An Essay on the Fallacies of Semantic Feminism

The 1933 Oxford Universal Dictionary defines "man" as "1. A human being, now surviving in general or indefinite applications in the sense 'person.' 2. In generic sense, without article: The human creature regarded abstractly; hence the human race or species, mankind." The Latin origins of the word have been lost to us, the dictionary admits, yet there remains the possibility of tracing them to a crucial foundation of the English language. The modern form of our tongue is still strongly embedded in its Germanic roots. As a result of the Anglo-Saxon conquests in the fifth century of the Christian Era, the word "man" among others had been transferred to the linguistic reservoir of the populace dwelling in the British Isles. The German definition of the word "man" is threefold, the possibilities permitting for the term to be used in the context of "one," "they," or "people". Nowhere in the roots of that word is a reference to the male gender implied. What can the most esteemed reader extrapolate from the above exploration? That the feminist paradigm of present days is unjustified in a vast majority of its concerns.

Beginning during the social upheavals thirty years into the past, a radical clique of ex-drug-addicted hippies began to rally the masses toward mutilating a status quo that had already met their asserted philosophical requirements. Permit the author to explain. The 19th Amendment of 1920 finalized the American guarantees of a society of equal opportunities by granting members of the female gender the opportunity to vote in elections of all sorts, thus permitting the entirety of the United States adult population to be represented in their governments. During the period preceding this revolutionary change, beginning with the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, the true activists for equal rights, the women's suffragists-- Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, and numerous other ideological reformers-- advocated social changes that would permit women to obtain careers and educations based on their working ability, skill, willpower, and productivity. An entire range of professions from athletics to science had now become open to members of the female gender. Indeed, doubling the labor force produced noble, progressive effects upon the United States and the world as a whole. In an overwhelming majority of families, there now existed two sources of financial gain. However, such a system, a meritocratic order that disregarded gender altogether, had already become secured by 1920 C.E. Both genders now cooperated in the home and the workplace to sustain and elevate the family without displacing the balance of power within it. That would have been the case in the society of the present had the "Feminist" ideology not arisen in the early 1970s to provide for a significantly more liberal approach to the situation than the preceding suffrage movement. It was those movements that introduced a far more controversial mindset into the into the popular culture of the masses. Among these ideas were the standardization of clothing, yet also the stereotypical alternation and specification of gender-related expressions. Any attempt to combine the two seems paradoxical and inconsistent at first glance. However, an in-depth study of its cause will reveal that the paradox is not a contradiction but merely a veil to conceal the hideous genuine motives of so-called Feminists. That is due to the simple fact that the ERA movement in its own semantics was paradoxical. After all, "Feminism," rule by women (from Latin "femina" and "ism," which, in a literal translation, would be the equivalent of "to be done by women." However, in the context of society, an "-ism" ending implies the primary factor in the decisions of a given group of human beings, Feminism as a political movement advocates unilateral rule by women), by definition excludes the possibility of equal rights. Thus, it would only be justified to conclude that "ERA" did not grant opportunities to all people regardless of gender in exactly the same way as "Affirmative Action" did not bestow those opportunities upon human beings of every race. To mandate that each gender compose fifty percent of a company's workforce opposes some of the primary values of this country, including the ability to earn one's standing as a result of personal merits, not the happenstance of being born to a particular standing, in this case, a female one. Thus, it has been derived that the 1970s activists aimed to destroy equal opportunities by shifting the balance to the extreme of a matriarchal society and thus forcing through their whims another birth-based hierarchy upon the people.

It is essential to realize that, when evaluating a human being, one must concentrate on that individual's personal merits that the specimen itself has had control over. Gender is not such a factor. Any society that grants a greater degree of power to males by virtue of their male-hood is unethical, yet so is the converse of such a society. During the middle of the 1970s, a counter-Feminist movement, led also by women (although ones educated to a greater degree), had managed to block ERA passage. The efforts of STOP ERA may have managed to preclude the radicals' attempts at establishing federally enforced rule by women, yet they could not erase the attitudinal paradigm within the uninformed majority. Even to this day, whenever a couple wishes to obtain a divorce, the male is automatically regarded as a monstrosity while the female is perceived as an angelic creature who had been abused and mistreated by the monstrosity. Yet, all common sense supporting it, fifty percent of the time, the truth shall lie in the converse of such an assumption. The reader must comprehend that, by probability, there exist approximately as many abusive wives as there do abusive husbands. But is it a usual case for an abusive wife to ever be held responsible for child support payments? And does a husband who obtains a divorce usually retain the family's place of dwelling, even it were earned by him through his own persistent labors? And why are those two instances virtually non-existent? Gender-based circumstantial discrimination, tipped the other way. Instead of focusing on standardizing clothing, those truly seeking a truly gender-blind society need to focus on social treatment that disregards gender altogether. It would be ludicrous to permit men to wear skirts or women to don sleeveless t-shirts simply because the physical exteriors of the two genders follow slightly different models and thus require varying types of clothing to be able to sufficiently cover the flesh. That is an example of equal opportunity, for both genders to possess the capability to conceal the portions of their organisms whose exposure is undesirable in a public setting. (That, most esteemed reader, is yet another demonstration on how Feminism stifles equal opportunity.) However, it is not at all ludicrous or inappropriate to approach people's abilities and accomplishments without at all considering their gender. That is where the word "man" comes into the picture.

Nowhere in the original German definition does "man" refer to a person of the male gender. There exist two terms that allow for gender distinction, "male" and "female." One wishing to exhibit a generic reference would combine those terms into one convenient expression, "man." No longer are we in such cases subject to semantic selection but are all encompassed, for we all compose "mankind." Permit the author to emphasize that vulgar connotations of words hold no validity in the mindset of a civilized individual, who attempts to utilize the actual definitions of words that date back to their origins. Especially in all-encompassing, profound statements, it would be clumsy and superfluous to refer to a human being as a male or female. Such references destroy the broadness and intended effects of the claim. Referring to "mankind" as "humankind" is also acceptable, permitting for a greater amount of diversity within our language. Personally, the author prefers to make use of both expressions. To erase one due to a misconception intrudes upon the freedoms of human beings to utilize inoffensive vocabulary in their lives so long as they intend to harm none, which is indeed the case. After all, the word "man" has been in existence for over one and a half millennia. None have found it intolerable prior to the pop-culturist whims of liberals in the 1970s.

Thus, Feminists, do not, for your own well-being, enter invalid semantic arguments into your arsenal of rhetoric. For men of intellect will detect the invalidity and counter your claim, riddled with fallacies, with an actual one, that your entire movement's semantics contradict that which is undoubtedly good and right, a free, meritocratic order that existed prior to the advent of your dogma.