Get your political fix from an unrepentant political junkie.
September 10, 2015
In the landmark philosophical treatise, The Road Less Traveled, M. Scott Peck defines mental illness as the denial of truth. A dedication to truth is the pathway to mental health.
By that definition, a professor at Washington State University is in need of some serious mental therapy. In a course titled “Women in Popular Culture,” the professor states in her/his syllabus that points will be deducted from a student’s final grade for using “oppressive and hateful language.” Parents, that sounds like a good class policy, right? Read on as you write your $24,000 tuition check.
Oppressive and hateful language includes the adjectives “male” and “female.” Students will also be punished for “not deferring to non-white students,” because they must “recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions.” Rationalizing racial preferences in the name of social justice is an acrobatic feat in logic.
Free speech seems to be a threat to the arbiters of political correctness in American culture. What is acceptable and what isn’t is the realm of a few self-appointed regulators.
Higher education is the seed-bed of much of the intolerant, closed-minded speech regulation promoted in popular culture these days.
What began decades ago as an attempt to bring awareness to multicultural sensitivities has spread like kudzu in the American lexicon. Such silliness is the declaration that saying “Oriental rug” is acceptable, but “Oriental person” is unacceptable.
Politeness is a virtue. Political correctness is a tyrant.
Simple, descriptive qualifiers are being struck down by P.C. regulators at a rate so fast, most of us have a hard time keeping up with the latest taboo words. While most Americans are working to live fulfilling lives, some are fighting the good fight against adjectives and personal pronouns.
According to the University of Tennessee, students are no longer “he” or “she.” They are “ze.” No longer are possessive pronouns “his” and “hers,” but the nonsensical “zir.”
Using “they” instead of the proper singular pronoun is grammatically offensive enough. Teachers throughout the English-speaking world struggle to teach proper English as it has been known since the printing press arrived in England, minus the “thees” and “thous.”
The feminist in me strives to explain why the universal “he” is more convenient and traditional, but “s/he” is acceptable, even preferable when the sex of a person is unknown. However, the feminist in me also wants to be acknowledged as female whenever possible – thank you very much!
Men will be men and women will be women regardless of our choice of pronouns, or the trendy refusal to accept the truth regarding the duality of sexual identification. “[M]ale and female He created them,” Genesis 1:27 says. The Babylonian womb-goddess created seven male bricks and seven female bricks. While Hindu and Greek mythology include hermaphroditic gods and goddesses, representing both masculine and feminine qualities, these symbolic figures are a reflection of their inclusive pantheism, not a literal categorization of human sexual identity.
With the full intention of shattering their delusional political correctness, haters of personal pronouns would do well to baptize themselves in a Biology 101 course.
Religion and science aside, freedom of thought is no less than the foundation of a free society. Free speech is the natural offspring of free thought. Destructive forces behind thought control are not interested in freedom, and, if not checked, will be the judge and jury of our consciences with due process of character assassination.