tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-91340879319086762972024-02-20T15:41:47.934-08:00Linguistic BlogLinguist Onlinehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09981995510681054921noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134087931908676297.post-32317322978751225312011-12-16T23:05:00.001-08:002011-12-16T23:05:03.606-08:00Lost Virginity<h3 class="post-title">
<br />
</h3>
<br />
<span style="color: white;">To
"lose" one's virginity is a curious phrase. My first thought is that
this phrase implies one possesses her virginity to begin with. To </span><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20061029164143/http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=possess&x=0&y=0" style="color: white;">possess</a><span style="color: white;">
is: "to have as belonging to one", "to keep or maintain", "to maintain
control over", "to seize or take", "to gain or win". Virginity, for the
womun living in patriarchy, is not something to "keep or maintain", it
may start off as something considered to "belong" to the individual, but
the real purpose of a womun's virginity, within male dominated society,
is to be "seized" or "won".</span><br /><br /><span style="color: white;">For
both men and wimmin in patriarchy, virginity is not something to be
held onto or maintained. Men are encouraged to get rid of it fast, this
is fundamental to "manhood". Wimmin are encouraged to hold onto it
(because of course, if she gives it way too easily she's a dirty
shameful woman), but not forever, a man must receive it at some point
(because to hold onto it with too much grip makes her a frigid prude, a
who thinks too much of herself). To many men, womun's virginity is a
prize, something to be won. There can be only one man who gets her
virginity, to be that man is to have beaten all other men around the
world, something to be worn with pride, like a badge of honour, and
military decorations. It is something to "win" by any means necessary.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: white;">To
lose something implies it was an action taken without the possessors
consent. This cannot be said to apply to most men. For the vast majority
of men, virginity isn't lost, it's thrown away with fervour, or freely
given. To lose something implies that despite possessing it an
individual couldn't hold onto it, somewhere along the line it became no
longer hers/his. It also implies we don't know where it went.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: white;">Many
wimmin don't "lose" their virginity, they know exactly where it went,
they can remember clearly and with horror the men who stole their
virginities. Others, like me, were coerced, either by a man directly, or
by society more generally. I carelessly gave it away, out of curiosity
and a sense of obligation (after all, what's a seventeen year old high
school girl supposed to do when her university-going boyfriend has
tolerated her companionship for six months?*)</span><br /><br /><span style="color: white;">I
do not know the origins of this term, but it is clear to me that
"losing" one's virginity is an inappropriate term for the majority of
wimmin and men. Moreover, I don't think virginity would be such an
important concept outside a patriarchal world. If we lived in a society
that didn't see wimmin as sex objects to be competed for, or possessed,
if we didn't accept that men are competitive sexual predators (which
feminists recognise is socially constructed, not natural), and if we
rejected the notion that manhood is bound to preying on wimmin, the
concept of virginity would, for the most part, be irrelevant. Virginity
is only of import to patriarchy, because the oppressive dualisms between
man/womun, masculine/feminine, and active/passive, underlie all social
relations.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: white; font-size: 85%;">*Sarcastic tone</span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134087931908676297.post-37579336242799571882011-12-16T23:04:00.001-08:002011-12-16T23:04:33.078-08:00Women/Womyn/Wimmin?<h3 class="post-title">
<br />
</h3>
<br />
<span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;">Recently
I have stopped spelling wimmin and womun the "correct" way:
w-o-m-e-n/w-o-m-a-n. Wimmin" is the spelling created by radical
feminists during the 1970s. It was used to remove "men" from the word,
and it was part of a wider campaign to create a womun centred culture:
"for wimmin, by wimmin". Underlying this philosophy was the concern: how
can wimmin create their own identity, independent of men, when even the
word "women" is consumed by "men"?</span><br /><br /><span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;">I
like to honour that movement where I can by using that spelling,
because without those wimmin and their campaigns I would not have
received the rights and privileges I have, such as rape crisis centres, a
univeristy education, wimmin's rooms, shelters and centres, law that
allows for a boyfriend or husband to be charged for raping his
girlfriend or wife, acceptance and love of my cunt, the hair on my body,
my menstrual cycle, my entire body as myself rather than an object for
penile penetration and male vouyerism (to name but a few).</span><br /><br /><span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;">The
word "women" means: wombed-men. This definition assumes that man is the
natural standard by which all others must be judged, that wimmin are
simply a different version, a variation or mutation, of men. Radical
feminists also removed the "o" because they were frustrated that their
wombs were used to define wimmin in entirety, they were rejecting:
biology as destiny. Or as Simone De Beauvoir articulated: "Women? Very
simple, say the fanciers of simple formulas; she is a womb, an ovary;
she is female"*. This is not to say that using one's womb is oppressive,
rather the way wimmin's wombs have been used against them (that is: to
define their worth and selves in entirety) in patriarhcy is oppressive.
