that imbues that first trip to the moon. I can, however, say that "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for humanity" is a better alternative than what you proposed. Tell me, do you still use the terms "aviatrix" and "authoress", "poetess" and "doctress", or have you embraced that butchering of the English language? Or do you somehow believe the terms you grew up with are the correct ones, and not the result of the generations of butchering the language that came before you?

loup-vaillant 11y ago

Idioms are a bitch. I'm no native speaker, but I see no good alternative to "good men". "Good People", maybe? But I bet native ears would cringe a bit.

marcoperaza 11y ago
"Good people" would have worked fine, though at some cost to dramatic impact. The really barbarous constructions are things like "he or she" as the third-person singular pronoun. There's five camps I can think of on this: 1) Keep using "he" as the gender-generic third-person singular pronoun. This was the only accepted option for a long time. I think this is the best sounding, but some crowds might give you grief for it. 2) Use "he or she" every time. This is the worst. 3) Use a mix of both "he" and "she", but obviously be consistent when referring to the same abstract person. I like this in theory, but in practice, the "she"s pops out of the page and direct attention away from what you're trying to say. 4) Use "they". This seems to be winning, though many find it to be a grammatical abomination, since "they" is supposed to be plural. 5) Always use "she". This is how you let everyone know that you have a political agenda.
- rhyzomatic 11y ago
  For points 1) and 4), just so you are aware, "they" as a singular pronoun has been in popular use since the 14th century. The idea that the "correct" gender neutral singular pronoun is "he" came about in the 19th century. I find it much harder to support the idea that "'they' is supposed to be plural" with this in mind.
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Today I learned. Thanks for correcting me.

hartpuff 11y ago

> "One small step for a man or a womyn, one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind". I think I could get that one through even toughest SJW language police. What do you think? I think "the SJW language police" probably know that Neil Armstrong is not a "womyn".

marcoperaza 11y ago
You caught me. I was indulging in a little hyperbole.
- trav4225 11y ago
  I'm not sure Armstrong has spoken publicly about its gender identity. Can we be so sure? ;-)
  - krapp 11y ago
    Well, the actual quote during the moon landing, Armstrong insists[0], was "One small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind." So I think we can be reasonably sure. ;) [0]http://www.space.com/17307-neil-armstrong-one-small-step-quote.html http://www.space.com/17307-neil-armstrong-one-small-step-quo...
thescribe 11y ago
Who's to say what Neil Armstrong identifies as? Also this is excluding people who identify as non-man, non-womyn genders. It is also ableist against those who have limited mobility by comparing achievements to walking and jumping. There's no pleasing people who are a prior offended.
- dalke 11y ago
  Neil Armstrong. That's who gets to say what Neil Armstrong identifies as. Neil Armstrong publicly identified as a man. "That's one small step for a man" is an expression of that identity, as is "Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the Moon. July 1969 AD. We came in peace for all mankind." Everything we know about him, from his own statements about being a "schoolboy" in Ohio on up, is consistent with an expression of that identity. He also publicly identified as an engineer: “I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer, born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace and propelled by compressible flow.” - http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/obituary http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/08/obituary

dalke 11y ago

The phrases "good people", "good souls", "good citizens", "good soldiers" and "good Americans" all would have been better than "good men", depending on your focus. I think "good souls" would have been the most poetic of these phrases for your intent. If you mean to include the members of the Merchant Marine or the CIA who have died to support US military policies, then "soldiers" doesn't work. If you mean to include the members of the Peace Corp who have died to support US non-military policies, then "soldiers" also doesn't work. If you mean to include the American solders who are not US citizens, then neither "citizen" nor "American" would work. If you mean to include the many female soldiers who have died in American conflicts, then "good men" doesn't work. While "man" can include all people (reflecting its Germanic roots), a phrase like "The show is especially popular with middle-aged men" is almost universally understood to be different than "The show is especially popular with middle-aged people", nor does the door marked "Men" indicate the gender neutral bathroom. We are also not long from the time when women were excluded from organizations on the justification the bylaws specify men, or from the time when "research men" and "typist girls" worked together as "he" and "she" respectively. As to your Armstrong quote, your term "fix" confuses me. The past simply is. We can change our understanding of the past, and understand it's context in different ways. We can change how we do things in the future. But we cannot "fix" the past. Still, I will consider an alternative history where the first moon landing were to occur this summer, with a male pilot named Armstrong2. You already saw that I am not against using the gendered term "wife" (derived, by the way, from 'wif', meaning a female man. When "man" was a gender neutral term, she would have been a wifman and I a werman, meaning a male man). I see no reason for Armstrong2 say 'small step for a man or a womyn' when "man" is a better fit and non-exclusionary. (If Armstrong2 were a woman, would you not think 'that's one small step for a woman, one giant leap for mankind' to be somewhat odd?) You brought up 'womyn'. I believe you did it as a debate technique to polarize to topic and make a false association by assuming that a small group of feminists is representative of the whole of "SJW". Still, I will consider that possibility. If Armstrong2 were to say "one giant leap for man- and womyn-kind" then that would be an expression of Armstrong2's views of gender identity. Is that what you think Armstrong2 believes? If so, then what's wrong with that statement? I can answer that. The Armstrong in our timeline wanted an inclusive term. 1969 was the time of upheaval in race relations, gender relations, and international relations. He wanted a term that could encompass everyone, and do so in a poetic, memorable statement. If Armstrong2 were to say 'man- and womyn-kind' in the alternative timeline similar to our modern one, it would be a divisive phrase. If "man-kind" really meant everyone then there's no need to say "womyn-kind". If "man-kind" is limited to just males, then those woman who do not accept the aspirational goals behind "womyn" would feel excluded. This would be most of the women on the planet. Therefore, "man- and womyn-kind" would not be an encompassing phrase. Hence why I think your objection has no merit, and your proposed phrase fails to capture the intent behind Armstrong's quote. I can of course think of many alternatives, but don't see the point. Nothing I write can shine against the excitement and glory that imbues that first trip to the moon. I can, however, say that "That's one small step for a man, one giant leap for humanity" is a better alternative than what you proposed. Tell me, do you still use the terms "aviatrix" and "authoress", "poetess" and "doctress", or have you embraced that butchering of the English language? Or do you somehow believe the terms you grew up with are the correct ones, and not the result of the generations of butchering the language that came before you?