It's as if there are no problems left in this country and our MPs can now start to squabble over the petty and inconsequential. Watch out, the PC brigade are taking over and their leader is Jack Straw. The man being touted as our next Chancellor has decided to come out with this: "Male pronouns are used on their own in contexts where a reference to women and men is intended, and...words such as 'chairman' are used for offices capable of being held by either gender. Many believe that this practice tends to reinforce historic gender stereotypes, and presents an obstacle to clearer understanding for those unfamiliar with the convention." Many believe, do they Jack? I imagine even more couldn't give a monkeys. Meg Munn, minister for women, has taken the ill-founded assumptions one step further "It really is outdated to have language which refers to 'he' when it means women as well. Most people would see this as a normal, sensible way forward." Most people? Sensible way forward?
This is what happens when you have such a large government that has positions for just about every imaginable area of life - people (hes and shes) have nothing to do in their role and start making up problems to ensure they aren't found out to be pointless and over paid. The last word has to go to Ann Widdecombe, who on hearing this responded "Jack Straw is a silly ass... All he is doing is distorting the English language, and I would have thought he had better things to do.".
Comments
I'd have this opinion if I were female too...
If one insists on "chairperson" then one must also insist on "personkind" and "the evolution of person".
Sure, "chairman" undoubtedly comes from this root which may have been borne of a gender imbalance. I understand fairly well the evolution of meaning within the English language, including the notion that it is dextrous enough to not imply gender in such words in today's context.
For example; I don't expect a threshold to hold thresh like it used to, and I don't expect a chairman to be necessarily a man.
"Ha" to them
Is it just me, or is there a growing tendency for academic books (or at least social-science books from American publishing houses) to use "she" and "her" for the generic third-person? "They" and "their" I can put up with - ungrammatical but pretty common usage. If using the masculine to encompass the feminine offends you, it doesn't cost me much to stroke your fragile feelings by using the plural. But what the hell is the point of using the feminine to encompass the masculine? If using the masculine is wrong because it is exclusive, how does using the feminine improve things?
This post is typical of the muddled attitude of those who see the need to correct the masculine generic third-person by using the feminine. I would have thought the point of communication was to communicate, not to provide a momentary sense of dislocation for the listener.
I prefer Adam's learned but ultimately fatalist disquisition at antimoon.com. Perhaps Jack can try using "ha" to see if it will catch on. It's not going to make him much less coherent than he is already.
As for the generic term for "chairman", see Anne Widdecombe's pithy comment, quoted recently on Iain Dales' site: "I am not a chair. I have never been sat upon."