It was, and is, a statement: "yes I can create life, but that doesn't
mean I have to!"</span><br /><br /><span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;">The
most common criticism I have encountered with regard to my alternative
spelling is "changing a couple of letters in one word isn't going to
change anything! What a waste of energy. There are better ways for
feminists to fight for women's rights than that". Wimmin who adopt an
alternative spelling to the malestream version do not simply do this as
one measure for bringing down patriarhcy, it is just another act in
their busy activist lives. Therefore saying there are more important
ways to combat partiarchy doesn't hold weight as a criticism, wimmin who
spell it "wimmin" know better than anyone there are more important ways
to fight oppression; they're doing it.</span><br /><br /><span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;">Another
concept I have come across is the idea that it should be spelt "women"
because it honours and recognises wimmin's reproductive powers: "men
come from women, from women's wombs." Saying; but why can't we simply
interpret it as: man comes from woman, is a nice subversion of the
traditional understanding of the terms, but the reality is that within
patriarchy this is not how the majority views it. Within patriarchy
wimmin are defined and judged in relation to men (see "Patriarchy" post below). Whatever little we can do to challenge that, such as alternative spelling, is necessary.</span><br /><br /><span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;">Furthermore,
by changing the way I spell wimmin and womun I, at the very least,
force those who otherwise would not question it, to start thinking
outside the patriarchal square. The "Why does Sazz do that?" response is
what I'm aiming for, it's the first step towards those individuals
recognising that wimmin face huge obstacles as they strive to define
themselves indpendently of men.</span><br /><br /><span style="color: white; font-size: 85%;"><br /><span style="font-family: verdana;">*Beauvoir, Simone de, </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-style: italic;">The Second Sex, </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">London: Vintage,</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-style: italic;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana;">1989, p. 3. (First published in 1949)</span></span><br /><span style="color: white; font-style: italic;"> </span><br /><span class="postbody" style="color: white; font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-size: 85%;">**On
a personal note I chose to spell "woman": w-o-m-u-n, because for me
leaving the recognition of my womb/my significant difference from men in
the word was important. I decided to use a "u" instead of a "y" because
I felt "u" better reflected the sound of the word, and because wimmin
don't have a y-chromosome.</span></span>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134087931908676297.post-58326524078107136702011-12-16T23:02:00.001-08:002011-12-16T23:03:30.970-08:00Patriarchy<h3 class="post-title" style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black;">
<br />
</h3>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="color: black;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black;">
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;">This
is a word I use a lot, so I thought it best to record somewhere what I
mean when I refer to "patriarchy" My favourite definition of patriarchy
comes from Adrienne Rich, a fantastic radical lesbian feminist and
American poet:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana;">"</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-style: italic;">Patriarchy
is the power of the fathers: a familial-social, ideological, political
system in which men-by force, direct pressure, or through ritual,
tradition, law, and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the
division of labor, determine what part women shall or shall not play,
and in which the female is everywhere subsumed under the male</span><span style="font-family: verdana;">."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana;">Within
patriarchy wimmin are constantly judged in relation to men, and defined
on male terms. Examples of this include but are not limited to:</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<ul style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black; font-family: verdana; text-align: justify;">
<li>Physical
strength is recognised as the most importat human quality, and wimmin
