New Ban on Sexist Terms

Just when you think politics could not get any stranger, up pops another gaggle of giggles. I have lived through much tragedy and comedy, both personal and political, but this latest gambit on the part of the ultra left-wing astounds me. A group of “volunteers” for Hillary Clinton’s march to the White House has just launched its own intercontinental ballistic missiles toward the media that serves and protects liberals, despite its claim of being impartial. We saw this with the Benghazi assassinations, we saw this with the Bergdahl fiasco, and we’re seeing this in an ongoing struggle over Clinton’s violation of federal law regarding her emails kept on a private server instead of in a secure government server. Once again, the American people see that Orwell was correct: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

In an effort to elect a woman, even one who seems to believe that she is not required to live by the same laws as the rest of us, the Clinton group has released a list of no-no words. Of course, the Clinton camp claims that this soon-to-be-infamous list came from “volunteers,” but even the liberal press has seen through this latest smoke screen. Apparently, anyone questioning Hillary or her right to seek the presidency is automatically placed in a special category of hate groups who must be silenced at all cost. So much for freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

We all know that “hate speech” is not protected by the Constitution, although debate continues on that front. I will not defend someone who thinks the “n-word” is acceptable any more than I would defend someone who thinks all women are “b-words.” Racist and sexist words should not be protected speech. However, as in most things political, the “ism” is in the eye of the beholder. Some people, for example, think that any criticism of President Obama is, in and of itself, racist. Not so. As Americans, we have the right and duty to question and criticize anyone who is supposed to be a public servant. The same criticism of Bush, for example, was not called racist or sexist at the time.

I think most of us recognize racism and sexism when we see it, but now Clinton’s supporters have decided that they have X-ray vision into people’s souls. This super-human power enables them to see a hidden element of sexism in practically any word used by members of the media. I laughed when I first read the list but now I worry that the lunatics have indeed taken over the asylum. The “blatantly sexist” words to be banned include:

polarizing

calculating

disingenuous

insincere

ambitious

inevitable

entitled

over confident

secretive

will do anything to win

represents the past

out of touch

——————————————–What next?

©2015 Linda L Labin, PhD

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “New Ban on Sexist Terms

  1. Although a disingenuous and insincere alien, and at the risk of seeming overconfident, I feel entitled to send my inevitable response. This calculating and ambitious action by Hilary Clinton’s stooges is out of touch with reality.
    Apparently she is entitled to be far more subversive and secretive than this in order to achieve her desired results – in the past it has worked quite successfully for many politicians, polarising the nation and bringing overwhelming results.
    No doubt she will do anything to win, but surely this piece of silliness is unlikely to get her far.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Dr. Linda,
    Great post as usual. And provided me with an understanding of the US presidential campaign. I, being a woman, think it is high time the US had a woman president but certainly not at the cost of the democratic values this country holds dearest to its heart. I cannot agree with the dictum, some are more equal than others.
    Susie

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m glad you don’t agree with the awful notion that some are more equal than others. Unfortunately, too many today think that they’re special, so needn’t follow the rules. It comes from Orwell’s excellent little tirade against communism, Animal Farm.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oh ok. Actually I thought it must have been something from the French Revolution period. So it was a 20th century statement. Thank you for sharing !
        I used to work in a place where some people were more equal than the rest- those that worked the least, those that produced less, talked most and those that socialised most were the ones who got the most benefits. The rest of us were lesser mortals.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you, Deborah, for your comment and for your service. Been there myself. What galls me most, though, is that the terms they want to ban have nothing to do with any sort of ism (except, perhaps, her egotism, narcissism, etc.)

    Like

  4. I lived through this in journalism, actually the polar opposite, for the army when I was the ONLY woman supervisory editor, late-70’s; early 80’s. I just happened to be the boss for the largest Army MACOM. But it didn’t make any difference. I won’t even start telling you the things I was called. And I had the the audacity to be only 33 years old.But I did had a saving grace: I remember when Congress said “thank you” for the publication I wrote, “Strategies for the ____”. I even signed it “Deborah A. ________.” In the STARS AND STRIPES, I let youth frighten me into “D.A. _________,” but I got over it very quickly. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I obviously wasn’t U.S. “royalty” like your subject.

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.