Reblogged from writeswrongs

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl: peeingisfreeing: coffeeandconlangs: Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac. yes, colloquial speech is stupid discourse particles are stupid quotative particles are stupid fillers are stupid lower registers of speech = stupid!!!!!!woah aaa/ Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid? Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women? And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions? 1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything 2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her 3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.” It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.

This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. A simple suggestion that people speak more clearly, eliminate fucking irritating disfluencies and fillers, improve their communication skills is re-positioned as an attack on women.

There is nothing particularly female about lack of clarity of thought, or poor communication skills. If you think there is, maybe you’re the one who needs your attitude towards women checked.

And before you get too excited, here is another poster from the same campaign:

I await your humble retraction with interest.

Related: Why That’s Not Going To Happen