Non-sexist language is easier to understand

I picked up a book called Junk English by Ken Smith, because I like grousing about language, even that complaining that misses the mark. Complaining about unwanted changes in the language is a delicate operation--one wrong note and you consign yourself to grumpy old fartitude, too hopelessly out of it to know your ass from your head. But when judging other people's usage you don't want to hesitate too much, or else you're going to just be shooting fish in a barrel, fish like the word "impact". It's a dangerous mission and not one that I myself would undertake. So kudos to Smith for taking on the task at all.

In the introduction, Smith defends himself against the critics he knows will soon by gnawing on his book by petulantly claiming that he full well intends to be judgmental. I know what he's defending himself against--modern linguistic theory makes it pretty hard to write prescriptive books on language. Still, he's right to assert that euphemism, stupid jargon, and pretention clutter up the language and a good writer would do well to divest herself of those bad habits. The book is entertaining and helpful for any writers who would like to shed bad language habits. It's not my job here to pick on minor mistakes he makes, like defining "euphemism" too narrowly.

But I have one huge bone to pick with the book and that's on the topic of non-sexist language. I know that everyone who complains about non-sexist language thinks that he is being daring and contrary in the face of monolithic feminist power, and I hate to burst that ego bubble, but there is nothing whatsoever daring about calling for a return to language that implies that women are only good for non-prestigious jobs. Complaining about the effort that it takes to quit saying "fireman" and start saying "fire fighter" makes you sound like my grandfather whining about women wearing pants. It's a sure way to make sure that anyone who was going to give you the benefit of the doubt knows that you are complaining out of grumpy old fartitude.

I'm not one to stay up nights sweating out the fact that people still say "chairman", but when I hear the back-breaking "logic" employed to argue against it, I begin to think that there must be something to it or the grumpy old farts wouldn't be panicking like this. The only two arguments against it are both utter bullshit that someone who considers himself intelligent should be ashamed to fall for. If you are arguing for clarity in language, like Smith claims to be doing, then it makes no sense to have a firm stance against changing words that assume that certain roles can only be filled by men to reflect that women now fill those roles. How does it advance the cause of clarity to call a female fire fighter a fireman? Isn't fire fighter the clearer term anyway?

The other argument is to argue from tradition--for example, we should call female salespersons salesmen because we've always called them that. Smith tiptoes around this argument, most likely because he knows it's stupid. Tradition carries no real weight in language, which is ever-changing. If tradition had that much power, we would still say "thou" and "thee".

Also, the notion that a term like "saleman" was a gender-neutral before over-sensitive feminists changed things is a falsehood. Terms describing social roles were strictly gendered in the past--female salespersons were not called "salesmen", they were called "sales ladies". (And paid less.) Certain gendered usages persist to this day--waiter and waitress, actor and actress.

When terms describing jobs and other roles are so strictly gendered, women are in a bind of sorts. Either they have jobs that have a feminine term, like waitress, and are therefore subtly disparaged or they have jobs that were previously male-only and therefore have the supposed pleasure of honorary manhood, as in being called a chairman. The implication behind any criticism of those who complain about this situation is that they are being overly sensitive. It's just a word, after all, and it's not like anyone really cares if the person called a man is actually a woman.

That argument has always irritated me, because it seems such a small thing to call a woman a "person" in her job instead of a "man" if that's what she wants. Reading another argument that implies that women who don't want to be called men because of their jobs are just whining, it occured to me that men who make this argument should be held to their word. If they think gendered terms are no big deal, then we should all agree to start calling writers like Smith "authoresses"--I'm sure they won't mind.