It is their mark of ignorance and a demonstration of following the feminist doctrine to a tea without ever realising how silly and ridiculous they appear. But that level and method of brain-rinsing is apparently lodged in history as we see TDOM explain. Stupidity is apparently not the pre-amble of the current cadre of feminists as that habit was inherited centuries ago. One would have at least thought that one would learn and maybe realise that one had to grow up and smell the toxicity of the feminastie movement, however it would appear that that lesson was never absorbed and just ignored by all those "strong", "independent" women who claim independence while suckling the government funding teat..
They Doesn't Get It.
But He Does
For a long time I’ve been critical of the feminist argument that the use of “he” as a generic pronoun for both genders is an example of male privilege. In fact I’ve made just the opposite argument; it demonstrates the disposability and lack of value placed upon males and masculinity in our culture. This article All-Purpose Pronoun in the NY Times would appear to vindicate my position.
According to the article, the generic use of the masculine pronoun to apply to both genders can be traced back to a woman named Anne Fisher (1719-78) who publish “A New Grammar” in 1745. Mrs. (or should it be Ms.?) Fisher appears to have been, what in the modern vernacular we would call, a feminist. She authored a book on grammar, ran a school for girls, and (with her husband, Thomas Slack) operated a printing business and newspaper. Note that she even appears to have rejected taking her husband’s name.
Prior to Fisher’s book, it was popular for authors to use the plural pronoun “they” as a singular generic pronoun denoting both genders. It would appear that the characterization of the use of “he” as a gender-neutral pronoun as representative of patriarchal oppression is nothing more than another feminist distortion and misrepresentation of history.
