The University of Southern California School of Social Work has decided to eliminate the world “field” from its curriculum and replace with language that is “more inclusive” and less likely to offend.
To be clear, it is not USC as a whole, only the School of Social Work.
The reasoning is simple: going out into “the field” to work “may have connotations for descendants of slavery and immigrant workers that are not benign.” In other words, using “field,” as in going out into the field to do social work, is racist, specifically anti-black and anti-immigrant.
I’m not making this up. Unfortunately, it’s not joke, either.
Folks, how much more of this are we going to have to endure? Would it help if we simply did away with that nasty, imperialistic, white privilege language of English and replace it with something else? That might be the easiest and least offensive option!
For example, we could go back the native languages of the American continent since they were here first. We could switch from English to Cherokee or Creek.
Or, since we are including immigrants in this, not just slaves, we could surrender the English language to Spanish! Because, as we all know, the Hispanic and Latin nations never sent slaves into the “campo” to work.
Wait! Doesn’t “campo” sound a lot like “campus”? It definitely sounds like “camp.” Do you know how many people have been placed in camps to work? We can’t use that word anymore because there are connotations for Russians, Jews, Christians, Japanese, and Muslim terrorists that are not benign.
Maybe this is more complicated than I thought!
Just think for a second of how many other words are also racist! What kind of language will we have left if we ban them all?
- Cotton
- Hoe
- Whip
- White
- Pick
- Row
- Soil/Dirt
- Beat
- fence
- chain
- link
- guard
- dog/hound
- rope
- knot
- string
- up
Because, when you’re already thinking about something, when it’s on your mind all the time, just about any word can be associated with that something.
The Recovering Legalist 
What Does a Woman Look Like?
I have a strong feeling that this post is going to infuriate some people. It may even get me in trouble with somebody somewhere. However, I am going to mix metaphors, jump right in, and open a can of worms.
What does a woman look like?
By now you are probably familiar with the Matt Walsh documentary What is a Woman? If you haven’t seen it, you need to, because it seems to have made possible conversations many have been too afraid to have until now. And when you consider that just recently Bill Maher (on HBO) questioned the trans-gender community’s growing numbers, particularly with children, I think it’s time for me to point a few things out, too.
Let’s face it, the most influential and powerful women today are not biological women; they’re men who identify as women. Men who identify as women are stealing all the spotlight from the females who once fought for equality. They’re even showing that if you want to be the best woman you can be, you should be a man. You know, like Lia Thomas.
But thinking about Lia Thomas, why is it that Lia Thomas looks like a woman? I mean, why is it that Lia Thomas has long hair? Why does Lia wear makeup? Is it because “she” wants to look into the mirror and see someone besides his self?
Why is it that men who transition into women (which they’re really not; they just look like them), they generally go with the feminine look that is so stereotypical of natural femininity? Why not stay looking like the guy they are, just without the penis? Are appearances that important when what is really supposed to matter is what’s inside?
It just seems a little strange to me, that’s all. For so long there was a certain look that women were expected to have. Women wore dresses, had long hair, did their nails, and always had on some kind of makeup. They were expected to have higher, softer voices, hourglass figures, and shapely legs perched on high heels. But these stereotypes are the very ones biological women fought against. Who said women had to look a certain way? They could wear the pants in the family, too!
Have you ever heard of a Barbie Doll? Of course, you have. Go ahead, google “Barbie too feminine” and what you will find are articles going back nearly a decade that blast Barbie’s stereotypical looks.
So, then, why the long hair, Lia? Why does any trans female feel the need to LOOK female? And the same thing can be asked about women transitioning into physical copies of men.
But let’s not stop with transgender, let’s take this even further down the rabbit hole and ask why it is that, again, generally speaking, homosexual and lesbian couples so often mimic the heterosexual image? In other words, why are there often male and female counterparts?
Dare I say Ellen and Portia?
Could it simply be that the way God designed us is innate, not fluid or socially constructed, therefore no matter how much we want to dismiss the Creator, His design still bleeds through? It’s like His will for humanity’s relationships is a holy nicotine stain that no amount of paint can hide for long.
What does a woman look like? I guess that’s a difficult question if you can’t even define what a woman is. But are “tomboys” not women enough? Are they actually men in women’s bodies? Should biological women with facial hair, deeper voices, and a love for Stanley tools exchange their baby-bearing club cards for urinals and prostate exams?
Because, after all, REAL women get breast implants and lip plumping.
2 Comments
Filed under Culture Wars, current events
Tagged as commentary, culture, Lia Thomas, questions, social issues, transgender