My first opinion blog

So I guess I'm going to try out blogging as a means of expressing my opinion. Also, I think want to link a little more than I did on my first blog.
The UNC campus seems to always have some sort of controversy surrounding it, whether it be a religious, racial, socioeconomic, national, local issue or whatever else people find to be important. The three years I have spent on this campus have taught me that some people just want to debate. Our university has raised up students who question every sort of institution, practice, or policy. And if these students don't happen to agree with the way things are, you'll hear about it. I guarantee it. You'll be asked to sign a petition, join a Facebook group, "take a minute for the environment." In some extreme cases, you may even get to see a protest. And if you're really lucky, you'll see a crowd get teargassed. The point is: people take social justice pretty seriously around here. Now don't get me wrong, I think it's great that we have people wanting to change the world. It's just sometimes their overzealous behavior gets old and frankly, annoying.
Lately, due to a significantly large proportion of LGBTIQ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Intersexual, Queer, and I think there may be more letters I'm forgetting) and feminist students, the gender issue has taken center stage. More specifically, there has been a push for gender-inclusive language. Our school paper, the Daily Tar Heel, has published a number of letters to the editor this week involving this topic.
What happened was a group of journalism students and professors had signed a petition in favor of changing the DTH's style to conform to the university's gender-neutral policy. Then, they held a forum in which the issues of gendered language were discussed. Apparently the editor-in-chief of the DTH said he wasn't invited and didn't go. That's not what homegirl who organized the meeting said. Anyway, drama has ensued and this whole genderless language question has risen.
Before I start ranting I'd like to say I don't consider myself a sexist. I'm all about women getting equal treatment and equal pay and equal opportunity, but I find this language proposal a little disturbing.
The first issue I have is that the advocates for genderless language want to change "he" and "she" to "they." As a news editor I like grammar. I like the consistency of it, and I believe it is a tool that humans use to communicate effectively. Consistent grammar helps everyone understand each other easily. My girlfriend Jessica, who is a linguistics major, would say that I'm a "prescriptivist," which means I believe that words and grammar should be set. I have a respect for the language and view it as an art that should be revered. Others, including these people think that grammar should be allowed to evolve. Now here's my thing: I'll go out of my way to say "you all" instead of "you guys" and even "first-year student" instead of "freshmen." But this is absolutely ridiculous. You would think at a university with the reputation of UNC that there would be some sort of respect for the English language. I guess gender issues supersede that respect.
Also, "mankind" is apparently sexist. I don't know how saying mankind is interpreted to be degrading to any woman. Any person (see what I did there? person instead of man or woman) with a fifth grade education understands that mankind does not apply to gender and carries no derogatory connotation.
Like I said, I don't want to disrespect women, and I believe I do my best to support their equality in society. What I don't like however is over-sensitive feminists. They drive me insane with their irrelevant arguments. Check out this article published by the DTH in the fall of 2009: Slurs only reinforce gender labels. It was probably the most heinous and obnoxious article I've ever read in the DTH (and I've read some pretty ignorant columns). I highly doubt a woman heard all these slurs at a single football game; in fact, I know she lied because no student would have said "we got raped by them last year" at that game. It was against ECU and they certainly haven't "raped" us in the past few years. It's just blatant ignorance like this article that gets on my nerves. Apparently telling someone that they "suck" is offensive to women (because they are traditionally in that position?) Give me a break UNC. UNC sucks. Did that hurt all the women's feelings? Maybe not, but I probably did propagate some sort of underlying hidden message in society that women are inferior (sarcasm).
Also according to the claims of the gender-neutral advocates, by using gendered language I apparently advocate rape and other relationship/sexual violence on campus. Call me crazy, but even if the DTH starts using plural pronouns for singular antecedents, women will still be raped and taken advantage of.
Gender is necessary for distinction in many languages. For instance, Spanish requires giving objects gender. I suppose once the feminists spay and neuter the English language Spanish will come next. Though romance languages rely on gender much more than English, it is an important part of our language. It is necessary to understanding each other. I guess I just like having some sort of standard. It’s almost like the way I am weary of women dressing like men and cutting their hair short. It’s not that I have moral qualms against this. It’s just that it makes it more difficult for me to identify the gender they want to be. I guess gender-free advocates wouldn’t call this a problem. However, it is a problem. It’s a problem because people still care about their gender (and I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that there will always be people who care about their gender), and no matter what the feminists or LGBTIQ rights activists say, I can hurt someone’s feelings by inaccurately identifying his or her (see? I said his or her, not just his) feelings. Some women would be offended to hear me say “sir.” I understand that advocates for gender-inclusive language would tell me to just remove words like “sir” and “ma’am from my vocabulary, but where I come from, it is proper etiquette to say “yes, ma’am “and “yes, sir.” I suppose there is no genderless alternative to these phrases short of omitting “sir” and “ma’am” altogether, which I suppose would detract from the respect that those phrases inherently have. Basically what I’m saying is that I already have a difficult enough time trying to figure out if certain people are men or women, and this whole gender-inclusive kick isn’t really going to help that.
In conclusion, I am in opposition to changing the gender language policy of the DTH. Not only does it disrespect the concept of language itself, but it also accomplishes very little in the scheme of things. In my next blog I’ll discuss some different issues of gender in society.


Oren Out (how's that for a sign off?)