are seen as lacking or inferior because they can't lift things men can,
or can't batter men, in a physical fight a man can hold a womun down,
therefore he is "stronger". The ability to push children of 6, 7, 8, 9,
10, 11, 12 pounds through our vagina's and endure hours and hours of
uterine contractions is not recognised as a sign of physical strenght or
superiority.</li>
<li>Being professional involves behaving like men;
dressing in suits (note that business women wear wimmin stuits, that
complement men's), not breastfeeding at work etc.</li>
<li>Wimmun have
been denied many things because of their ability to menstruate, one
example is frontline military comabt (while I am against anyone engaging
in war it is important to remember that war is an important and central
part of our society, and men have been rewarded and admired for their
militaristic work, there is also the line of thinking that one is not
truly a citizen of his nation until he has militarily served it).</li>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana;">And</span></div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span></div>
<ul style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black; font-family: verdana; text-align: justify;">
<li>Wimmin's
sexuality is defined by men: heterosexuality. Wimmin are expected to be
sexually attracted to men, to engage in regular coitus (penis in vagina
sex), to please the penis, despite the fact that vaginal orgasms are
rare and the clitorous is the woman's primary sexual body part.</li>
</ul>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="color: black;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: verdana;">This
world is a patriarchal world, which is evidenced by facts such as:
wimmin own 1% of the world's land, 80% of the world's 27 million
refugees are wimmin, 2/3 of 300 million children who have no access to
education are girls, over 200,000 wimmin die annually from backyard
abortions*, wimmin do 2/3s of the worlds work for 1/3 of the pay, over
70% of all violence against wimmin occurs in their own homes, the list
goes on... <br /> <br /> <br /> <span style="font-size: 78%;">*These
stats are from Jan Jindy Pettman "Gender Issues" John Baylis and Steven
Smith Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2005, p.676. The statistics provided after these come from lecture
notes from my BA.</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134087931908676297.post-33037312898686161642011-12-16T23:00:00.001-08:002011-12-16T23:05:46.478-08:00"Man-hating"-attempt to silence feminists<h3 class="post-title" style="background-color: white; color: black;">
</h3>
<div style="background-color: white;">
<span style="color: black;">
</span></div>
<div class="post-body" style="background-color: white; color: black;">
<br />
<div style="font-family: verdana; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">I am often accused of "<span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span>".
Of the times I can remember being called a man-hater one was a response
to a discussion I had with a friend about the many ways women are
oppressed by men, and how we are disadvantaged in comparison to men.
Another time was because I pointed out that the demise of midwifery and
the rise of obstetrics was <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span>
male war against women.* Another time I was accused of man-hating for
pointing out that men have power in hospitals and make decisions rather
than the woman in labour whose body these decisions are being carried
out <span class="st" id="st" name="st">on</span>.** Once I was even
accused of being a man-hater by another feminist academic (though not a
radical feminist) because I suggested some feminists might like to work
with groups concerned about men's health in order to help them see how
they too can suffer because of patriarchy, she was very quick to say
"I'm not saying men are the enemy, I'm saying we should work with them".
Funny, I thought that's exactly what I said! </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">Accusing
someone of man hating can be conveyed in many creative ways. No one has
actually had the gall to say to me: "Sazz, you are a man-hater" (I
suspect they might have trouble accusing a heterosexual of man-hating
-since, by definition, she either unknowingly accepts, or chooses, to
make men an important and central feature of her life). Generally people
say "that sounds a bit like man-hating", or (one of my favourites) "I
understand what you're saying BUT I'm not against men". Interesting that
making an observation about society equals being "against men".
