Comments on: Language and men’s-rights activism http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/06/30/language-and-mens-rights-activism/ About fathers and families, and about the war against them. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 21:40:54 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: paul parmenter http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/06/30/language-and-mens-rights-activism/#comment-2101 paul parmenter Sat, 14 Jul 2007 08:21:36 +0000 http://blog.fathersforlife.org/2007/06/30/language-and-mens-rights-activism/#comment-2101 Yes Walter, and it is more serious than just thinking logically. There is a very close correlation between the language we use and the way our minds work. Our language does not just come from our thoughts; it is a two-way process, and the way we frame our language can influence or even control our thoughts. George Orwell understood this which is why he posted his warnings in "1984", for example. This is why we need to correct sloppy and dangerous language. Here is a case that I think illustrates the point, is very important and should be very close to home for fathers everwhere. We repeatedly hear the phrase "he got her pregnant"; but I maintain that the concept being suggested by such a phrase is an impossibility. A man simply cannot get a woman pregnant in any real sense. The only way that could be done is if he could both control her physically while depositing his sperm (entirely possible of course) but also steer his sperm through her body, against all natural obstacles, for a period of several hours until he induced it to penetrate her egg (a total impossibility). And even if he achieved this impossibility, he has no say whatsoever in whether she gets to continue the pregnancy through to term or not. The law is very careful to place that decision entirely in the hands of the woman. So her continuing pregnancy is 100% her decision and therefore 100% her responsibility. Hence I maintain it is much more accurate to say "she got herself pregnant using his sperm", or maybe "having accepted his sperm, she did nothing to prevent Nature from taking its course which resulted in her pregnancy". But of course our society apparently does not want more accurate phrasing in these situations, because it would focus attention on the respective levels of responsibility of the man and the woman. And we must place responsibility on the man, right? Hence the language must be controlled so as to manipulate our thoughts to accept the notion that the man is indeed responsible. "I don't care how you describe it, but he did it!" Now turn your thoughts to the dramatic shifts that would have to take place in our whole approach to parenthood, reproductive rights and responsibilities, and the huge problem of fatherless children, if our society accepted the point I make above, and forced itself to think logically and accurately through the consequences. Too much for timid minds to contemplate, eh? Which is why, as a society, we run in the opposite direction and cling to the falsehood with which we seem to be more comfortable. But at whose cost? There is very much more here, it is a vast field. But congratulations on at least opening the door into it. Yes Walter, and it is more serious than just thinking logically. There is a very close correlation between the language we use and the way our minds work. Our language does not just come from our thoughts; it is a two-way process, and the way we frame our language can influence or even control our thoughts. George Orwell understood this which is why he posted his warnings in “1984″, for example.

This is why we need to correct sloppy and dangerous language. Here is a case that I think illustrates the point, is very important and should be very close to home for fathers everwhere. We repeatedly hear the phrase “he got her pregnant”; but I maintain that the concept being suggested by such a phrase is an impossibility. A man simply cannot get a woman pregnant in any real sense. The only way that could be done is if he could both control her physically while depositing his sperm (entirely possible of course) but also steer his sperm through her body, against all natural obstacles, for a period of several hours until he induced it to penetrate her egg (a total impossibility). And even if he achieved this impossibility, he has no say whatsoever in whether she gets to continue the pregnancy through to term or not. The law is very careful to place that decision entirely in the hands of the woman. So her continuing pregnancy is 100% her decision and therefore 100% her responsibility.

Hence I maintain it is much more accurate to say “she got herself pregnant using his sperm”, or maybe “having accepted his sperm, she did nothing to prevent Nature from taking its course which resulted in her pregnancy”.

But of course our society apparently does not want more accurate phrasing in these situations, because it would focus attention on the respective levels of responsibility of the man and the woman. And we must place responsibility on the man, right? Hence the language must be controlled so as to manipulate our thoughts to accept the notion that the man is indeed responsible. “I don’t care how you describe it, but he did it!”

Now turn your thoughts to the dramatic shifts that would have to take place in our whole approach to parenthood, reproductive rights and responsibilities, and the huge problem of fatherless children, if our society accepted the point I make above, and forced itself to think logically and accurately through the consequences. Too much for timid minds to contemplate, eh? Which is why, as a society, we run in the opposite direction and cling to the falsehood with which we seem to be more comfortable. But at whose cost?

There is very much more here, it is a vast field. But congratulations on at least opening the door into it.

]]>