There was a lot of agitation over the pronoun “he” at one time. The thought was that using the male pronoun for both genders relegated women to second class status. The libbers wanted a gender neutral pronoun. The also objected to the term “mankind” for humans in general. Why couldn’t it be she and womankind. The result was a short lived experiment with (s)he which never caught on with the public. Then it was going to be “chairperson” instead of “chairman” and “police person” instead of “policeman”, etc. Most people simply didn’t have a problem with the original terms, although they did accomplish changing policeman to police officer. We still have fireman and chairman, etc.
The end result of this controversy is that we now have male actors and female actors and male singers and female singers,etc. We don’t have male actresses and female actresses. I can’t think of a single instance where the female term is used in preference of the male. This seems to be a step backward to me.
The libbers agitated for women in combat which we now have, but in order to accomplish this, the military changed their training. They didn’t improve they downgraded it to allow women to succeed. Since the claim was that we can do anything that men can do, the libbers should have vigorously opposed this, but instead pushed for it. The same is true for the workplace. After insisting that women could excel in the workforce, the libbers proved themselves wrong with, among other things, sexual harassment. Men, who hadn’t appreciably changed their behavior, were informed that they were expected to monitor their language to show respect for delicate feminine ears. Court battles were fought because the big bad men were picking on the poor little women (you know the ones that had been insisting they could take anything the men could dish out). Historically speaking women have been the guiding force in changing men’s behavior for the better and I believe that that would have held true in the workplace as well. These changes wouldn’t have been accomplished overnight, but would have occurred without all the vitriol or the slide into political correctness which has fundamentally damaged all kinds of discourse.
The Paula Jones/Anita Hill controversies demonstrate how far the women’s movement has drifted from its stated goals. The first time there was a “bimbo” alert, the libbers should have been all over it as the term is demeaning to women. They weren’t, they were too busy defending Clinton from all those women. It took Paula Jones three years to summon the courage to come forward. She was not a lawyer and didn’t understand the system and was roundly condemned for taking so long. This despite Clinton’s long history of bad behavior. Contrast this with Anita Hill who was a lawyer and took twelve years to come forward. The libbers and the press “believed” her, although Clarence Thomas had no history of bad behavior towards women. A libber interviewed on TV about these cases said that she didn’t believe Paula Jones because it took her too long to come forward, but she believed Anita Hill. No one pointed out to her that twelve years is longer than three years. The real problem was that they liked Clinton and not Thomas and they agreed with Anita Hill’s politics and disagreed with Paula Jones. If their goal was to protect women, however, they would have supported Paula Jones and the other “bimbos” who lacked Anita Hill’s education and sophistication.
The supposed goal of the Women’s movement was to give all of us choices. We could choose the life we wanted. Instead, if the choice is one the libbers don’t like or wouldn’t make for themselves, the women who make those choices are not only condemned but attacked viciously especially if they speak out. The so-called libbers think that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t entitled to free speech.