It used to be that if you wanted to obfuscate the connotation of your utterances, you would do so by using a veritable plethora of superfluous, supercilious, or vapid terminology in all of your dialogs. But now, if you want to leave people with no idea what you are talking about, try to use as much “inclusive language” as you possibly can in every sentence you say.
Next weekend, I am getting married. After that ceremony, I will go from being a “fiance” to being a “husband”. And before I was a “fiance”, I was a “boyfriend”–terms that clearly spell out to those I am introduced to what my status is in relation to my soon-to-be wife.
But I am meeting and hearing from more and more people who refer to themselves as a “partner”. “My partner and I just moved into a new house.” “I’ll have to check with my partner if we are free that night.” “My partner and I went to that anti-ICE protest on Saturday.”
When I introduce myself as “Pamela’s fiance”, it invariably leads to an excited question: “When’s the big day?”–obviously referring to a wedding date, because the word “fiance” implies that marriage is upcoming for the couple. Before the engagement, when I introduced myself as “Pamela’s boyfriend” the questions were usually “how long have you been dating?” or “how did you two meet?”. And for a few months after the wedding, when Pamela introduces me as her “new husband”, folks will ask “oh, when did you get married?” Those are responses that show the questioner understands the status of our relationship–because the terms that were used provide a clear definition.
As the use of term “partner” increases, my standard response is now “in what type of business are you two working together?” So far, that has produced quizzical looks in the moment before the other person realizes that “partner” has a number of meanings in terms of inter-personal relationships. Invariably, they answer with “oh, we don’t work together, she’s my wife.”
As much I would like to reply “why didn’t you just say that the first time?” I bite my tongue for two reasons: 1–I don’t need a lecture on why we need to move away from “archaic, gendered terms for people” and 2–I want to establish that I am not a person who will in any way be offended by the use of “archaic, gendered terms for people”.
Perhaps it is my age, or more likely it is because I work in a field where clear communication is of the utmost importance, that I almost exclusively use succinct, and clear language in all conversations and written correspondences. This is leading more and more (usually younger people) to describe me as “blunt” or “brusque”. You know what? I wear those descriptions as a badge of honor, because that means I am definitely making myself clear–and that the person that I am talking to understands what I’m saying.
In preparation for this My Two Cents, I spent the better part of last week listening to Focus Fox Valley here on WHBY. Our host, Hayley Tenpas, has a lot of guests from non-profit agencies, local governments, and NGO’s on her show regularly–along with people that work for businesses like hardware stores, meat markets, and tree trimming services. The way those different types of guests talk to Hayley or to callers to the show is like night and day.
When asked how they are addressing an issue or a problem–say homelessness–those from the local governments and the non-profits weave these lengthy sentences filled with language like “we are seeking to hold conversations where ideas can be exchanged to build consensus on the best way to address the needs of everyone and foster a greater sense of community and belonging.” Meanwhile, when the hardware store guy is asked about a problem in the bathroom, he answers with “A snake should take care of that–and if not call a plumber.”
The guest from the non-profit or the local government could have easily just said “We are holding meetings to get public opinion on that, which we will use in making our decision.” Half as many words, and much a much clearer message. So why isn’t that the way those people talk?
Part of this is due to a concerted effort to feminize not just the English language–but to feminize the way we all talk to each other as well. Communications experts and consultants are literally teaching people to steer away from clear and concise language meant to convey facts and information and to instead use language that will create emotional responses instead. When you re-read the on-air responses I noted before, you will notice that the “non-profit answer” to a question about solving a problem doesn’t even address the problem–but instead makes the listener “feel like” the problem is being addressed. The hardware store guy’s answer contains zero emotional content and focuses exclusively on the solution, and a possible alternative if that first option doesn’t work.
There is actually a term for the types of answers given by the hardware guys: “Toxic problem solving”. It’s an off-shoot of “toxic masculinity”–you know, the behaviors of males for the last 10,000 years of human existence–which are now considered detrimental to society at large.
Look no further than the 2024 Presidential election. On one side you had a candidate that went out of her way to use as much emotion-based, inclusive language as possible–which the majority of Americans dismissed as “word salad”. On the other side you had a candidate that flat out lied and misrepresented everything he said–but did so in a way that most people speak and understand. How is that working out?
And it’s not just humans that are “speaking” like this. My aforementioned fiancee likes to use ChatGPT to write reports and emails for work and personal purposes. When I read through what the AI spits out, it reminds me of a 5th grader assigned to write a 2-page book report–but who runs out of ideas after 3/4’s of a page. Repetitive points, multiple adjectives per noun, and lots of “passive voice” throughout the entire report. But I don’t blame ChatGPT. Remember, it learns by “reading” how humans themselves are writing now. And a growing number of people want to read content like that, rather than short, concise, problem-solving sentences.
Hopefully, Pamela doesn’t have ChatGPT write her vows–because I probably won’t be able to hide my disdain for its bloated product. Meanwhile my vows will be short, sweet, and to the point. “I promise to love you forever, I promise to do my share of the laundry, I promise to drive on all our road trips, and I promise to NEVER call you ‘my partner’.”
