Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Robin
...I have no problem in accepting that language changes and evolves, and when it does so in a direction that includes more and excludes less (or "fewer", for the pedantic prescriptivists), that's a good thing, a change to be embraced...
|
This I agree with. Making language more inclusive is all to the good.
The problem with the example in the first post is that it is a quote (though unattributed, which I am also not fond of) from the past.
I don't feel comfortable with relegating Oscar Wilde to the dustbin of history simply because he didn't know to use inclusive language 100+ years ago.
I do think the quote could have been altered since they didn't mind not giving credit to the author. But in general, I think altering quotes should be avoided.
Another thing is the benefit of the doubt. Do you think Kobo, when putting that image together, was intending to offend? Was the usage of the word 'man' intended to be exclusionary, or was it used for another reason (like being part of an existing quote from a great writer)? Since they hope to sell as many books as possible, the assumption is no, they did not want to sir up a hornet's nest.
Lastly, I think we have begun using 'offended' entirely too much. I can see why someone might do a humorous double-take at the initial image (indeed, if all the books had been from female writers, that would have been even better). But was anyone truly offended? Did seeing that image cause anyone to lose sleep, ponder their value as a person or write a strongly worded message to the powers that be at Kobo? Honey, there are bigger fish to fry.