Washington State Gets Rid Of "sexist" Language

Washington state gets rid of "sexist language"an awesome read about about a policy that is as idiotic as it is harmful. But what do you expect in a country where the president - the sole personification of elected authority- claims to be a feminist?`

I guess they just forgot to write the VAWA law and all the other domestic violence shelter rules in gender neutral language. Must've slipped through the cracks

Also, words only seem to matter to these c*nts when they are directed toward women, but when men are the targets, they have no problem making posters, billboards and all kinds of ads accusing MALES of being rapist, perverts, wife beaters, abusers, etc

but in the end i wonder:

Will menstruation now be personstruation?
Also will they outlaw ladies night at the local bar?

what a cooherent argument from your side. Marvelous. give me your papypal account name so i can send you 15 cents, that you can buy yourself one egg. You should put it in your front pocket of your jeans. Then you will feel what it would feel like to have at least one ball.

Your post was a giant BAAWWWWW topped off with misogyny and a ridiculous strawman. If you want an actual discussion, learn how communicate an actual argument. Til then:

Meh, who really cares?

I'd be more concerned with the govt. wasting time on something this pointless when there are much more important things they could be doing.

I personally think this is harmless, and I remember taking courses when learning English regarding modern usage of male/female versions of words, versus archaic forms.

From my understanding, the issue is confounded by the roots of English language in Latin, with many derived Romance languages employing masculine/feminine forms ("actor"/"actora", "actor"/"actress", etc.) The course I took suggested some traditionally masculine forms (like "actor") should just be expanded to include both genders equally. Regardless of this limitation, it is still quite possible for people to re-learn familiar forms with more gender-neutral ones (instead of "congressman"/"congresswoman" there can just as easily be "congressional representative") without much fuss.

The language I find most 'sexist' (in this context) that is still prevalent is in the US military. Enlisteds still can be referred to as "airmen" and "seamen", even if they are female. I would joke at the female enlisteds I'd meet at Lackland AFB (when I was stationed at Fort Sam Houston) if they were "airwomen" instead--at least the army and marines employ the more gender-neutral "soldier" or "marine". :p

But such things work both ways--Starbucks employs "baristas" regardless if they are male or female no? ^_-

There is no misogyny in anything he said. I've read over it and see no hateful language towards females. Defaulting to "IT's MISOGYNY!!101010" to any statement you disagree with isn't very conducive to rational debate.

The article is mostly inane, just changing commonly neutral words to be more "politically correct". Personally don't care the idea is always more important then the words it's couched in. But hey let us know how that white knighting works for ya.

Ya, I forgot how much women dig being called ***.

He used feminism like it was an insult, called government officials *** for trying to be gender-inclusive, and felt personally maligned by groups pushing back against rape culture. You may find the language perfectly acceptable, but I think many would feel uncomfortable with OP's wording and his implications.

I, and most other humans, couldn't care less about your "comfort" level. Terms like misogyny / misoandry have nothing to do with how the receiver feels and instead are about someone expressing hateful feelings. It's only misogyny if he (or she) feels / express's hatred (not anger) towards women (not government / policies / institutions). The term misogyny has converted into a male shaming tactic by white knights everywhere.

Now in case you haven't looked outside your liberal echo chambers, there is a movement amongst successful men to avoid the entire feminist trap. Look up MGTOW and MRM. Equality swings both directions.

Actually the MGTOW is the biggest example of people having their heads stuck up so far up their arses that they can't even smell their own bs.

And your definition about the term misogyny seems to be the same about how white men describe racism and hate crimes against blacks.

Okay, yeah, not going to bother now. Men's Rights is a movement based on discomfort, of having centuries of authority questioned. If you honestly think that you have it rough... I honestly don't know what more you want. Y'all have better jobs, make more money, are more represented in the media, the government, practically everywhere. Women want to be treated as human beings worthy of dignity and respect, and some men get ridiculously posterior peeved. Women can't even claim control of their bodies anymore, they're a commodity. I really don't know why I bothered commenting on something like this, because after one post, my opinion has been invalidated.

fair enough, I'd sure feel insulted if someone called me a feminist

except that's not what he was offended by, he thought it was a colossal joke and waste of time

if you really consider the difference between fisherman and fisher in any way related to rape, you need a severe reality check

Feels like the govt takes too much time worrying about political correctness stuff

Watching hamsters is fun. Watching white knights is just saddening.

