Why I Don't Care That Much About EMAW vs. EPAW

It’s the history of EMAW and how much of a part of the college it is in itself, not just to the sports. I don’t want to see something that speaks largely to the dedication of the students, faculty, and alumni changed or taken away just because political correctness decided to show it’s ugly head again. I think that is the reason it’s a big deal to most people.

Also, while I don’t agree with things that have been said to/about Beth, I have found some humor in some of the responses such as “Soon we’ll live in Personhattan, sorry to those of you who wear hats or are tan”. The creative people that aren’t attacking anyone are bringing humor to the moment, but I don’t see any reason to attack a person about all of this. If you’re going to attack anyone you need to attack the American public as a whole for, to put it bluntly, being overly sensitive. But alas, that’s just my humble little opinion.

and it will allow me to clarify and expand upon the argument as it relates so some of the opinions expressed above and in yesterday’s Slate. This just seems like a more pertinent and relevant forum to discuss the issue in.

“First off, allow me to say that I personally have no problem with "EMAW," and personally like the slogan.

While I do not agree with the idea that EMAW is sexist, I do understand the argument that has been made against it. I’ve had enough communication and language classes to know that the way we as a society use language, determines how we view the subject of that language. The way we use language is also contingent upon the historical meaning we give to words…in this case, the use of the word Man. Now, you can view the word as (I believe) it was intended in that is all-encompassing of individuals as a whole, but the history of the word as used in that way, can (and sometimes does) subtly exclude women as non-subjects of its use.

For example, it would be easy for most of us to determine if a word was meant in a racist way (with some exceptions), but for the most part, racist words or exceptions are blatantly unacceptable and obviously so. If the traditional slogan had been "Every White A Wildcat" we would be justifiably incensed if someone tried to revive it. Hell, we probably would have apologized for ever even having the slogan to begin with. However, sexist words are a decidedly more subtle form of denigration in our language, and it does not offend me to think that some people might find EMAW exclusionary. While the term "Man" may not have been intended to be sexist, the use of it as an all-encompassing word can be seen as (ironically) exclusionary because it singles out one gender to represent two.

Now, I am not trying to say that the term “Man” does not mean “all people’s,” I am trying to say that the term Man means a variety of different things, not the least of which refers to the gender of man. A similar example is the word “catholic.” The word “catholic” can refer to either the specific denomination of Christianity, or it can refer to the universal scope of Christianity and its beliefs. The word has two meanings, both of which influence the reaction the word receives.

With this in mind, it is easy to understand how some individuals might view the word “Man” (even though it has multiple meanings) as referencing a meaning that is exclusionary. If you were to say you “raved” last night, I could assume that you either gave an enthusiastic review of something, or you were really into glow sticks and techno (also Ecstasy). Just because you view the word in one way, does not mean that others view it the same way, and that is what this debate deals with…how we view the words in the slogan.

And, as a society, we should question slogans and traditions that are exclusionary. Look no further then General Reb from the University of Mississippi. To many students and alumni, he was a popular mascot, who represented southern pride. But to others, the mascot was a symbol of racism and needed to be “retired.” Ole Miss (wisely, in my opinion) decided to replace a perceived racist mascot…Why should perceived sexism have any different of a reaction?

I’m not saying we need to make sure we never offend anyone ever…but we should (as an enlightened group of individuals from an excellent school) be willing to discuss how such slogans reflect the values of the University. While I love K-State, and I love the traditions at K-State (including EMAW), I don’t think we should simply dismiss concerns about their inclusiveness of various traditions because we don’t see the viewpoint of those we disagree with.

Again, I’m not taking up arms on the issue. I believe that demonization from either side towards the other is unwarranted. I’m impressed and glad to see civil discourse occurring over a disagreement, that seems to be a rare occurrence anymore. It seems that most run to their political corners and hide out, only reading and consuming media that confirms their point of view (which in itself is not terrible). But, that consumption of media from one’s own political orientation needs to be accompanied by research and understanding of the other sides argument.

Thats why I rec’d this article, I think its well thought out, research from both sides and begins to discuss an issue without being dismissive. TB, if you ever decided to run for office you have my vote.

For anyone else, the crown jewel of this argument comes from a book entitled Man-Made Language by Dale Spender. It can be found here http://www.amazon.com/Man-Made-Language-Dale-Spender/dp/0863584012.

And this is an editorial review listed on amazon (which usually means its on the back cover of the book)
" In chapters such as “The Lesser Value of Women’s Words,” “Experience Without a Name,” and “The Problem is Power, Not Women,” Dale Spender presents a compelling and practical analysis of the androcentric construction of the English language: its social context, vocabulary, syntax, history, and usage. Starting from the understanding that “Language helps form the limits of our reality,” she examines the male-oriented assumptions of the science of linguistics, specifically the premise of “female deficiency” predominant in earlier research: “When the starting premise is that women lack the forcefulness and effectiveness of men’s language, then hypotheses and explanations are formulated to account for female hesitancy.” In “Plus and Minus Male” she adds weight to Julia Stanley’s earlier, ground-breaking linguistic research – now widely accepted – showing “Masculinity is the unmarked form: the assumption is that the world is male unless proven otherwise. Femininity is the marked form: it is the proof of otherwise.” Examples abound: doctor, woman doctor; writer, woman writer. There are literally fewer nouns in English to refer to females; when the female noun does exists, it often denigrates through the use of suffixes denoting “lesser,” as in waitress, stewardess, majorette. If you are interested in the English language, make time to read this feminist classic so that you might think, laugh, get mad, get sad, and maybe change the ways you talk and listen. "

What it means is just that the language of Man comes primarily from our understandings of religion. Adam giving a rib for Eve to be created, and there being made OF MAN and only a small portion of Mans value. The etymology of the word feeds the understanding that the review indicates, women and womens positions are always considered inferior. And while that doesn’t mean that EMAW IS SEXIST, what it means is that it PREVENTS gender equality because it provides a ceiling in how we think about the sexes.

So, I agree with the intent argument, intent does matter, and you are right that its not one that is intended to or supposed to do harm. I can even concede that it doesn’t directly cause harm, but it does create a ceiling for how we think about equality.

Again, I’m just trying to shed light on the situation because it seems like people here are open to understanding both sides.

I’ll also say that lots of feminist disagree with Spender and therefore Mendenhalls arguments. She is making an argument rooted in whats called Post Structuralism. Material Feminist are arch rivals with Post Structural feminists because they believe that material conditions are much more important than the words we use (if this sounds like marx to you, it should).

And in case you are wondering, I’ve got an MA from KState in Communication Studies, and studied Rhetoric. So I felt coming out of the shadows and providing some (hopefully) helpful insight would be nice.

PS. I’m also an argumentation by trade, and if we could stop making the tradition argument that would be great. Tradition is based upon and is considered a logical fallacy. Its like saying that we shouldn’t have stopped thinking the earth was flat, merely because we had thought it was flat for so long, why change.

Although I will say I see merit in what people are saying in other arguments.

Hopefully this doesn’t get too many TLDNR, and again I’m not trying to be confrontational, just add perspective.

TB, you did a great job with this post!

Really, though, I object to EPAW. That excludes my basset hound, who is a huge K-State fan. Shouldn’t we say ELBAW, Every Living Being a Wildcat?

Thank you so much for writing this.