One example of this: gender inclusive language.
Feminists base the necessity of gender-inclusive language on the idea that when readers see “men” instead of “men and women” , they are unable to make the distinction between “men” meaning people of the male gender, and “people” in general.
They think that this makes men the “standard gender”.
The example that pops into my head is the translation of the Bible readings in the lectionary.
When St. Paul addressed his readers, he wrote “brothers”, not “brothers and sisters”.
But the feminists (and their male supporters) in various theological seminaries and diocesan bureaucracies decided to impose their will on the church and translate the readings according to these politically correct translations.
They didn’t take into account the Vatican prohibition against this, which in itself should have sufficed.
They didn’t take into account the text’s integrity. As someone who’s studied history, I believe that reproducing the original words of an ancient text is important. While it’s true that translations are often different than the original for the sake of clarity, there is obviously a literal translation here. That should have been preserved in the name of keeping the Bible as close as possible to the original text for the sake of studying it.
They didn’t care that they were introducing an underlying political agenda that is antithetical to the Church (or actually, that might have been their goal).
In their purview: They’re feminists, they’re right, get over it.
Another example: When I was a kid, I learned the hymn “Let There Be Peace on Earth”.
One line goes:
With God as our Father
Brothers all are we.
Let me walk with my Brother
In Perfect Harmony
A very fine sentiment. But the phrasing is politically unacceptable, because feminists assume people cannot make the necessary distinctions.
So now the song has been changed to:
With God as our Father,
We are family;
Let us walk with each other
In perfect harmony.
(And if that’s not bad enough, one re-write has “With Earth as our Mother”—ARGH).
A perfectly good hymn watered down in the name of political correctness.
Of course it’s not just a church phenomenon. Many words and phrases have been changed. Fishermen are now “fishers”, postmen are “letter carriers”, and “firemen” are “firefighters”.
And so forth. I could go on.
Woe to the person who defies that gender-inclusive standard. I remember one time a long time ago when I was in the NDP, a document was circulated (in French) which did not have the necessary gender inclusive language. For instance, it spoke only of “les Québécois » not «les Québécois et les Québécoises »-- which is really boring to say and write. A feminist strongly objected to this at a meeting that I was at. “Je ne suis pas invisible, eh!” She said (I’m not invisible, eh!).
She reacted to the text as if the man who wrote the document had no respect for her because of this form of language, even though he was probably as “progressive” as anyone else in the NDP. The focus was on some stupid point of language, instead of the substance!
But that is the nature of feminism. It requires people to behave a certain way, and if you don’t, the implied judgment is that you’re a misogynist. Even if you’re not.
One contradiction I find amusing about gender-inclusive language: In English, feminists have succeeded in eliminating feminine endings from nouns—authoresses, actresses, comediennes, etc.
However, in French, feminists insist on making sure that all such nouns are properly feminized. I remember when Kim Campbell was elected Prime Minister, she insisted on being called “la Première Ministre” although I’m not sure such a designation is linguistically correct. Well it is now, thanks to her.
So one language removes feminine noun endings, the other puts them on.
But as I said, feminism is able to embrace such contradictory behaviour. They’re right because they say so.
