An Elephant of One's Own

 I don´t often write here these days, so let's get a few things out of the way: 1. The current Blogger interface sucks goat. Google, please change it back. I promise I'll blog more if you do. 2. I am not George Orwell. The title is a combination of laziness and a far-fetched random association of ideas I doubt I'll be successful at communicating, and may have forgotten about before I even get around to trying. If it helps, just ignore it. Now to business. The Death Penalty. What follows will be my answer to Mr Saad's article here . As is usual with this blog, in composing my answer I'll be ignoring every single one of the guidelines I regularly offer my students on "now to write an essay". In particular, I will not be writing from an outline, nor have I allowed myself any time to ponder what I am going to say or how I'm going to organise what I say. Who knows, in unguarded moments I may even cite Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I think I can give Mr Saad a ru...

 No, not Gillette (that's a whole other article), but George Gillett, who wrote this . Having seen the article cited in Twitter, and mistakenly believing it to be recent (big fail - the date is right there), I asked some of my students to write a critical analysis, and being the responsible teacher I am, decided I ought to come up with one of my own for illustrative purposes. This was done late last night and could do with a great deal of polishing, not to mention citations. Provided without warranty, in case anyone finds it useful or at least cautionary. Copy-paste from Word. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF ARTICLE ‘We shouldn’t fight for “gender equality”. We should fight to abolish gender’ (George Gillett, New Statesman, 2014) "[T]he end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally." (Fires...

 As they reached the corner of the narrow, gently sloping street and stepped off it onto the low-walled Victorian market forecourt that served as a sea prospect and alternative route to the High Street, Berthold leaned on Grassa's arm, unconsciously drawing her close as he tried to arrange some vague plans for the rest of the holiday fortnight in his mind while simultaneously sharing them out loud with her, confident of her approval or at least her sympathetic understanding.  "My mother," he told her, "said this morning that she didn't need to go back to London just yet, so I thought..." He paused for a moment, feeling a twinge of guilt as he reflected on how he'd left his mother aimlessly pottering in the house all day for, what, three days now, while he'd been out joyously gallivanting round town with Grassa. "So I thought, well, we could maybe take her out tomorrow, bring her for a walk around town." Grassa looked up at him, a glance of ...

  I’m writing this partly in response to Kit Wilson’s article  in Areo on The Woke Left’s Self-contradictory Ideas about Language , and partly just to air a few ideas of my own. I would welcome feedback from the author himself, if he has time and inclination, but also from anyone who has an opinion on the topics alluded to, in particular the problem of language policing. While I agree with Wilson that the “woke” views he describes are clearly self-contradictory and self-defeating, I find the alternative outlook he puts forward to be, if not self-contradictory, at least naïve, simplistic and unhelpful. I suspect I may be misreading him, and would be glad of correction if so: but even if I am, I think the simplistic view of language that I perhaps mistakenly read into his comments deserves to be opposed on the basis it is far too often held up as a banner, especially by respectable conservative commentators who ought to know better. In summary, the author attributes to “th...