Somehow an agent of the FLP, probably in the layout or typesetting department, quietly lopped off the suffix "men" in the misguided belief that it specifically connoted masculine gender and was thus offensive to non-male fishermen. After all, one says "fishermen," not "fishermen"; the stress is on the occupation, not the "gender."
The decisive case against such shenanigans by the FLP was made by Sun columnist Stephen Hume. In a December 10, 1990 column, Hume used objective linguistic analysis to show that the Germanic etymology of "alderman" does not connote bias of any sort. He concluded that attempts at the time to replace "alderman" with "councillor" in the name of sexual equality were both linguistically and intellectually unsound.
Despite the voice of reason, however, the FLP still insists that the English language has an inherent masculine bias.
Suppose for the moment that it did. What should be done? One suggestion might be to promote a feminine vocabulary to answer the perceived imbalance. Such a reform could actually enrich English by making it more precise. We could have masculine/feminine suffix pairs for occupations: e.g., ian/ienne; ist/iste; er,or/ress,ess; eur/euse; ant,ent/ante,ente; k/que.
Since we already have masseur/masseuse and comedian/comedienne, it is only a small step to journalist/journaliste; clerk/clerque; and president/presidente. What could be more fair?
Alternatively, the suffix "manne" could be coined to represent femaleness -- e.g., fisherman/fishermanne and alderman/aldermanne. Strange as it may look, the reasoning behind it is linguistically sound. Doubling the "n" and adding "e" is a standard French practice. Plural would be "menne."
This tactic has the added virtue of connoting femaleness while retaining the original non-generic meaning of "man."
Yet what do we get from feminists and the FLP? A political pseudo-language that impoverishes English, renders intelligent discussion all but impossible and does nothing for women's equality. I refer, of course, to "Femspeak." Any resemblance to the "Newspeak" in George Orwell's 1984 is entirely intentional.
"The purpose of Newspeak," wrote Orwell, "was to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all, and Oldspeak [standard English] forgotten, a heretical thought ... should be literally unthinkable."
Newspeak vocabulary was so constructed as to give "exact ... expression to every meaning that a Party member [of Ingsoc, i.e. English Socialism] could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings ..."
Femspeak has its own arsenal of neologisms designed to make unfeminist modes of thought impossible. They include: "racist," "sexist," "ageist," "lookist," "homophobic," and "misogynist," to name but a few; set phrases like "violence against women," and "dead white male"; and, of course, the ubiquitous suffix "- person."
While some of these terms and expressions might be valid in Oldspeak, in Femspeak they are categorical, value-laden, and condemnatory.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an "ism" refers to a system or principle. Thus, "sexist," for example, means someone who consciously espouses a theory of sexual superiority. In its Femspeak use, it can mean simply someone who criticizes a woman or disagrees with the FLP. Because "sexist" is a priori and ad hominem, it does not have to adhere to any standard of accuracy. As in Newspeak no shades of meaning are permitted.
It is perhaps for this reason that intelligent people and the media in general are afraid to resist Femspeak lest they be charged with harboring some animus against women.
The existence of Femspeak becomes clearer when we remember the revolutionary aims of feminism. Feminism seeks to free all women from the "false consciousness" of tradition and remake them in a liberated, rational likeness. Since language is deemed to be the product of (male) tradition, it must be controlled.
This is why The Sun's use of "fisher" is so disturbing: it appears to give Femspeak official sanction and place politics above language. A free society is in jeopardy when citizens are told to think or speak only in an officially permitted manner.
The case for an enforced linguistic neutrality has never existed and its equation with women's equality is a perverse non sequitur. Protecting our language against Femspeak will not be easy, but it must be done. As a first step, the crusade to "emasculate" the English language must be stopped.
As Orwell said, "If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought."
Why must English be emasculated was featured in the Friday, August 14, 1993, issue of The Vancouver Sun, and is reprinted here with special permission from the author. Gregory Felton, who is a freelance writer, editor and translator specializing in English, Russian and French, lives in Vancouver, B.C.