Feminists should not have to preface every observation, theory, or
statement with "I'm not against men, but". Our movement has nothing to
do with "being against men", it's about "being for women"! It's about
recording and fighting patriarchy (system of male dominance): </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">"</span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><b style="font-family: verdana; font-style: italic; font-weight: normal;">Radical feminism opposes patriarchy, not men. To equate radical feminism to <span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span> is to assume that patriarchy and men are inseparable, philosophically and politically."***</b></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">Calling me <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> <span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-hater
is supposed to shut me up. It's supposed to make me rethink my politics
and be nicer to men, and not point out all the ways they oppress women.
<span class="st" id="st" name="st">Man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span> is supposed to be interpreted as emotional rather than well thought out. To the people who call me that, "<span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span>" is not political, it is just crazy Sazz getting over emotional. I don't consider myself <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> <span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span> hater, but because I know what "<span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-hater" means to others, I take it as <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> compliment. It means that I can see the ways men oppress women- and I can name woman-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span> (which is <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> lot more prevalent than "<span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span>", but doesn't get named nearly as often). It means I'm not afraid of speaking out against woman-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span>,
and trying to make men accountable for all that they have done to
women. Thus, accusing me of "man-hating" does not silence me, it
reaffirms my conviction that woman-hating is rife, so rife that to even
identify it is to be put-down and accused of hatred. </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">Even though I don't consider myself <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> <span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-hater, I think <span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span>
can be considered completely reasonable. These people (men) have
violently oppressed women for hundreds and hundreds of years. They have
raped, beaten, physically, emotionally, psycholo<wbr></wbr>gically, socially
controlled women, they have forced women into domesticity,
heterosexuality, motherhood, pornography, prostitution, hospitals for
birth, drugs for natural elements of our life cycles, drugs to make us
more easily fuckable, to name but a few. <span class="st" id="st" name="st">A</span> group of people who do things of this nature to another group of people have earned <span class="st" id="st" name="st">the contempt of those they have oppressed</span>. </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">What I am getting at here, is that <span class="st" id="st" name="st">man</span>-<span class="st" id="st" name="st">hating</span>
(whether that be actual, accepted and advocated contempt for men, or
whether that be the name given to women who dare to point out the things
men have done to women) is <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> useful political tool as we strive to make this world <span class="st" id="st" name="st">a</span> feminist one. </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"> </span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 100%;">I am tired of the "individual male" defence, for example: "you can't say <span style="font-style: italic;">men</span> oppress women because my husband loves me and lets me do what I want, and <span style="font-style: italic;">he's</span>
a man" (for one the very fact that you are married to him means you
entered into a social contract that is premised upon man taking
ownership of woman. Your marriage is evidence that men have oppressed
women). Or even "but my boyfriend is pro-feminist". Looking at the
individual men who understand and support feminism does little to
further our movement and make the rest of them accountable. Furthermore,
it is one thing to be a pro-feminist man, and try to live a feminist
life yourself, it is quite another to advocate feminism and expect the
same of your mates, or your brothers or fathers. Despite knowing many
pro-feminist men I have yet to meet one that will put feminism ahead of
male bonding and immediately act against another man when he does or
says something sexist or patriarchal. But I digress, the majority of men
do not understand, do not support, and do oppress women. As
controversial as some may find this, I believe the majority of men are
woman-haters, and that's what feminism is trying to address and change.
