Unrested, but “fresh”

Well, it’s now 11:22 p.m. and I have yet to write a blog post (including this one). I dragged myself out of bed when it was dark and for the rest of the day it’s been GO GO GO, and I hate my damn 3-mile run almost as much as I hate cranking out a blog post when I have nothing to say and only want to sleep. However, having a blog is is like having an aquarium. It must be attended to, like it or not.

Might as well point out that at UNC, the word “freshman” is being dropped:

The University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill has removed the word “freshman” from official university documents, citing as their reason an attempt to adopt more “gender inclusive language.”

We are “committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members of our community,” reads a statement administrators sent to Campus Reform on Monday.

“Consistent with that commitment, gender inclusive terms (chair; first year student; upper-level student, etc.) should be used on University Documents, websites and policies,” it continues.

A spokesperson for UNC declined to further elaborate on the university’s reasoning for implementing the language change.

Hey, if the university’s “reasoning” is good, why not explain? What’s wrong with a simple explanation? What I’d like to know is whether the struggle in this case against the word “freshman” is directed against the “man” suffix, because it seems to me that it is directed against the “fresh” part, too; otherwise, why drop it? Is there something wrong with just, say, “freshies”? Or even “freshpersons”? Or does “freshness” itself upset our cowardly, anonymous rulers?

Do they want our language to be utterly gray and devoid of life?

And what’s with this “first year student; upper-level student, etc.” business? Are sophomores, juniors, and seniors to be eliminated too? If that is the case, why attempt to frame the issue as a war against sexism?*

I strongly suspect the people doing this are simply trying to control us by manipulating and bullying our language, and I think it boils down to animalistic behavior. By telling us what we can and cannot say, they become the dominant animals in an equation they control. Don’t take it. (If I were rude, I would resort to the animal model and venture that it is better to fuck them in their little bonobo behinds than letting them fuck you in your little bonobo behind, except I am far too polite to say any such thing so I won’t.)

Anyway, I refuse to put up with them, but I still have to sleep.

* Actually, the answer to that is obvious. They want to be able to characterize opposition to their agenda as “sexist” and therefore bigoted.