The death of the masculine generic

I would have thought that "fellow" was a gender neutral term, a word that might have been used for males, but has come to be a masculine generic, a masculine term which could refer to women also. And as such, I would not complain. I have no specific problem with the use of masculine generics, as long as they are intended as such and used as such. I am not concerned with the use of masculine terms in the original languages.

However, the masculine generic is being suffocated, eradicated, slowly and surely. Michael Patton, in comments on his post, writes,

Yes, that is right Nate. The fellow could be egalitarian. I would certainly not have a problem with this.

But, again, there are certain things that the stand must be taken one way or the other when the rubber meets the road in establishing something like this. If we allowed to have women, for better or worse, we would be percieved as taking an egalitarian stand. If we don’t allow for women, then we are percieved as taking a complementarian stand. Either way, the perception of a stand is there no matter what. Therefore, since I am a complementarian (as are most of the board members), this is the side we have to fall on.

So, I understand that a "fellow" can be egalitarian, but a "fellow" can not be a woman. This means that there is a brotherhood between men, both complementarian and egalitarian, that does not extend to women. This is very hurtful and is displayed in the abysmal participation of women in the biblioblogosphere.

Later in the comments, Michael goes on to explain that a "fellow" is a fella, and a "monk" is a gal. That's fine, but how is a reader supposed to know this? This is a specialist language, known to only a few. Does Michael hand out a dictionary with his posts?

There is one rule for decoding this language that I could suggest. If the term refers to a position which entails authority, it is for men only and if it refers to being a support worker, then women can fill it. This is similar to the way that Bible translation decisions are made in some versions.

Michael then links back to his post on head pastors, where he wrote,

Now, let me give my short and sweet answer as to why Paul did not allow women to teach:

Paul did not let women teach due to the often aggressive and combative nature that teaching must entail concerning the confrontation of false doctrine. Men must be the teachers when combating false teaching. However, because the role of a teacher in the church is so often to combat false doctrine, and because false doctrine is always a problem, generally speaking, the principles are always applicable. The “exercising of authority” is inherently tied to teaching and its necessary condemnation of false doctrine.

The combative nature of teaching is particularly relevant to a broader understanding of the characteristics of men and women.

If you read the rest of Michael's post you will appreciate what I have to say here. Women my age do NOT dress in a Cinderella costume. Many to NOT have a man to turn to if they am burgled in the night. Some have been considered to be sufficiently aggressive and combative to combat false teaching.

I daresay that Michael might explain that he moderated me from his blog for being "aggressive and combative." I don't want to put words in his mouth, so I apologize to him if this is not the case. But, often enough women are told NOT to be agressive and combative, but here, Michael says that women cannot be head pastors because they do not have the characteristic of being aggressive and combative.