This year I was hoping to help people with some resolutions. As everyone knows, New Year’s resolutions inevitably end in failure, so I’m hoping to offer a couple that will make a difference even if you only do them once.

  • Read books on topics written from perspectives with which you disagree. And I do mean books. Something with citations in the back. A Youtube clip of someone condescendingly explaining how right they are using only the evidence of how wrong their opponents must be based on the actions and words of a few individuals from within that group doesn’t count. We are stuck in a world where passivity leads to echo chambers that are far too easy to get lost in, with their warm, self-righteous comforts. We must actively seek out opposing views if we’re ever going to grow.
  • Express your own opinions. As terrible as that Youtuber truly is, they are still progressing their own terrible views. They own that. It’s their face, their voice, their words. They can’t escape the responsibility of that, and that is tremendously admirable. Re-posting that video, sharing a meme, or even posting an article distances you from that culpability. You no longer become the owner of your own thoughts, and you can maintain that distance as a means to never feel as though you are wrong. Did the meme you just posted make a generalization about a certain group? Oh, well you didn’t make that generalization, so if someone disagrees with that, they’re not disagreeing with you, they’re disagreeing with your ideals which are only partly exhibited in your meme yet are still wholly represented by it. This only ever leads to petty arguing. If you have something to say, say it. Even if it isn’t flowery, or powerful, or maybe it is too flowery to the point of being alienating, it is still yours. You can never add your voice to a movement if you never actually use it.

These are not difficult things to do. All they require is openness and authenticity, but I fear there will be more people lining up for gym memberships that they will abandon in two weeks than there will be willing to try either of these. Feel free to prove me wrong though, and I’ll be quite happy to own that.

I figured that since this blog was going to be closer to a summary of some of the points from Resist Not Evil by Clarence Darrow rather than new ideas formed from within my own brain, I might as well plagiarize Megadeth for my title. Working title: the blog where I use meaningless but flowery prose to distract from the fact that this is a wholly unoriginal post.

We typically associate the successful use of the criminal justice system with the implementation of punitive measures used to disincentivize miscreants from following the glamourous and heavily lucrative criminal vocation so many of us are dying to pursue. It’s why many people shrug off prison rape; it is simply considered another variable to ponder over when your friend invites you to toke up in his van. If you didn’t want to be raped, maybe you shouldn’t have inhaled. You were pretty much asking for it.

Perhaps the reason that so many people end up in jail is because this disincentive remains only an abstraction in their minds. Why not have prisoners raped in glass boxes in the middle of the downtown, for all to see? If we want to use punishment as a means for sober second reflection, obscuring it in any fashion is really detrimental to that practice! Perhaps rape isn’t enough of a deterrent, and we ought to waterboard petty drug dealers, or flay them alive, or boil their testicles in hot oil. Quite frankly, if we wish to use punishment as a deterrent, the death penalty ought to be reinstated, brought back in a triumphant renaissance of the medieval period, so we can properly draw and quarter criminals the way that God intended.

We clearly don’t resort to such barbarity any longer. We are far more dignified, and prefer to hide our savagery in humble abashment. We lock people in tiny little boxes, far from the prying eyes of the public who may be quite reasonably repulsed by what they see, because we still prefer to feel self-righteous in our abstractions rather than agape in horror at our reality. The reality is that punitive “justice” has never deterred anyone, even less so the abstractions. People didn’t crowd around the gallows because they were eager students awaiting a lesson from their strict but beneficent schoolmaster. If anything, it was because they reveled in the show and cried out for more. Punitive measures, enforced by a brutal state, doesn’t deter crime; it degrades the value of human life, numbs us to shame, and ultimately dehumanizes us.

Darrow references the medical profession as a somber contrast to the legal one, “If our physicians were no more intelligent than our lawyers, when called to visit a miasmic patient, instead of draining the swamp they would chloroform the patient and expect thus to frighten all others from taking the disease.” When we consider how many illnesses and mental conditions were ignorantly attributed to demons and wild spirits back when we believed that public hangings were good for social order, and then compare how we perceive criminals today as being possessed by equally malignant souls, Darrow’s metaphor is quite apt. This is especially illuminating in regard to the contemporary research that shows striking resemblance between violence and a contagious outbreak. Vilifying the criminal element ignores the social, economic, and environmental conditions that lead to its spread, and is just as dangerously obtuse as a doctor not washing their hands after finishing up in the washroom.

The thing is, to continue my theft from Darrow’s work, “The parent who would teach his child to be kind to animals, not to ruthlessly kill and maim, would not teach this gentleness with a club.” At what point did we decide that abuse was the best option toward rehabilitation? By clinging to this obsolescent relic, we maintain an irredeemable and futile paradigm that fails in every task it sets out to achieve, and succeeds only in destroying the foundations of our moral legitimacy.

The term ‘womyn’ is occasionally used to signify a feminist exodus from male-dominated language. Woman has the suffix -man in it, after all, and wome(y)n no longer exist only as a derivative of man! Eve, born of a male rib, is no longer in style.

However, an assumption about the historically patriarchal nature of language would reasonably require looking at the history of language. ‘Woman’ originally comes from the word wifman where wif refers to her status as a female, and man refers to her status as a human being. ‘Man’, as we know him today, was initially called werman, with the wer referring to his male-ness, and the man, again, referring to the fact that he is a homo sapien.

It turns out ‘woman’ isn’t historically oppressive at all, and ‘werewolf’ is in fact the more sexist term, as it would etymologically be transcribed as a male-wolf (Same with ‘android’, which literally is something that is like a male; andro + oid. The neutral version would be ‘anthroid’). Somewhat ironically, altering the –man part of ‘woman’ would seem to lessen her humanity, rather than embolden it.

Similarly, ‘female’ is not derived from male, but from femella, whereas ‘male’ comes from masle derived from masculus. In addition, ‘history’ is derived from a long series of words that all essentially mean a chronicle of the past, ultimately leading back to the ‘account of an inquiry’ definition from the Greek word historia. It is not actually the masculine-possessive’s story. As it turns out, the western languages were not conceived with patriarchal maliciousness in mind.

Does this mean that feminists are crazy for wanting to change ‘mailman’ to ‘mail carrier’ if the –man part refers to the human being-ness of this mail carrier rather than their gender? Of course not. Language evolves over time. No gay man has ever taken comfort in the fact that they were etymologically called a bundle of sticks. The evolution of ‘man’ from its gender-neutral origins has been murky, and ‘human’ is still used quite uncontroversially, but today it generally means male. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that werman is going to be making a comeback any time soon.

Changing ‘woman’ to ‘womyn’ is still stupid, however, and here’s why: it is not oppressive to refer to a woman as a female human being. Having -man as a suffix to a career could serve to identify its inclination, but wo- on its own is meaningless today, so the man does not alter its meaning (its meaning being ‘female’, remember). If anything, the word has already undergone a feminist revolution. Can you imagine if we still used the root of ‘wife’ to define our women?

This etymological history is not entirely benign, however, and the damage that was caused had nothing to do with the term ‘woman’, but with ‘man’. It all happened back in the late 13th century when werman evolved into ‘man’. It made males the default human being. When we discuss gender and focus only on women, perhaps it is because men lost theirs back during the founding of the Ottoman Empire. I doubt the two are related, but who knows.

Post-script: All my etymology info has come from here.