Illustration: «Runes», 2019, Moiret Allegiere
It has come to my attention that gendered language is offensive and non-inclusive. This is something that has to be dealt with by altering our language, and as such altering our methods of communication. At least in the long run. “Manhole” is not acceptable, and as such must be changed to “Maintenance hole”. To be fair and perfectly honest – this is not something that bothers me all that much. The “Maintenance hole” bit, that is. The altering of language, on the other hand, might be slightly worrying. Depending on how far people are willing to take it.
Double-plus-good, newspeak, Ingsoc, 1984 and all that jazz, you see. And so, here I am, invoking the sacred spirit of George Orwell once again. I am sorry. Truly. But I can not help but see the writing on the wall or the mirage flickering on the horizon where our societal descent into totalitarian madness is concerned. I would much prefer not to say this, but I would have to admit that I think Orwell might have maybe been a bit of a prophet or a visionary, seeing the writing on the wall and then placing that writing onto paper magnificently. As though he was beholden to certain fits of visionary journeys.
This altering of language is a sort-of, kind-of nonsensical waving and flailing of the arms, showing severe weakness and frailty on part of the feminist/SJW-crowd. If the mere mention of the word “man” is enough to keep women out of a profession, I would dare say that these women are probably to timid and frail to handle such a profession in the first place.
And I do happen to find it very difficult to believe that women are as weak and frail as the feminist hive-mind would have us believe. That is probably not up to me to decide, of course – I will gladly leave the projection of female fragility in the trembling arms and flapping bingo-wings of the secular feminist slut-marchers, with all their rambling and juggling of word-salads as well as internal inconsistencies.
It is clear as polished steel to me that the hive-mind wishes us to perceive women as weak and incompetent, completely incapable of handling the slightest bit of criticism, the softest of jokes and simple words that do not have anything to do with them, yet still see them diving head-first into the soup of dialogues to flaunt their frailty and tremble at the spoken word “man”. Or the written word “man”. Or anything that has to do with “man”. After all, it is the current year and we should all refer to each other as “peoplekind”, lest we offend the women and frighten the children.
Now; I am not much of a linguist. That much should be established. I merely juggle the words, know what they mean, but don’t know all that much about their roots, their history and their deeper meanings. I have picked up a little here and there, of course, but not enough to consider myself an expert by any stretch of the imagination. What is clear to me, however, is that language does not pop up in a vacuum, does not suddenly spring forth from the ground ready to use as a gift from the Gods. And so, I have picked up that “man” in “mankind” has nothing to do with man as a sex. Nor does the “man” in “woman” or the “men” in “women”.
In my way of thinking, this attempt at altering language is not so much to do with anyone being offended or the language not being inclusive enough. As is with all things in regards to the feminist hordes and the SJW-types, I suspect that it has to do with control and with power, which is at the burning authoritarian core of this hydra-headed movement of theirs.
It has to do with governance and complete domination, making it easy for these masterful emotional manipulators to claim offence at any word uttered that does not comply with their ridiculously rigid standards of behaviour, and in so doing being able to derail and shut down any discussion where they do not have counter-arguments to the claims, facts, arguments, statistics or whatever they are faced with, thus shutting down the discussion by claiming bigotry on part of their ideological opponent.
Very clever, very sly, and very snake-like.
In attempting to alter the language to be more gender-inclusive or gender-neutral, they will then be able to call out anyone who does not use the new-speak of our fantastically warped current year, instead of actually arguing their case, thus forcing their opponent to defend themselves against ridiculous claims of bigotry instead.
I see – and I suspect others do as well – behaviour such as this from the god-awful hive-mind all the bloody time. I remember witnessing someone attempting to debate a prickly social justice warrior urchin of thinly veiled contempt on Facebook on something regarding feminism and social justice. This SJW fruitcake ran out of arguments, as these people do when faced with facts contrary to their overarching narrative where feels equals reals. And so, instead of admitting to being in the wrong, the fruitcake started running her mouth about being mis-gendered by her horrible ideological opponent, screaming, cursing and roaring as though she were in the midst of complete and utter hysteria that he should not refer to her as her, but as they or as them. This of course despite her never giving any indication of this prior to the altercation, and having a pair of tremendous tits staring at us from her profile-photo in a very low-cut cleavage, showing very clearly that she was a woman and then some. It is important to mention that this mis-gendering did not come up as a topic before she started running out of counter-arguments, making it very difficult to believe any offence were really and truly taken – it sure as hammered hell was not given – but making it very easy to come to the conclusion that she derailed the conversation onto bigotry on part of her opponent so that she could take the moral high ground, showing him as a bigot as opposed to her virtually virtuous self, thereby winning the argument on grounds of morality, leaving the original topic of discussion behind in the dust whipped up by her infant-like flirt and flutter. How quickly we forget the original topic when being presented as a bigot in no small way. It smells an awful lot of rank bullshit and distraction; diverting the discussion onto a playing field that is all but level.
