Robert Cushman: No, the feminists didn’t ruin English

For those interested in language, writing and debates over feminism, good piece, if a bit meandering, by Robert Cushman, taking down the arguments of David Gelernter on the use of he or she and equivalents, starting with yet another good Orwell quote:

George Orwell, another model author, once compiled his own list of rules for good clear writing; it culminated in the admonition to break any of his preceding instructions “rather than write something outright barbarous.” Which means that these things have to be approached case by case, to be judged by the eye and especially the ear.

I can’t understand, for example, why Gelernter should object to “firefighter” replacing “fireman”; it may have an extra syllable, but it’s still a more active and descriptive word.

Well, no, I can understand; he thinks that the change is the result of caving in to those New Feminists. For him, as for others, feminism is a word applied to anything that its employer dislikes or feels threatened by, a sort of all-purpose Bogeyman. (Or should that be Bogeywoman? The professor certainly wouldn’t countenance Bogeyperson; and neither, for the record, would I.) I can’t see why a female member of a fire brigade should put up with being referred to as a fire man. And neither side would welcome ”firewoman,” which just sounds silly (though “policewoman,” for whatever reason, doesn’t).

…. It’s likely true that students today enter university less equipped to write well than were their predecessors. But that isn’t the fault of feminism. It’s because both English language and English literature are taught less, and possibly less well, than they used to be; and because of the pervasive sloppiness of communication that underlies the abuses I noted in my opening paragraphs, none of which have anything to do with gender.

Gelernter puts it all down to “ideology,” another of those words that merely means something that its user disagrees with. It’s like “elite,” a term that the Left used to hurl at the Right, that the Right now throws at the Left, and that is equally meaningless either way. He begins his article by inveighing against the words “chairperson” and “humankind.” I think that the first is an abomination and the second quite unobjectionable, and my reasons in both cases are aesthetic, not ideological.

It’s true, as Gelernter says, that what any writer agonizes over while actually writing is where the next word is coming from. But those words aren’t chosen in a vacuum; they’re the expression of whatever idea the writer is trying to convey: of, if you insist, his ideology.

Yes, I said his ideology. Because, judging from this article, Professor Gelernter is quite the ideologue himself.

Robert Cushman: No, the feminists didn’t ruin English