Inclusive writing and exclusive writing - Trends-Tendances - economic news in real time.

Inclusive writing and exclusive writing – Trends-Tendances – economic news in real time.

There is nothing perfect about this way of writing and if we must give freedom to those who wish to use it, we must be careful not to impose it.

Inclusive writing causes sometimes heated debates. This is legitimate insofar as it is a question of trying to achieve an objective of equality between men and women, even if it is not certain that this is the most effective method of doing so. to arrive. From this point of view, the question may be similar to that of the feminization of the names of professions exercised by women. In this area, it is difficult to understand that there is still reluctance, including among some women themselves.

When the first teachers began to practice the noble profession of teacher, it was easily accepted that a feminine word should describe their profession, and no one imagines calling them women teachers anymore. Just like for nurses, and these are two professions where they are in the majority. This does not mean that we have felt the need, with regard to the men who exercise these professions, to call them “male teachers” or “male nurses”. It is not a question of numbers, but of dignity. This is why it seems strange that there is still reluctance to recognize that one can also speak of a lawyer, a professor or an author (or even an author) of books. On the contrary, it seems self-evident.

In this area, eventhe French Academy, a model of conservatism, and who had criticized the feminization of professions, changed her mind in 2019. She now recognizes that there is “no obstacle in principle to the feminization of names” while recognizing, in a disturbing way, that “the French language tends to feminize weakly or not the names of trades and functions placed at the top of the social scale”. We can not say better that the question is important but we must have hope, since the academicians have ended up admitting that the word “author” will designate the writers, academicians or not…

The issue of inclusive writing however, has different aspects. Its raison d’ĂȘtre is linked to the annoying rule, specific to the French language and to a few others, such as Spanish, of choosing the masculine pronoun when it comes to speaking of both men and women, and to accord to the masculine the adjectives referring to both masculine and feminine nouns. There is undoubtedly a historical injustice there, which the Academy does not recognize, preferring to consider that in reality, it is a “neutral” form but identical to the male form…

Of course, the problem can be avoided.when speaking of “those and those”, rather than using the so-called neuter “those”. This makes the mistake of seriously weighing down the sentence, but let those who use inclusive writing do so if they wish! However, they must also realize that language is intended to express facts or thoughts in the clearest way possible and recognize that with its hyphens, midpoints and redundancies, writing inclusive does not really achieve this goal. Especially since it is, at best, only “writing”, since it is strictly impossible to speak in this way and, for example, to read aloud a text written in inclusive writing .

This mode of writing therefore has nothingof perfect and if we must leave the freedom to those who wish to use it, we must beware, as even universities do, of imposing it. Just as it is absurd, as some conservatives do, to ban it. Couldn’t we leave everyone the exclusivity of their choice: inclusive or traditional writing? Freedom is also in this area.

Inclusive writing provokes sometimes passionate debates. This is legitimate insofar as it is a question of trying to achieve an objective of equality between men and women, even if it is not certain that this is the most effective method of doing so. to arrive. From this point of view, the question may be similar to that of the feminization of the names of professions exercised by women. In this area, it is difficult to understand that there is still reluctance, including among some women themselves. When the first teachers began to practice the noble profession of teacher, it was easily accepted that a feminine word should describe their profession, and no one imagines calling them women teachers anymore. Just like for nurses, and these are two professions where they are in the majority. This does not mean that we have felt the need, with regard to the men who exercise these professions, to call them “male teachers” or “male nurses”. It is not a question of numbers, but of dignity. This is why it seems strange that there is still reluctance to recognize that one can also speak of a lawyer, a professor or an author (or even an author) of books. On the contrary, it seems self-evident. In this area, even the French Academy, a model of conservatism, and which had criticized the feminization of the professions, changed its mind in 2019. It now recognizes that there is “no obstacle to principle to the feminization of names” while recognizing, in a disturbing way, that “the French language tends to feminize weakly or not the names of trades and functions placed at the top of the social scale”. We can not say better that the question is important but we must have hope, since the academicians have ended up admitting that the word “author” will designate the writers, academicians or not… The question of inclusive writing presents nevertheless different aspects. Its raison d’ĂȘtre is linked to the annoying rule, specific to the French language and to a few others, such as Spanish, to choose the masculine pronoun when it comes to speaking of both men and women, and to accord to the masculine the adjectives referring to both masculine and feminine nouns. There is undoubtedly a historical injustice there, which the Academy does not recognize, preferring to consider that in reality, it is a “neutral” form but identical to the masculine form… We can obviously avoid the problem in speaking of “those and those”, rather than using the so-called neuter “those”. This makes the mistake of seriously weighing down the sentence, but let those who use inclusive writing do so if they wish! However, they must also realize that language is intended to express facts or thoughts in the clearest way possible and recognize that with its hyphens, midpoints and redundancies, writing inclusive does not really achieve this goal. Especially since it is, at best, only “writing”, since it is strictly impossible to speak in this way and, for example, to read aloud a text written in inclusive writing . There is therefore nothing perfect about this mode of writing and if we must leave the freedom to those who wish to use it, we must beware, as even universities do, of imposing it. Just as it is absurd, as some conservatives do, to ban it. Couldn’t we leave everyone the exclusivity of their choice: inclusive or traditional writing? Freedom is also in this area.

.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.