So lets stop feeling uncomfortable with identifying women's oppression,
and start naming woman-hating when we see it. And from now on, if
someone accuses you of man-hating, take it as a compliment, for you are
simply observant and articulate. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;"><br /></span> <br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">*For more on men's take over of midwifery:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Daly, M. (1979). <i>Gyn/Ecology: the metaethics of radical feminism</i>. The Women's Press.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Donegan, J. B. (1978). <i>Women & men midwives : medicine, morality, and misogyny in early America</i>. Greenwood Press.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Donnison, J. (1988). <i>Midwives And Medical Men: A History of Inter-Professional Rivalries and Women's Rights</i>. Historical Publications.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Ehrenreich, B. and English, D. (1976). <i>Witches, Midwives and Nurses: a history of women healers</i>. Writers and Readers Publishing Cooperative.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Hester, M. (1992). <i>Lewd women and wicked witches: a study of the dynamics of male domination</i>. Routledge.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" face="verdana" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" face="verdana" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Oakley, A. (1977). Wisewoman and Medicine Man: changes in the management of childbirth in Mitchell, J. and Oakley, A. (Eds), <i>The Rights and Wrongs of Women</i>, Penguin Books.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">**For more on women's lack of power in hospitals:</span><span style="font-family: verdana;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family: verdana; margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -36pt;">
<span style="font-size: 85%;">Ehrenreich, B. and English, D. (1978, 2005). <i>For Her Own Good: two centuries of the Experts' advice to women</i>, Revised Edition edn. Anchor Books.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: verdana;"><span style="font-family: verdana; font-size: 85%;">Kobrin, F. E. (1966). The American Midwife Controversy: a crisis of professionalization. <i>Bulletin of the history of medicine</i> 40, 350-63.<br /><br />***This
quote was passed on to me from a friend in a personal communication,
but she could not remember where it originated. A great quote
nonetheless.</span></span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134087931908676297.post-33768441833816564092011-12-16T22:59:00.000-08:002011-12-16T23:06:23.037-08:00Girl<h3 class="post-title" style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<br />
</h3>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3;">
<span style="color: black;">
</span>
</div>
<div style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="background-color: #f3f3f3; color: black; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana;">In
a recent encounter I had with a doctor, the doctor finished our
appointment by telling me to take a piece of paper to "the girl at
reception". This angered me, as the "girl" at reception was in no way
prepubescent. In fact, she was a fully grown, mature, woman in her
thirties or forties.<br />I got to thinking, when I first met the woman at
reception she never referred to the doctor as "the boy out the back". I
never hear "the boy will see you now", it's "the doctor will see you
now", or he even gets the privilege of being identified as an individual
"Dr such and such will see you now".<br />Presumably this doctor works
everyday with this receptionist, he could have said "take this paper to
such and such at reception".<br /><br />This stayed on my mind for a few
days, and I realised that I too refer to women as "girls" all the time. I
say I'm having lunch with "a couple of the girls". In conversations
with people who don't know the woman I am talking about, I refer to her
as a "girl".<br />I questioned myself. Why would a self-proclaimed
feminist refuse to use the word "woman" when it is clearly the
appropriate word? I realised that the word woman had negative
connotations that I was trying to avoid. Woman conjured up something
harsh, something old, something derogatory. "Woman" is used by
misogynists when they refuse to acknowledge a woman's personhood, used
as a derogatory nickname: "What's for dinner, woman?"<br />I had wanted to
avoid those negative connotations. Girl sounds nicer, flattering even,
and so it would in a society such as ours where women are supposed to be
young and pretty. Maturity in a woman is not a positive thing, because
it implies age (maybe I should start referring to age-defying make up as
maturity-defying make up, or wisdom-defying make up?)<br /><br />I never
refer to men as "boys" in conversation. I have rarely ever heard of a
man being referred to as a boy, unless he is actually prepubescent, and
even then boys often get called "little men" or other words that have
positive associations (my father used to refer to my brother as
"Kingsize" when he was prepubescent. I was referred to as "Sawah"
instead of "Sarah").<br /><br />Referring to a woman as a girl is
derogatory, it is insulting, and it is patriarchal. Referring to a woman
as a girl is infantilising, stripping her of her years of increasing
intelligence. It is only a compliment if you accept that a woman growing
older (and thus wiser) is undesirable.</span></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9134087931908676297.post-9262615602393745122011-10-28T19:29:00.000-07:002011-10-28T19:29:44.735-07:00Language RevolutionA linguistics as well as language blog for the daily user, not excessively technical the least bit. Language is an aspect of routine life and our purpose is to analyze the nuances of languages.<br />
As observed previously, language is always deepening and new words are expanded a language's vocabulary. Nevertheless, is there a such thing as adding unnecessary words to a language?<br />
<br />
There's been a survey done latterly on the most hated words on the internet. Some debate that adding too numerous of these words will ruin the English language.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0