there are some points i disagree with, but i love Maddox.

[likecheesemelty]

I don't want mother nature being called mother nature anymore, but rather father nature. I don't want ships to be referred to as female anymore, but rather male. The phrase "she's a good ship" offends me. I don't want liberty to be a lady. Why does it have to be lady liberty? Why do people say "she's beautiful" when referring to cars? Why not

Comments

[airlung]

Before I didn't have a chance to explain why I didn't agree with the oversimplified points presented here. I think when he satirizes the pop-culture "Feminist"'s complaint of linguistic gender inequality (Mother Nature etc.), he's being very shortsighted. Women and the English language do not have a friendly relationship. The words in the language that are related to women have negative connotations related to passivity, vanity, domesticity and promiscuity. See 'Mother Nature' as passive, 'she' is being destroyed, cut down, and built over daily. I think my problem with this (among others) is that feminism and linguistics is passed over dismissively -- and that is not only very foolish but easy to do if you do not realize how strongly our thoughts affect language, and paradoxically, how strongly our language affects our thoughts.

Words with both masculine and feminine forms e.g., heir-heiress, hero-heroine, steward-stewardess, usher-usherette. In nearly all such pairs, the masculine word is considered the base, with some kind of a feminine suffix being added. The masculine form is the one from which compounds are made, e.g., from king-queen comes kingdom but not queendom, from sportsmansportslady comes sportsmanship but not sportsladyship. There is one-and only one-semantic area in which the masculine word is not the base or more powerful word. This is in the area dealing with sex and marriage. When someone refers to a virgin, a listener will probably think of a female, unless the speaker specifies male or uses a masculine pronoun. The same is true for prostitute.

Besides this, he's really just playing on the majority of the public's misconception about feminism, and therefore feminists. He seems to think feminists are the breed of female who refuse to shave body hair (which I condone) for a rise, call men pigs, have a holier-than-thou attitude to porn stars and "sluts" (loaded word there) and host bra-burning bonfires.
It would be ridiculous for an ethical feminist to fight for women's rights and tell women they don't have the right to wear lipstick, shave their legs, and flash their breasts as long as they do it thoughtfully. On the subject of body hair, we're mammals and it grows naturally. Society has a huge problem with women and body hair (among other things) -- I don't know how far he's going with saying 'outcast' but see any girl proudly flashing some noticeable pit hair hearing "WOW, THAT'S SO COMMENDABLE FOR NOT COMPLYING WITH FOOLISH DOUBLE STANDARDS." I'm sure you'd hear more of the "FUCKING GROSS" brand of commentary.

Why does any of this matter? I think it does. It's all subtlety that causes thoughts to change, opinions to foster. It's easy for a man to say THIS IS HOW IT IS - DEAL WITH IT, because the experience is much different. It's important to have empathy and look in depth at the way detail effects our reality.

[likecheesemelty]

you do make some really good points, cassie. i just agree with him "it's not meant to be offensive." it isnt. and i can totally understand how you can see how it is to you. but instead of skimming through it why not read it and give it a chance?

[airlung]

I read it entirely before writing the really long piece. I found it erroneous but goodnatured. This is because people who are not feminists (see: gender equality) have a poor perspective of feminism. Somewhere and somehow, this crazy picture of feminists being 'man-hating dykes' is painted.

I know PERSONALLY it's not meant to be offensive, that YOU and many men AREN'T outright mysogynistic. I understand that completely. However, we are ALL raised in a patriarchal society [a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father's clan or tribe]. It's a part of everybody and it must be acknowledged and accepted. To say we aren't sexist, racist, or classist to some degree means we are fooling and lying to ourselves. It is not that these feelings are born with us (male and female alike) but we are raised in a society that projects sexist, racist and classist opinions on us since we've been able to understand our language and environment. Of course slight social reform has ONLY tweaked the more glaring problems of our society. I realize that it isn't the individual who is consciously being offensive. I do hope that people WILL realize their actions/thoughts have deep, subconscious roots AND consequences, and give this idea a chance. We are a part of society, we are raised by its ideals, but we also contribute to them.