RE: Historical Accuracy of Christ
October 10, 2008 at 10:45 pm
(October 10, 2008 at 10:38 am)dagda Wrote: But not womans? (laugh manicly) Now I get to call you a sexist pig (more laughter).
Lol!
I agree that perhaps we should say human rather than man, but you can tell when I mean human and not just male.
Also we can't take it too far, or atleast we shouldn't, as George Carlin says:"When it comes to changing the language I think they[feminists] make some good points, because we
do think in language. And so the quality of our thoughts and ideas can only be as good
as the quality of our language. So maybe some of this patriarchal shit oughta go away. I think spokesman
ought to be spokesperson. I think chairman
ought to be chairperson. I think mankind
ought to be humankind. But they take it too far they take themselves too seriously, they exaggerate. They want me to call that thing in the street a personhole cover. I think that's taking it a little bit too far! What would you call a ladies man, a person's person? That would make a he-man an it-person. Little kids would be afraid of the boogeyperson. They'd look up in the sky and see the person in the moon. Guys would say 'come back here and fight like a person' and we'd all sing 'for its a jolly good person'. That's the kind of thing you'd hear on 'Late night with David Letterperson.' You know what I mean?"
