But I feel the need to evaluate President Obama's speech he made last night, from an editor's point of view.
Obama's speech was well-written and powerfully delivered. I felt the power, and I felt proud to be an American. But there was something that just rubbed me the wrong way, and that was his use of sexist language in using only the word "men" in expressing gratitude to those who accomplished this mission. It bugged me, even though maybe he was referring to the the group of Navy SEALs who carried out the mission and whether they were indeed all men. I thought he would be referring to the mission as whole, which had been being planned since August and surely involved some women in the intelligence process.
In studying sexist language in my many editing classes, it has had the effect on me that makes me think that feminists are just too sensitive. Like, we can't even use the word "businessman" because of its masculine preference? Seriously?
But in this context, if I were active military right now as a woman, it really would have irked me that Obama failed to include "women" in his speech. And now I understand why editors must be sticklers about things like sexist language. I really wish I could talk to Obama's speech editors/writers and ask if this wording was intentional.
And like I said, this post is not political. But somebody else thought this through in his public statement--that person being President George W. Bush:
"President Obama called to inform me that American forces killed Osama bin Laden...I congratulated him and the men and women of our military and intelligence communities who devoted their lives to this mission."
Good job, President Bush. And good job to you too, President Obama. Just think about that for next time.
Sexist language has always bugged me throughout the editing minor. I still like using the generic he. I cringe when I have to slip in a "he or she" to make things work more equitably. However, I understand the point here. There are certainly women who deserve some sort of explicit linguistic credit because there are certainly women in the military.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that changes my opinion about other instances, though. What if I were just using the term "somebody" and I happened to need a pronoun? Am I showing the treason to women in my ideology by just using generic he? There are no actual women I may or may not be neglecting.
I don't know whether trying to eliminate sexist language will change our ideology. But I do think we should acknowledge that there is a divide in the issue: on the one hand, we could be neglecting real women in our speech. On the other hand, we could just be using generic he for a hypothetical person. The latter, though possibly ideologically harmful, seems less offensive to me than the kind of trouble you spotted in Obama's speech.
Good on you.
MEN'S RIGHTS!!!!
ReplyDelete