I'm just amazed so many men are so willing to let women control even their language. It's not enough they have a severe advantage in the legal system and a social structure that gives them the option to not work at all, they need to have control over how men express themselves as well.

I think women are still underrepresented in a lot of parts of our culture but saying MRM is based on discomfort is just as invalid as saying feminist is made up of dissatisfied unattractive women that don't get attention otherwise. I do think there are places such as divorce law where there is a bias for women.


As far as I know, this is not true. Women do only make about 80% of what men do but that statistic is without adjusting for things like years of experience and profession. After that adjustment women make basically the same amount as men (Also women from the older generation make much less than the current generation). I think it has more to do with the fact that there's a cultural (probably even biological) tendency for women to go for degrees that just average less pay, and a desire to address that culture would be more effective than simply saying that they're not being paid equally.

Feminism helps men. The patriarchy hurts men, too.
Feminism works to overturn all stereotypes of women, including those that women are the ideal childrearers (which would, in turn, eliminate the bias towards giving mothers children in custody suits no matter how terrible they are) that men are crazy sex fiends (because by saying that it gives men a scapegoat for rape- i.e. Her skirt was short so I was tempted cause my penis! of! might! can never be controlled! I'MA MAN) and the bias that men can't be sensative to emotions or like "girly" things (This one is busted if you bust the gender stereotypes against women; I've known a lot of guys suffering because of this trope.....) and a lot of other examples, which you can google >.> This is feminism 101. It's rather obvious you have no idea what you're even talking about, OP, and it's kinda sad and embarassing.

It's not like this cost a shitton of money to do or anything, it's an olive branch of respect towards women in general. It's more a symbol of equality than anything else. If you have a problem with this, I'd wager a bet you have underlying problems against women in general.

And please don't throw some ***about women already having equality at me.

gender pay gap is a myth

Lazy women are now paid the same as hard working men, thanks to the feminist legal system which says teaching assistants must now be paid the same as guys working in construction.

it seems that this is all just our

or that women should be made accountable for their actions. But under Feminism no women can be even considered dangerous for society.

Crazy *** lies about sexual assault.

36 year old women rapes 11 year old boy can't get charged with rape.

Pleebo white knighting a lot?

Edit: a good explanation why many women earn less:

Single unmarried women actually make 8~11% more between the ages of 22 and 30 then men do when adjusted for each career field. They represent the majority of college graduates. They represent the majority of graduating lawyers.

The reason women overall don't make as much is that they simple aren't interested (as a general group) in the high paying high risk career fields, or those career fields relying heavily on STEM. This is backed by lots and lots of statistics.

My section is eight people, out of those only two are female. This becomes even more evident to those of you who are engineering majors. How many females where in your various engineering class's? How many males? How many females are working as northern deep sea "fishermen", even though that field pays a ton of money? How many are working on oil rigs, another field that pays lots of money. How many are physicists or nuclear engineers?

On the flip side how many are famers, coal mine workers, or other low paying labor intensive jobs? What you see with females is that they prefer to target the middle range jobs, often the ones that focus more on social skills over technical ones. Ones that are inherently safer and less physically strenuous.

The job market's been equalized for awhile now. Feminists won't admit it because doing so would be require them losing power.

It's also sad when you have to resort into fallacies.

A high % of women are being denied for doctorates over men for reasons that have nothing to do with their qualifications.
The various engineers classes and jobs follow in many cases the same policies into preferring a man over a woman with the same qualifications.

Does it have to do with preference up to a point? Sure, but only barely. The job field at this point is not even started being equalised.

You think it's a power struggle, others think the only power struggle comes from the people losing their power, and I am sorry feminism is not in that side.

