Simple question, simple answer; yes or no?

Now, I am not normally one to question such things, but an interesting (moronic) editorial in a college's newspaper I happened across from another school said that English was sexist. It was written by a woman (!).

Some of her main 'points':
The language is inherently sexist in favor of men. The linguistics of English continually devalue women.

Language is the basis of all communication. It is culture. It is society.
Language is society? Culture? Cretin.

It would not have killed my second grade teacher – and all other teachers, officials and purveyors of the English language – to have added a simple “she/he” so everyone could have felt included and not immediately left out due to deep-seeded inequality.
Well boo hoo hoo. Let's all go looking for every tiny thing that might offend us and say its part of some massive conspiracy to oppress our gender/race/country/heritage/ethnicity (sp?)

Because the English language was standardized by old, rich, white men, clearly they would create a language partial to their gender. However, this favoritism goes beyond subliminal small talk – it is written into the laws that rule this country.
Ah, the standard assumption of how are language came to be, and the assumed sexism of its creators. By her logic, we could assumer that language created by a woman would be sexist too.

The United Nations doesn’t ameliorate the situation, either. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” However, a “spirit of brotherhood” still denotes the omnipresent patriarchal tradition that denies women fundamental rights.
Just what fundamental rights are being denied? The right to have a bathroom pass that says he/she?

By simply becoming conscious of words that connote male superiority, linguistic culture can be changed to include all people and their differences.
Ah, the words, though generic references, connote male superiority. I love how she justs says this and provides no support.

Everyday usage like “man the table,” “one man show” and “man-made” verbally expresses male dominance and excludes females. Instead of these sayings, one could simply say “work the table,” “one-person show” and “synthetically manufactured.
Ah, here's the fundamental rights being denied. The right of women to have something man made be called 'synthetically manufactured', though I can think of many man-made things that would not fit such a stupid phrase. Anyone notice how its much easier to just say man-made?

Referring to women as “girls,” “chicks” and “ladies” is infantilizing and recalls the anachronism of women being the “fair sex,” the weaker of both sexes.
I hate to burst your bubble...but women are, physically, the weaker sex. And I refuse to see anything wrong with calling women 'ladies'.

But that's just me. I don't do the whole "I'm a poor victim who can't cope with a d***** thing"...thing.

Here's the whole stupid thing (the first line is interesting, and doesn't make sense):
Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
The English language is suffering from a severe case of vagina envy.

The language is inherently sexist in favor of men. The linguistics of English continually devalue women.

Language is the basis of all communication. It is culture. It is society.

Language expresses awareness, emotions and thoughts. When the very words we speak intrinsically convey bias, we perpetuate inequality. We encode messages in daily interactions from incipient consciousness.

In elementary school, it always bothered me that the unisex pronoun – used mostly for permission slips and take-home announcements – is “he.” Substituting the masculine pronoun when referring to a group of mixed genders is lazy and inappropriate.

It would not have killed my second grade teacher – and all other teachers, officials and purveyors of the English language – to have added a simple “she/he” so everyone could have felt included and not immediately left out due to deep-seeded inequality.

And I’m sure dear Mrs. Schutte didn’t realize she was offending anyone by using the grammar rules laid out by the patriarchy. Because the English language was standardized by old, rich, white men, clearly they would create a language partial to their gender. However, this favoritism goes beyond subliminal small talk – it is written into the laws that rule this country.

The language that governs the United States is sexist. Not only does the United States not have an Equal Rights Amendment written into the Constitution, the ERA has been repeatedly voted down in congressional sessions. It is ridiculous that the very country that espouses the essence of democracy does not even have simple equality inherent in its foundation.

The United Nations doesn’t ameliorate the situation, either. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads: “All human beings

are born free and equal

in dignity and rights.

They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” However, a “spirit of brotherhood” still denotes the omnipresent patriarchal tradition that denies women fundamental rights.

By simply becoming conscious of words that connote male superiority, linguistic culture can be changed to include all people and their differences.

Everyday usage like “man the table,” “one man show” and “man-made” verbally expresses male dominance and excludes females. Instead of these sayings, one could simply say “work the table,” “one-person show” and “synthetically manufactured.”

Using generic masculinity to refer to society as a whole implies that women are not representative of humanity, even though women comprise 52 percent of the world’s population.

Referring to women as “girls,” “chicks” and “ladies” is infantilizing and recalls the anachronism of women being the “fair sex,” the weaker of both sexes.

This usage is both condescending and blatantly discriminatory.

Qualifying careers or nouns with gender-specific titles – like the suffixes “-ette,” “–ienne” and “-man” – is condescending and implies the predominance of certain genders in occupations in which this may not be reality. This language advances the stereotypes and almost assuredly strengthens the gender barrier in these professions. Gender-neutral vocabulary is easily applicable to describe occupations and people.

Crazed Rabbit