By Brandon Brown
News Editor
In an effort to increase awareness of gender-inclusive language, Cal State Fullerton students received a document from the university last month “discouraging” the use of gender-specific terms.
These are what CSUF calls terms that are “gender-exclusive.”
“Man,” “mailman” and “weatherman” are some of the words the college advises against, suggesting instead that students use “people,” “postal worker” and “meteorologist,” respectively.
The university insists that compliance is voluntary and claims that it is in no way trying to infringe on free speech, but what I don’t understand is why.
Why is this “discouragement” necessary, and why did Fullerton choose this particular issue to address?
First, let me begin by saying that I know what the message behind it is, and I see what Fullerton is trying to do.
I’m all for expanding the reach of equality and ensuring that society is as inclusive as it can be.
I’d also like to say that I personally have the utmost respect for women (Gloria Steinem-level, not Donald Trump-level) and feel that there’s no place in today’s society for any type of discrimination, based on anything, but I do have some reservations about this approach.
As a man, I realize that it’s wrong for me to tell women what they feel or think about the topic, and the fact that I’m even trying to is perhaps one of the reasons behind the move.
But as a university student in the year 2016, honestly, is this really that big a deal? Are there many women out there who would be grossly offended if I called them an “actress” or “freshman”?
I get the rationale behind terms such as “stewardess” and “secretary.”
Besides being grossly outdated and inviting negative gender perceptions, they’re also just plain rude in contemporary lexicon.
But I didn’t think it would be somehow rude to say, “hey, guys” to a group of people, or think terms like “manpower” or “workmanship” referred to any gender in particular. This is just how people talk.
As such, I believe that this is actually inviting controversy where none exists, creating something from nothing. At the risk of being on the wrong side of history on this one, I’d have to disagree with this initiative.
As a university educating the next generation of movers, shakers and decision-makers, why not focus on things that would make a tangible difference in society?
We still have a wage gap. Women still struggle for equality in male-dominated industries. And lots more can be done to expand opportunities for women, yet they’re worried about me calling someone a “salesman”?
Fullerton, I get what you were trying to do, but perhaps focus more on things that can actually make a difference instead of things that make you look like you are.