As an aside, and in order to air some perfectly reasonable personal grievance on my part, I would like to mention that this SJW fruitcake reacted with offence on behalf of my wife – with whom she had never spoken – when I shared a picture of my wife’s giant collection of shoes, with the comment “Help me – I’m drowning in footwear!”; an obvious joke and a pop-cultural reference to Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That’s how hip I am; referencing 90’s TV-shows in the apocalyptic days of the 2010’s. Sigh. I must be getting old.
Anyhow: this severely busty and thusly be-titted gender-neutral fruitcake snowflake commented with “What about your record-collection Moiret, Hmmmmmmmmm?” as though I had done my wife some horrible injustice and disservice by cracking a joke, horrible patriarchal oppressor that I am. It is amazing the lengths these people will go to in order to seek out offence where no offence is, in order to control and govern what other people do – going so far as to take offence on behalf of someone with whom they have never uttered a single syllable of communication. My wife was not impressed, as she found my joke to be funny and absolutely within the realm of the acceptable. Clearly, these petulant nut jobs do not value the individuality of women, assigning themselves the role of absolute protector of the poor and helpless maidens of chronic neuroticism whose frail submissive nature renders them incapable of speaking for themselves. In particular when faced with something so horrible as a simple and – admittedly – not particularly funny joke at their expense. What should have been a cheap laugh devolved into accusations of this and that from someone taking offence on behalf of my wife, who did not in the least bit take offence to this obvious joke. And so it goes – if no offence exist, offence has got to be found. And if it is not found at once, one must dig and delve a little deeper so that offence may be found, taken and then revelled in so that moral superiority and imbecilic virtue-signalling may reign supreme. Because these people have no personality to speak of. There is nothing there beyond the repeated mantras of offence and victim-hood, of simulated strength shown through opposition to whatever it is they deem offensive or oppressive or offensively oppressive. It is sad, really. And I would be inclined to pity them, were it not for their absolutely insufferable nature and them actually managing to get things censored, shut down and de-platformed by virtue of feigned offence!
It has all to do with power and nothing to do with actual offence taken, or given. For lack of decent arguments or truth, they seek censorship. Because this movement of theirs would die a quick and horrible death were they not able to shut down their opposition.
And what better way to do so but claim offence, discrimination, hatred and bigotry on part of their opponents, appealing to emotion instead of intellect, bringing forth the knee-jerk reaction of anyone who consider women and minorities to be above any and all criticism and disagreement? From deeply rooted trad-cons to the most radical of feminists, there is this in common: women shall not be critiqued or face jokes at their expense. Or, for that matter, take responsibility for their actions. They are to be pampered and protected by men. That is – the very forces that apparently are the enemies of women. It boggles the mind.
Any disagreement with a feminist will be painted as harassment of women by misogynist trolls, and may as such be easily waved away. Any poor criticism of any new movie predominantly starring women will be painted with the same brush; misogynist trolls just out to attack women instead of the film being yet another remade pile of trash from an industry completely devoid of any-and-all originality and creativity, dying on their fields of incessant wailing and attempting to regain past glories through the fractured lenses of our brave new world, cashing in on the momentary cash-cow of intersectional feminism and social justice.
I find it incredibly interesting and frightening. It is a tactic so blatant and so glaringly obvious, and yet people fall for it time and again. Because people in general do not wish to be perceived as bigoted, and so follow the new rules of the discussion. These new rules are that they must defend their person against accusations of whatever these troglodytes may conjure forth from the vast void of their emotional reasoning.
But – to get back on track – this started as me rambling on gendered language and the attempted re-structuring of language, something ripped straight from the pages of 1984. If one may control how people speak, one will also be able to govern the way people think. In altering language in this way, little by little, claiming inclusivity and non-discrimination at first, playing on emotions and perceived superior morality on the progressive push forwards, I fear they will begin to take larger bites after a while, redefining and restructuring language and terms and words to fall more in line with their dogmatic secular religion of feminism and social justice.
It should be fairly evident that their gripe is not with gendered language, considering their frequent and ridiculous use of gendered language to paint behaviour done by all humanity as something done by men and men only.
“Mansplaining” – meaning talking in a condescending way – for example. Something both men and women do, but is painted to be something only men do, thus creating a new word – a new gendered word – to replace a gender-neutral term.
The same could be said for “manspreading”, of course, where they paint behaviour done by both sexes – that is taking up more room on public transportation than they need, being inconsiderate of other people in that space – as something done primarily by men, creating a new and gendered term for something not only men do, and, what is worse, something men have to do based on their biology. It has not only to do with genitals, but also with centre of gravity and being able to sit without swaying like a madman on moving transport, being that both the hips and buttocks of men are smaller than those of women, making it more difficult to maintain balance when seated, forcing the legs to be spread slightly so as to allow for balance. Whereas women tend to spread their bags and purses onto any-and-all seats available, or rest their legs on the seat opposite or whatever. This is behaviour both sexes exhibit, but of which men are made to be the only perpetrators.
There is also the term “manslamming”, made to describe men bumping into other people when they walk, in order to establish dominance and show strength, never-minding in the mess of faulty wiring that is their melted-machine-minds that both men and women do bump into other people by accident all the fucking time.
