I’ve penned another short story for the latest Underdog Anthology with a Christmas theme. I’m finding that writing to order seems to get the creative juices flowing. I thought when all this started back in 2016, that I’d have run out of ideas by now but this seems to be far from the case. I guess that storytelling is like a muscle. The more you use it, the better.
Anyway, it’s a bit of a silly tale involving Death and a chicken. Having written the draft, I then went through the proofreading and looking at the stuff that Word had highlighted for my attention. Mostly, apart from obvious typos, I ignore the suggestions as they make no sense. In a business letter, maybe, but this is fiction written in an informal stye.
But then I got to this:
The character appears in one line. It’s a passing, nay fleeting, character who is never seen again. He is a man. Therefore, why do I need to be “more inclusive” and why does he need to be gender neutral? He is a workman. It accurately describes him. This is the creeping agenda into everything we do. Nudging us towards conformity. Well, I won’t be nudged.
I stuck to my guns. Workman it is. I don’t suppose my editor will be complaining.
Out of curiosity, change it to workwoman and see if it highlights it or views it as inclusive…
Change it back again of course.
Oh, yes… Word likes that one.
“Oh, yes… Word likes that one.”
This is how you know that you are dealing with really stupid people. Workman is a sexist term that needs to be replaced with something more inclusive. Workwoman is just fine. How dim do you need to be not to be able to see such an obvious contradiction?
Bloody hell. Now we’ve got computer applications such as Word berating us for not using ‘inclusive’ language. Fuck right off.
My understanding is that ‘man’ in a word such as ‘chairman’ is Old English for ‘person’. Unfortunately, these days the PC brigade do not consider ‘man’ to be ‘inclusive’ or ‘gender neutral’. So it has to be replaced with an acceptable term. Wankers.
The rise of women’s cricket has meant that the batsman is now referred to as the batter, which I thought was something that you dipped fish in before you deep fry it. In this case I think that the reason is that batswoman is a horribly cumbersome term rather than it being about being inclusive.
It’s a default which for some reason has become enabled. Here’s how to disable inclusive woke bollocks
Thanks.