This column was first published in Column 8, on the 13th November, 1991
At the Presbyterian Synod in Invercargill the hierarchy
voted to change the name of their church to Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New
Zealand.
That was no great surprise, since certain leaders in this
denomination have long been pushing for change.
However, this decision was made in opposition to what many
of the people in their churches think. There’s a curious arrogance about some
of the leadership here. Knowing that the majority of the people at the
grassroots level didn’t want they change, they still went ahead with it.
I guess these ministers are just following in the footsteps
of their namesakes in Wellington: Beehive ministers also have a tendency to
ride roughshod over what the people think.
That’s the end of the name-changing matter. I feel about
laughing when I read that the Presbyterian Moderator said his church now had to
find a way to deal with the problem created by their name change. What problem?
The fact that most members don’t support the new name.
It’s a bit like me saying to one of my kids: I know your
name is George, and I know you’re quite happy being called George, but I’m
going to call you Gordon from now on. I think I’d have to find a way to dela
with the problem of George’s objections too.
There’s too much political mucking about with the language. By
that I don’t mean it necessarily has anything to do with the Government,
although they’re one of the most frequent culprits.
All manner of tautological circumlocutions arise through
transient ideological worldviews (Wow!). In other words, people’s politics
incite them to muddle about with the language. The language becomes a potent
tool for their viewpoint, right or wrong. Shades of Marx and Mao Tse Tung.
Language doesn’t need the help of well-meaning individuals
pronouncing debunkings of supposedly offensive words. (Did you know that Blacks
in the US are now to be called African Americans?)
I could get myself into an awful lot of trouble here if I had
a go at some of the more nonsensical excesses thrust upon us, so I’ll stick to
some lesser hot potatoes.
My wife received a form in the post regarding The Card – the
one that can’t make up its mind what it’s going to be called. The accompanying
letter talked about partners being ‘someone with whom you are living in a
relationship in the nature of marriage.’
These official forms no longer state husband or wife, or
even spouse. The thing that makes me sick is that the bureaucrats are
kow-towing to people who haven’t ever bothered to make the commitment of
getting married.
Married people don’t have a choice about what they’re called
– married or de facto we’re all lumped together as partners.
I cross out that dismal word on any such forms and put in
what I am: Husband. ‘Partner’ implies a debasement of marriage.
I see it’s now being used in some magazines to mean any
person with whom you may be living – males with males and females with females.
Why do we have to have a blanket word for so many different relationships? If the
ancient Hebrews could have four different words for the humble locust, why are
humans impersonalised under one word – partners?
To finish up, though de-sexed words are now a bit of a dead
issue, there is one that still niggles – actor for actress. For example, I do a
double take when I read that ‘an actor called Meryl Streep played The French
Lieutenant’s Woman.’ The use of actor
in this instance clunks up the sense, and the sentence.
Meryl Streep is anything but masculine.
Let’s hope television doesn’t do a repeat of The Waltons.
Confusion will have a field day when we read that Mrs Walton is played by the
actor Michael Learned.
 |
| 'Actor' Meryl Streep |
I don’t now remember which ‘Card’ I was talking about. It’s probably long been surpassed by something else.
20.11.91
Sir, When your columnist, Mike Crowl, has stopped falling
about laughing (Midweek 13.11.91), he may like to make a resolve to
check his facts in future and make sure he knows what he’s writing about. There
was no Presbyterian Synod meeting in Invercargill; there is no hierarchy in the
Presbyterian Church; the vote to change the name of the church was not made by ministers.
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church met in
Invercargill at which a decision was made by over 400 people, half of them lay
people. Those people are appointed as commissioners, which means that they are
not representative of other people’s opinions, but are trusted to vote
responsibly out of their own convictions. I believe they did just that.
Mike Crowl claims that ‘there’s too much political mucking
about with language.’ I claim that there is also too much mischief caused by
journalists who can’t cope with language or with the need to check their
sources. I think an apology is due.
Rev Neil Churcher
[Neil Churcher, whom I knew a little, has long passed away,
and gone to a place where there is no voting, and where opinions are a
different kettle of fish to those of the earthly variety. Yes, I got some names
wrong, but the argument about using ‘Aotearoa’ with official names and as a
name of the country continues on. The media in particular pushes ‘Aotearoa’ as
the name of the country, when the majority of the people call it New
Zealand.]
24.11.91
Sir, Mike Crowl has missed the point again. calling an actor
an actor is emphasising the work a person does, not talking about whether they
are a mummy or a daddy. Words like actress, tigress, usherette, etc carry
connotations of less than or a smaller version of the original. Just plain
boring old sexism once more. Yawn.
My Partner and I
[Whoever this writer was makes an odd claim that the female
words carried connotations of ‘less than or smaller.’ I think this would be
news to most people: usherettes and actresses aren’t noticeably smaller than
ushers and actors; like all other humans, they vary in size. The words just
help us to know what we’re talking about. And that’s surely more helpful than causing
confusion. The following letter writer agreed.]
1.12.91
Sir, The latest fetish of changing perfectly acceptable and pleasant-sounding
words such as ‘actress’ into ‘actor’ is a ridiculous innovation and I, for one,
see red whenever I come across the stupidity. Contrary to the assertion of ‘My
Partner and I,’ that a feminine ending designates [sic; I think it should be
‘denigrates’] the female person, this is sheer ignorance or else is a sign
of a very bad inferiority complex. In my own understanding all the great
actresses of our day share equal respect and applause as the male actors, if
not more.
What is wrong with ‘lioness’ or the feminine version of any
other animal. Plenty more are used and in many areas are practically important.
What on earth is ‘demeaning’ about the feminisation of names?
I advise ‘My Partner and I’ never to go to France, where all
nouns as well as living things are either masculine or feminine. To carry the
idea to its absurd extremes, my name is Josephine. Should I sign myself Joseph?
J.L.
1.12.91
Sir, I am a female of the species and, unlike ‘My Partner
and I’ (November 24), think it is a good idea to differentiate between male and
female by title, instead of lumping everyone into a sort of genderless
mishmash, as seems to be the boring trend these days.
It is often not only interesting but also important to know
who is what. I would definitely want to know whether I was meeting a tiger,
tigress (or tigrette?). It would also seem that, for some strange reason,
anybody chairing a meeting must be sexless.
Pirouette.
No comments:
Post a Comment