Are you simple? For real, can't you see that -hurtful stereotypes against women- are the cause of all that crap you posted above (from silly sketchy sources, but whatever)
Women don't often get charged with sex crimes because of the stereotype that women aren't sexual creatures and therefore aren't likely rapists- and that if they did rape a boy, that men "can't be raped cause real men enjoy sex with women no matter how they get it." Seriously, what is it that you always hear when a boy gets molested by their female teacher? That "Omg, what a lucky ***, I wish I'd been laid by a hot teacher as a teen" or something similar. It doesn't matter to society how those boys feel, because stereotypes against men BECAUSE OF THE PATRIARCHY keep them from voicing their discomfort. If women were seen as equal LIKE FEMINISM wants- women who are perpertraters of sex crimes would be found guilty more often.
Not only that, but I assume that picture was a reference to some "women and children saved first! Men go down with the ship!" trope. (Which isn't historically accurate, but whatever) That's caused by a stereotype that women are weak and only good for childrearing- feminists would agree that everyone should have an equal chance of survival and that nothing should be divided by the sexes.

Seriously, how hard is it to *** understand that Feminism isn't some "women get special privilages, better than everyone else, have their cake and eat it too" movement? It's straight equality. You guys sound exactly like conservative Christians saying gays are asking for extra special rainbow rights cause they want to get married, or racists saying blacks want to take over cause they'd like to be able to use the same water fountains and bathrooms as white. Goodness.

@Corres

F*cking hilarious. It's mind boggling to see feminists reframe male obligation into "male privilege" and then to add insult by saying "male privilege hurts men too".

Biologically speaking, males are disposable females are not. This has been expressed over millions of years. Men are expected to die for women and children, the reverse is not true. For centuries men have been expected to sacrifice their health, their money and their lives for the betterment of women and the children they bare. That has been so ingrained in men's psyche that people never stop to realize that more men are raped then women.

Girlwriteswhat has a very good series on youtube that completely breaks down the giant sh!t test that is feminism.

How many women died for their right to vote? How many Egyptians recently died for their right to vote?

I would argue that the job market isn't equalized. In many cases, women are allowed to do jobs they poorly fill due to gender requirements. The best example that comes to mind, for me, is Fedex.

If you've ever worked there, you'll know that they monitor your loads/unloads per hour. The goal is(may have changed since then, but point stands) 400 unloaded boxes per hour, or 1000 loads. When I worked there, as a male employee, I would frequently be harassed if my unload rate dropped to 360-380. The girl who frequently worked in the next trailer over rarely broke 200. We had a few conversations about it, she'd never once been chastised, and she'd been working there for 2 years. Male workers in that place were pressured into quitting or excuses found to fire them if they couldn't consistantly keep their load rates above 350.

Wage bias laws are not a solution, they're a band-aid. Employers should be allowed to hire how they like, it's the job of the worker to find a place that suits them. In my particular example, men should not be expected to make up the work of the female force at the location. If male workers are being forced to adhere to quotas weighted upwards due to female workers, why in god's name would they be paid equally?

I'm not in any way stating that women are incapable of physical labor. I'm stating that the women at that location did a much worse job of it, and they were not expected to adhere to the same rigid quotas as their male counterparts.

If you do your job, and do it right, you're valuable to the company. It doesn't matter if you have a penis or a vagina, you can use that to negotiate the pay level you deserve. If you're going for a job above entry-level, this can often be done based on qualifications and confidence alone before even being hired. Women negotiate much less, and that is reflected in pay statistics.

Anyways you can't argue with a feminist because they'll just reframe everything into an emotional argument or just attempt to shame you. White knights will then jump to their aid in a hilarious attempt to earn "brownie points".

Except not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_children_first

Stop watching Titanic for your historical information >.>

Lol, show me where I've once thrown out an "emotional argument"



Feminists wouldn't want special rules for jobs like that. If they can't do it, they should be reviewed by upper management. Simple.

I'll repeat again "Feminism isn't looking for special rights for women"

Actually that's historically untrue and never mind the fact you again you and that other dude have gone into another fallacy. Nothing biological. But again you can go near that creepy white guy that can tell you how blacks are biologically inferior.

Hell even in the middle ages men and women were expected to carry their own weights with the same privileges and such. Even vikings had more respect towards women than what we see today.

How many women died for their right to vote? Far too many, how many women were raped in Egypt for their right to vote?