In-Languages

     In this piece at AoSHQ, we find a great deal of commentary about how the “fairer sex” strives to build itself up: i.e., by doing everything possible to alienate men.

     First, it cites an article from someone named Bridget Phetasy:

     I was mid-hip thrust when I found out Shane Gillis had called me a whore. Technically I found out four hours later, when I reviewed the footage of Saturday Night Live. My tripod was on the bench, my ring light was clamped to the squat rack and my boyfriend Tanner was holding the back-up phone for the side angle. Tanner films all my content. He is not allowed to look at me.
     The “joke” was about how women dress at the gym. I know it was about me, because everything is. So I did what any survivor would do. I went to my car and filmed myself crying. It took 11 takes, because the lighting in a Range Rover is unforgiving, and grief is no excuse for a bad shot. In the final cut, you can see a single tear land on my sports bra right over the logo, which clicks through to an affiliate link. My caption: “I’m literally shaking.”
     Then I put on the shortest shorts I own, went back inside, and filmed my ass from three angles with the caption, “Does this outfit work for you, Shane Gillis?” I wanted to send him a message that my body is not for men. To make sure Shane got the message, I tagged him. Then I tagged every man I follow. Some people say my response proved his point. These people are rapists.

     Is it possible that this… person was trying to be funny? She’s supposed to be a comedienne. That seems like a huge stretch. But as I’m not able to access the whole article, I’ll allow the possibility that the satire arrives further down the page.

     A bit later, Ace embeds a sarcastic tweet:

I love she’s calling a spade a spade.. It’s annoying https://t.co/TC5MWOgsnz

— Shaggy JTS 🇺🇸 (@JtShaggy) October 13, 2026

     Is it really that bad? Have women genuinely adopted an “in-language” designed to make them sound like black rappers on crack? I have to ask, Gentle Reader. I have too little in-the-flesh contact with other people to know. And I flatly don’t want to believe it.

     Reports from the field would be welcome.

* * *

     I go on about language quite a lot, as my Gentle Readers are surely aware. My reason is simple: language is the primary method by which we divide “us” from “them.” The more forceful methods come later, after language has done its work.

     Various occupations develop in-languages. Those are mostly shorthand for the ways those persons do their work and the specific problems they address. Now and then an in-language will be used to “protect the guild.” That is, familiarity with it becomes a passport of sorts, just as the ancient Hebrews used the word shibboleth to distinguish friends from potential foes. And of course, an in-language can be used to “dazzle the hoi polloi” with unfamiliar terms that hint at erudition and insight.

     If women are developing their own in-language to keep men at a distance, or to facilitate slagging us off in ways we wouldn’t understand, it bodes ill for relations between the sexes. And those relations are already pretty shaky.

* * *

     You’ve got to watch this stuff. Emerging in-languages portend division, unease, and potential hostility. How much of the separation between the White and black races can be put down to linguistic differences? How much of the animosity between Right and Left arises from the Left’s tendentious redefinitions of common words to suit its political agenda?

     I hadn’t credited too much international tension to differences in language, but it’s worth more than a passing thought. Certainly language is involved in promotion and propaganda among the nations. Remember the foofaurauw over “American exceptionalism,” back when? Even suggesting that ours is a uniquely gifted nation made voices rise… once again, especially on the Left.

     When Rudyard Kipling wrote:

The Stranger within my gate,
     He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk--
     I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
     But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
     They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
     They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
     When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
     He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
     What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
     Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
     Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
     And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
     They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief
     And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf--
     And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children's teeth are set on edge
     By bitter bread and wine.

     …he may have been thinking of language quite as much as of any other cleavage among us.

     Some divisions are necessary, protective. But not all. If a division is rooted in language alone, I’d say we can do without it.