But accidents don’t happen when it is men doing something, as the holy light of feminism have told us. For whenever men do anything, it is always with some preconceived plan in mind, some scheme of dominant tyranny. Men are held to such a standard by feminist ideologues that we are absolutely incapable of any accidents. All our accidents – all our clumsiness – is pre-planned acts of violence, dominance and tyranny. Men are perfect beings, to the eyes of feminism, completely incapable of doing anything by accident and as such being held to impossible standards of conduct.
Then there is the term “manterrupting”, meaning men interrupting women when women speak. This is despite the fact that women talk more than men on average, and of course despite the fact that this is something both sexes do. It is a human thing to do. Not something only men do. And I would dare say, based on personal experience, that this is something women do far more than men.
To be fair, this is only anecdotal. I can not prove it by any study I have seen, and it has to be taken as as such.
Based on these few examples, I would think it absolutely ridiculous that the de-gendering of words has anything to with actually removing sex and gender from these words for being offensive and non-inclusive. Given that the hive-mind is more than willing to create, to manufacture, new gendered words to add to the rambunctious vocabulary of the world, it would be supreme bullshit of the finest vintage for them to claim opposition to gendered words.
One can not oppose something and then create more of it at the same time. It would be like beating someone up in an alley whilst screaming that “I fucking hate violence with all the phlegm in my mistreated body.” It makes absolutely no sense.
When they restructure – or attempt to restructure – language in this way, removing gendered words for perceived offence, whilst simultaneously creating new gendered words which are actually offensive given that they are made to describe bad behaviour as something only men do, I can only come to the conclusion that this is some weird scheme of social engineering. I can only reach the conclusion, despite this probably making me sound like some tinfoil-hat wearing bastard, that the attempt is to restructure language in such a way that all negative behaviour is inherently masculine, and that all positive behaviour or profession is – at least at the first stage – gender-neutral.
That this is some strange way of saying through language remade that, though both genders are capable of good behaviour, only men are capable of bad behaviour. In altering language in this way, and attempting to make this stillborn spontaneous abortion that is the holy tongue of divine feminist new-speak go mainstream, it will cement itself in our minds and in our way of thinking.
Language is a very complex thing. And – to repeat myself – I am not a linguist by any stretch of the imagination. Yet, it seems obvious to me that altering language will also alter the way people think and thusly alter the way people view the world. Like looking at the dictionary definition of feminism as being only about equality between the genders have cemented this view of feminism in the hearts and minds and souls of our societies of only being about equality, despite their actions proving that this is a faulty definition. Easily proven to be wrong by simply seeing what they do as opposed to what they say. Actions do speak louder than words ever could.
It is very easy to laugh at, crack jokes and ridicule these new gendered words and terms that the hive-mind has manufactured. And I absolutely think they should be laughed at, scorned, ridiculed and shown the door.
However; there is still this terror floating in front of my eyes, this scary and sneaky subversive tactic used that is more than meets the eye. Main-streaming words that can not be viewed as anything but inherently negative towards anything masculine will make the words part of our daily thought-process and will, eventually, take part in painting the way we view the world.
Now, of course, the very same thing could be said in regards to gendered words such as fireman, policeman, manhole and the like. To repeat myself: I don’t mind genderless language or descriptors as a general rule; it really does not matter to me that fireman becomes firefighter instead, or that policeman becomes police-officer. In all honesty, this sounds fair to me. It does not bother me in the least, one way or the other. Now; do the same to “midwife”.
What bothers me is the blatant hypocrisy of supposedly opposing gendered language whilst creating new gendered language. What bothers me is the re-engineering of language to manufacture this view that so-called negative behaviour is purely masculine, whilst so-called positive behaviour is either gender-neutral or strictly feminine.
Though I am aware that language changes all the time, that it is a fluid thing that take new forms and shapes constantly, I can not help but think that – as is with all change, all evolution – it has to come about natural in regards to evolution, and has to be well thought-out, pondered and considered in regards to man-made change. I can not help but think that things have to change slowly and over time, not being implemented where there is no rhyme or reason to it at the whim and will of a movement hell-bent on dismantling any-and-all in regards to western civilization.
I can not help but think that this altering of language, this restructuring of the way we interact with one another, is but a small part of a greater machine designed to manufacture even more distrust of anything masculine, sowing even greater seeds of discontent than are already sown where the relationship between men and women are concerned, furthering this nonsensical gender-war and keeping it going far into the future. And, in so doing, making us drift even further apart.
This movement, that claims to work for non-divisiveness do, as a matter of fact, foster nothing but divisiveness, does nothing but drive the hammer home and create vast schisms where once the sexes were co-operating, where once the sexes were on the same team instead of being forced into opposing teams, caught in an eternal head-on-head battle where no-one will emerge the victor but the ideologues who seek to divide and then to conquer.
– Please like, share and subscribe
– Moiret Allegiere, 31.07.2019
My book – Howling at a Slutwalk Moon:
Vol 1 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/107571074X
Vol 1 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZTPDPR
Vol 2 Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075714184
Vol 2 Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07TZR25NL
Vol 1 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075717094
Vol 2 Illustrated Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1075723078
Redbubble shop: https://www.redbubble.com/people/Moiret/shop