to object to this reading book

[Itscurtainsforyou]

My 5 year old brought home a reading book about "man on the moon". It talked about the 12 MEN (not people, men) who have walked on the moon. I could let that one go as it was talking about past events and they were all men.

However at the end of the book it says something along the lines of "maybe men will walk on the moon again" - IABU to think that they should have used non-gender words (such as "people") or worded it differently? I felt the need to explain to my 5 year old that in the 1960-70s most astronauts were men and of course these days women were equally likely to walk on the moon/go into space.

Maybe I'm just easily wound up but this just seems like subtle sexism and there should be no place for it in schools.

It was butchers where I lived! The internet seems to agree They were knaves, all three!

Do you mean etymology? I don't think you do.

Don't I? I was referring to the discussion of the origin of words (as you were talking earlier about the etymological basis for man as a gender-neutral term). The constituent parts of the term 'feminazi' is part of their etymology even though it's a neologism. I think the point that I and other posts were trying to make is that implicitly comparing feminists to Nazis is not actually a way to have a sensible discussion.

Still in etymology, and r.e. 'man' as gender neutral - the definition of the term 'etymology' is the study of the origin of words and the history of how their meanings have changed throughout time. Us insane feminazis don't deny the original etymological neutrality of the term 'man', but contend that in current usage it is a gendered term and as such it is rather less helpful than 'people' or 'humans' for referring to both men and women.

*part of its etymology

Well you are all very clever. I have only common sense on which to rely.

All of those words can be decoded using phonics. Children are taught to try alternatives for 'c' -they know it can make different sounds and will substitute alternatives very quickly to decode an unfamiliar word.

That is crazy, Feenie. Reading in English involves eclipsing phonics entirely, and relying on memory of words from your mental word bank and general understanding of context in order to inform your efforts. It is absolutely not a matter of mere phonics. Children with large word banks and excellent recall are going to progress much faster in learning to read initially, and they will also outstrip their peers when texts become more technical and language becomes more complex.

Hovis

Just for you.

Just to avoid the predicable dig, I understand 'big words' when used appropriately and can have a good guess when used in an attempt to elevate prose.

That said, I'm a little confused. If the 'Nazi' part is a neologism then there is no argument with the portmanteau 'feminazi'. I think you're perhaps confused about the meanings of neologism, portmanteau and malapropism. Could you clarify? Remember, K.I.S.S., if possible.

Us sane feminists understand what constitutes actual discrimination that holds women back and creating inequality and what constitutes hand-wringing angst and indignation which does the cause of feminism no good whatsoever.

I don't think I'm the one descending to predictable digs, here.

Basically, I think that language has a lot of power because it is one of the main ways in which we construct the world around us. The practical discrimination that women face is currently reflected in our language and language helps replicate the attitudes which allow that discrimination to remain. So, in addition to objecting to the big things holding women back, I also personally think it does matter to 'sweat the small stuff'.

I should've just said OP, YANBU, which is what that was all a roundabout way of saying!

I also personally think it does matter to 'sweat the small stuff'.

Clearly.

1966. My grannie, born 1912 to 2nd generation Irish immigrants. If you want it enough, you will do it. By then she iw ed quite a few hundred acres and a very large sporting enterprise. She had little formal education but ran a farm single handedly throughput the war. When women were burning their bras she tutted and said they should be focussing on earning a few bob if they wanted independence and never rely on a man. She was fabulous, tough, gentle, strong, intelligent. She just got on with it as all women could and can.

"When women were burning their bras she tutted and said they should be focussing on earning a few bob if they wanted independence"

That was clever of her- considering the famous bra burning never happened...........

here

You are just descending into the ridiculous.

You're overthinking this.

They were of course earning several bob less than men were earning, being women.